Development and validation of a framework to improve neglected tropical diseases surveillance and response at the sub-national level in Kenya

Ethics statement

Written informed consent was obtained from research participants involved at various stages of framework development and validation. Ethical approval was granted by the Faculty of Health Sciences Research Ethics Committee of the University of Pretoria in South Africa (Ethics Reference No: 27/2018) and the Institutional Research and Ethics Committee (IREC) of Moi University/Moi Teaching and Referral Hospital in Kenya (Formal Approval No: IREC 2099). In addition, the National Commission for Science, Technology and Innovation (NACOSTI) provided research authorisation to undertake the research in Kenya (Reference No: NACOSTI/P/18/62894/21393). Permission to conduct the overall study was granted by the Ministry of Health in Kenya and relevant County health authorities.

Methodology for framework development

Development of the framework for improving PC-NTDs surveillance and response encompassed four main phases (Fig 1). The first phase involved conducting a systematic review of literature, which identified generalised but critical recommendations emerging from prior studies to improve disease surveillance and response systems in the African region. The second phase involved primary data surveys conducted in PC-NTD endemic regions in Kenya to assess performance of surveillance core, support and attribute functions. The third phase used a modified-Delphi survey to assess stakeholders’ consensus on the importance and feasibility of implementing recommended actions to improve PC-NTD surveillance and response at the sub-national level in Kenya. Lastly, the fourth phase involved a review of previous HIS and public health surveillance system conceptual frameworks to gain insights into the existing frameworks.

• Download figure
• Open in new tab

Figure 1. Framework development process

Phase I: Systematic review of literature on surveillance system assessment studies [27]

The purpose for this phase was to systematically review both published and grey literature retrieved from the relevant online databases including PubMed, Web of Science, Scopus, Cumulative Index for Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL) and World Health Organisation Library and Information Networks for Knowledge (WHOLIS). The focus of the systematic literature review process was to search for studies assessing disease surveillance and response systems in the African region based on health workers’ perspectives (PROSPERO Registration number CRD42019124108) [27]. The review focused on the post-adoption phase of the revised IDSR system as from 2010 and onwards. A combination of keywords were used to search for relevant studies including “surveillance”, “public health surveillance”, “integrated disease surveillance and response”, “evaluation”, “assessment”, “health worker”, “healthcare personnel”, “Africa” and “Sub Saharan Africa”. The review aimed to assess key findings and recommendations to improve surveillance and response systems in the African region based on health workers’ perspectives.

Phase II: Primary data surveys on surveillance core, support and attribute functions concerning PC-NTDs [28, 29]

The aim of this phase was to conduct two empirical studies in NTDs endemic regions in Kenya. The studies aimed to assess performance of surveillance functions concerning PC-NTDs as perceived by healthcare workers. The two studies intended to put focus on improving PC-NTDs surveillance within the existing IDSR system, which is in line with the strategic objectives outlined in the Second National Strategic Plan for Neglected Tropical Diseases and the National Breaking Transmission Strategy in Kenya [30, 31]. The first study used a mixed method cross-sectional survey to assess surveillance system core and support functions relating to PC-NTDs [28]. The study sites were purposively sampled from three regions in Kenya, which are co-endemic of at least three or more fully mapped PC-NTDs. Health personnel involved in the study were enrolled from the community (50), health facility (192) and sub-national (44) levels. Modified WHO generic questionnaires, observation checklists and interview schedules were used for data collection. The second study aimed to evaluate surveillance system attributes based on health facility workers’ perceptions concerning PC-NTDs [29]. The study sites were similar to those selected in the first survey. The study adopted a descriptive cross-sectional health facility survey involving 192 health workers responsible for disease surveillance and response activities in NTD endemic regions in Kenya. Self-administered likert-type questionnaires were used to assess healthcare personnel perceptions of surveillance system attributes on simplicity, acceptability, stability, flexibility, usefulness, data quality and reporting timeliness and completeness with regard to PC-NTDs.

Phase III: Feasibility of implementing recommendations to improve PC-NTDs surveillance and response [32]

This third phase was based on a Delphi survey, which involved enrollment of key stakeholders at the sub-national level responsible for overseeing disease surveillance and response activities in Kenya [32]. The survey aimed to assess the principal and feasible recommendations derived from the preceding first and second phase. This phase guided selection of key constructs making up the framework in line with stakeholders’ opinions and inputs. Stakeholders constituted individuals that regularly utilise information generated by the surveillance system to take appropriate actions or make decisions influencing implementation of interventions and policy-making processes [33, 34].

