Improving Disease Surveillance in Developing

Improving Disease Surveillance in Developing Countries

The developing nation that I believe would benefit greatly from a refined disease surveillance system is India. Such a system would provide early warnings of outbreaks of diseases and consistently monitor their progress (WHO, 2006, p. 1). India's developmental situation is curious. Despite having overthrown the yoke of British colonization some time ago, there are still parts of the country where there are childhood prostitutes, children regularly eschew school to beg for money (No author, 2012), and preventable disease -- particularly tuberculosis is rampant. In fact, a 2012 publication from the World Health Organization maintains that "India and China together account for almost 40% of the world's TB cases) (WHO, 2012, p. 2). When examining all of the various aspects of economic prowess that China has in the contemporary market, it would be difficult to call that nation 'developing'. Thus, it is quite clear that India still has a significant amount of gains to be made by the full-fledged implementation of a disease surveillance system.

It is important to realize that in India, like in many other locations throughout the world in which there is a high incidence of tuberculosis, the primary form of combatting the spread of this disease is in reporting cases of it. Without reporting cases, it is virtually impossible to stop the tuberculosis from dominating a particular population. Therefore, it is all the more crucial to realize that India actually does have a form of monitoring system for this particular disease. Since at least 2011, health care officials in the country have made attempts to implement "new policy measures, including mandatory case notification by all care providers via an electronic web-based system" (WHO, 2012, p. 2) Thus, the country has made some strides to regularly report cases of tuberculosis. However, an examination of the research in this country regarding this specific issue certainly alludes to the fact that there can be improvements made to the current system which would enable the country to have state of the art disease surveillance system capabilities to truly make a difference.

The current monitoring procedures in India are substantial, yet not as advanced and as specific as they could be. The country has devoted a number of resources towards counteracting the noxious effects of this disease, including the National Tuberculosis Control Programme, as well as the DOTS TB control program. Moreover, it has enacted some specific measures to account for reporting instances of tuberculosis regardless of whether an individual's disease is identified and treated in the public and the private sector. There are a fair amount of tuberculosis cases that are identified by the National Tuberculosis Programme (NTP) of WHO. However, the trouble with the current reporting system in India and in other countries is that there are some individuals who do not rely on NTPs for reporting of this disease. Therefore, the current national surveillance system is not fully 'national', and requires augmentation from both the private and the public sector to make it truly representative of the entire country. Currently, the limitations of the current system include the fact that "they do not capture all cases in most countries. Cases may be missed by & #8230;systems because people…are diagnosed by public and private providers that do not report cases to local or national authorities" (WHO, 2012, p. 29)

Therefore, the key to assisting the surveillance system in India is to encourage more widespread participation from non-NTPs. One of the key ways in which this surveillance system could truly become national is to subsidize organizations that do report their cases to the national system. By providing incentives to these providers (WHO, 2012, p. 33), the system could be used more and more accurately reflect the rate of incidence. The other special feature that should be added to the national surveillance system in India is that is should reflect an equal prioritization of facilities in which diagnosis occurs -- which does not help in gaining widespread adoption. The country must go beyond simply prioritizing medical colleges (WHO, 2012, p. 33) for this system to be truly nationwide.