by David Hercot
The PMAC conference is in full swing. Today we got a very interesting update on the indicators that need to be measured when looking at progress toward UHC. The key question is, however, how to do so. Unfortunately, this issue was carefully avoided by most of the panelists.
Tim Evans was an exception; he raised the issue and wondered which methodologies should be used. I share his concern. Here, I would like to focus on the perspective of the providers as they are often the ones who need to fill in tally sheets day by day. In my opinion, if we go from targeted disease surveillance to UHC surveillance in the coming years, we shouldn’t take the path of adding more and more layers of indicators to the routine data systems. We should, instead, thoroughly rethink data collection.
To kick off a discussion I mentioned a few ideas in the session:
- the use of sentinel sites that would be better equipped and still be representative of larger populations.
- rethink the periodicity of data collection where some indicators would be collected only during a part of the full reporting periods.
- we could think of more qualitative indicators that could be collected through participation approaches. We could set up ‘UHC watchdog groups’.
What is your take?