Phase IV: Review of relevant conceptual frameworks

In the fourth phase, a comprehensive review of existing HIS and public health surveillance system conceptual frameworks was undertaken. Retrieval of the relevant documents involved basic search strategies; electronic database search, a manual reference search of selected documents and use of a generic internet search engine. Literature searches were undertaken using PubMed, Web of Science, Scopus, Google Scholar and a free Google search to identify the relevant frameworks. The key search terms included: “conceptual framework”, “model”, “health systems”, “health information systems”, “public health surveillance systems”, “surveillance and response”. These terms were used in various combinations to ensure the literature search was extensive. A manual reference check of the included frameworks was conducted to identify additional frameworks that met the inclusion criteria. The inclusion criteria for the reviewed frameworks was a specific focus on HIS, disease surveillance or public health surveillance systems; included a diagrammatic representation of the conceptual framework; aimed to influence specific health policies or decisions; and written in the English language. This review involved critical assessment of components making up the frameworks. In addition, reviewing the framework components provided an understanding on the relevant interlinkages, which formed the basis for the proposed framework.

Phase I: Systematic review of literature on surveillance system assessment studies [27]

The first phase involved conducting a systematic review of literature of previous surveillance assessment studies in the African region. Thirty studies met the inclusion criteria and were assessed to retrieve generalised recommendations to improve surveillance systems within the revitalised IDSR framework adopted by African countries. Eighteen emerging sub-themes were identified for recommendations specific to improving four core surveillance functions and three support functions. However, no specific sub-themes emerged from assessing the surveillance system attributes. The surveillance core functions included; case confirmation, reporting, data analysis and feedback. Surveillance support functions included; training, supervision and resources while surveillance system attributes included; reporting timeliness and completeness, data quality and accuracy, usefulness, acceptability, simplicity and stability. Other key recommendations alluded to adoption of alternative surveillance strategies and calls for further research to strengthen surveillance systems.

Main themes were based on elements constituting the broader surveillance functions – core, support and attributes – while 18 emerging sub-themes were derived from the recommendations. Surveillance functions themes and sub themes (provided in parentheses) included; case confirmation (improved specimen handling [35] and strengthened laboratory support [36, 37]); reporting (improved reporting quality [35, 38–40] and adequacy of reporting forms provision [35, 41, 42]); feedback (improved health workers’ attitudes [43] and enhanced feedback from higher to lower surveillance levels [44–46]); data analysis (surveillance system performance monitoring [47] and improved data accuracy [46, 48]). On the other hand, key recommendations regarding surveillance support functions included; training (improved surveillance system performance [37, 49, 50], improved surveillance data quality [35, 42, 51–53] and enhanced knowledge on surveillance systems [40, 41, 54–61]); supervision (strengthened implementation of surveillance system activities [41, 47, 50, 60], utilisation of up-to-date information [37] and identification of correct reporting channels [41, 57]); resources (financial resources [39, 41, 47, 50, 52, 60], human resources [37, 59], technical, material and logistical resources [36, 39, 45, 46, 54, 57, 59] and equipment and infrastructure [37, 51, 53, 57]). Recommendations regarding surveillance system attributes were specific to reporting timeliness and completeness [37, 41, 43, 46, 48, 49, 55, 56, 58, 60], data quality and accuracy [48, 49, 55, 56], usefulness [43, 55], acceptability [49, 55, 57], stability [49, 53, 55, 57, 62] and simplicity [43, 49, 55–57]. Other recommendations included; alternative surveillance strategies (electronic based surveillance [37, 43, 49, 56, 57, 63], community based surveillance [47, 58] and syndromic surveillance [63]) and further calls for research on surveillance [48, 49, 59].

Phase II: Primary data surveys on surveillance core, support and attribute functions concerning PC-NTDs [28, 29]

The first phase described surveillance system assessment studies previously conducted in the African region, which identified broad recommendations to improve the existing surveillance systems; however, these recommendations were inclined to notifiable diseases considered of national priority in African countries. Therefore, based on the premise that diseases targeted for control or elimination were to be accorded priority commensurate to notifiable diseases, the second phase entailed conducting health worker surveys involving primary data collection to assess performance of surveillance core, support and attribute functions concerning PC-NTDs endemic in Kenya.

