Measuring influenza laboratory capacity: use of a tool to measure improvements.

Clicks: 164
ID: 37548
2017
Article Quality & Performance Metrics
Overall Quality
Not rated
Combines reader engagement with the AI quality analysis. This article has not been analysed, so there is no overall score — reader engagement is measured and shown alongside.
AI Quality Assessment
Not analyzed
Readership in this journal
Steady

Ranked #115 of 205 articles by views in BMC infectious diseases

Most read Least read

Bar heights use a square-root scale. Only the 120 most-read articles are drawn; the journal has 205 in total.

Mint this article as an NFT
Not yet minted

Create a permanent, verifiable on-chain record of this article on the Scimatic Network. The NFT is held in your Journament account, and you can withdraw it to your own wallet at any time.

5 SUSD one-off · no wallet required
Sign in to mint
Abstract
To collect information, identify training needs, and assist with influenza capacity building voluntary laboratory capacity assessments were conducted using a standardized tool in CDC cooperative agreement countries. To understand the usefulness of comparing results from repeat assessments and to determine if targeted training supported improvements, this paper details comparison of assessment results of conducting 17 repeat laboratory assessments between 2009 and 2013.Laboratory assessments were conducted by SMEs in 17 laboratories (16 countries). We reviewed the quantitative assessment results of the laboratories that conducted both an initial and follow up assessment between 2009 to 2013 using repeated measures of Anova, (Mixed procedure of SAS (9.3)). Additionally, we compared the overall summary scores and the assessor recommendations from the two assessments.We were able to document a statistically significant improvement between the first and second assessments both on an aggregate as well as individual indicator score. Within the international capacity tool three of the eight categories recorded statistically significant improvement (equipment, management, and QA/QC), while the other tool categories (molecular, NIC, specimen, safety and virology) showed improvement in scores although not statistically significant.We found that using a standardized tool and quantitative framework is useful for documenting capacity and performance improvement in identified areas over time. The use of the tool and standard reports with assessor recommendations assisted laboratories with establishing, maintaining, and improving influenza laboratory practices. On-going assessments and the consistent application of the analytic framework over time will continue to aid in building a measurement knowledge base for laboratory capacity.
Reference Key
kennedy2017measuringbmc Use this key to autocite in the manuscript while using SciMatic Manuscript Manager or Thesis Manager
Authors Kennedy, Pam;Aden, Tricia;Cheng, Po Yung;Moen, Ann;
Journal BMC infectious diseases
Year 2017
DOI
10.1186/s12879-017-2521-7
URL
Keywords Keywords not found

Citations

No citations found. To add a citation, contact the admin at info@scimatic.org

Comments

No comments yet. Be the first to comment on this article.