Phase II (a) – Assessment of surveillance core and support functions regarding neglected tropical diseases in Kenya [28]

The first study aimed to assess surveillance core and support functions regarding PC-NTDs endemic in Kenya. This identified specific recommendations to strengthen surveillance functions focusing on PC-NTDs within the existing IDSR system. There were eleven a priori identified main themes with up to 62 emerging sub-themes based on recommendations to improve PC-NTDs surveillance and response according to health workers’ perspectives. A high degree of groundedness was defined as sub-themes (recommendations) that were mentioned fifteen or more times (G ≥ 15) by the research participants under each main theme. Recommendations to improve PC-NTDs surveillance core activities were categorised into 7 main themes and 32 sub-themes. The principal recommendations considering a high degree of groundedness included provision of simplified case definitions, improved laboratory capacity, provision of PC-NTDs reporting tools, timely and regular feedback on surveillance reports, adoption of electronic feedback mechanisms, improved data analysis skills and provision of adequate outbreak response supplies. On the other hand, recommendations to strengthen surveillance support activities comprised of 4 main themes and 30 sub-themes. Therefore, the main recommendations based on a high degree of groundedness encompassed provision of surveillance guidelines for supervision, properly constituted supervisory teams, regular supervision from higher levels, frequent provision of PC-NTDs updates, regular sensitisation and involvement of all health workers in surveillance activities, enhanced training on PC-NTDs surveillance, improved human resource capacity, provision of surveillance reporting and analysis tools, availing equipment and training materials, provision of adequate funding to facilitate surveillance activities and provision of reliable transportation.

Phase II (b) – Evaluation of health surveillance system attributes regarding neglected tropical diseases in Kenya [29]

The subsequent study aimed to evaluate surveillance system attributes based on health workers’ perceptions concerning PC-NTDs endemic in Kenya. Health workers perceived the surveillance system to be simple (55%), acceptable (50%), stable (41%), flexible (41%), useful (51%) and to provide quality surveillance data (25%). Health personnel experienced difficulties completing IDSR reporting forms with regard to PC-NTDs, easily understanding reporting guidelines and utilising PC-NTDs case definitions. Further, health workers were less satisfied with their involvement in facility-based surveillance activities. Health workers perceived PC-NTDs to be of low priority compared to other conditions and were only willing to be involved in surveillance activities of diseases considered of priority. However, community level health workers were more willing to support and be involved in PC-NTDs surveillance activities. Heath workers felt the existing IDSR system lacked flexibility with regard to being well adapted to report all PC-NTDs co-endemic in the region and easily adapting to changes in information needs, technological shift and funding. Furthermore, minimal adaptability of the existing surveillance system to changes in reporting mechanisms from paper-based to electronic systems was reported. Respondents further indicated low stability of the surveillance system in terms of adequacy of the available forms to report PC-NTDs, resource sufficiency and capacity of health managers to support surveillance activities and address challenges promptly. Health workers also reported that the surveillance system lacked usefulness in terms of generating sufficient PC-NTDs surveillance data to inform implementation of control interventions and influence sufficient donor support. In addition, respondents felt the surveillance system lacked capacity to provide adequate information to inform efficient public health actions in view of PC-NTDs. Health facilities sampled from the PC-NTDs endemic regions hardly met the 80% target reporting thresholds. Only about one-third of the facilities met this threshold in terms of reporting timeliness of monthly surveillance data and slightly more than a half of facilities met the threshold for completeness of monthly reports. Overall, considering a cut off attribute score of above 50%, findings showed health workers perceived the existing surveillance system to be simple, acceptable and useful with regard to PC- NTDs. However, respondents had low perceptions on the stability, flexibility and data quality of the surveillance system. Notably, there was a dwindling trend in monthly reporting timeliness and completeness rates by health facilities over a three-year period.

Phase III: Feasibility of implementing recommendations to improve PC-NTDs surveillance and response [32]

The first and second phase provided a plethora of recommendations on improving the existing surveillance systems considering broad perspectives within the African context and further actions peculiar to improving PC-NTDs surveillance and response within an endemic setting [27–29]. Consequently, the third phase integrated evidence from the systematic literature review with findings from the primary data surveys to generate actionable statements that were assessed by relevant health stakeholders on their importance and feasibility for implementation at the sub- national level in Kenya. Findings from the Delphi survey indicated that stakeholders agreed on the importance of 56 recommendation statements and further reached consensus on the feasibility of implementing 47 recommended actions at the sub-national level. Stakeholders had a converging opinion on the importance and feasibility of implementing recommendations in six sub-domains relating to feedback, epidemic preparedness and response and those relating to four surveillance system attributes – simplicity, acceptability, stability and flexibility. However, there was lack of consensus on specific recommendations regarding the remaining six sub-domains on their importance or feasibility for implementation. Furthermore, sensitivity analysis that incorporated those participants with neutral responses indicated that the participants considered all recommendation statements to be of importance. Nevertheless, there was still non-consensus on the feasibility of availing disease-specific case registers, confirmation of all PC-NTDs cases, undertaking routine data analysis, increasing the number of supervisory visits at the lower levels, involving all health workers in surveillance training, retaining trained surveillance personnel and increasing the number of health workers responsible for overseeing surveillance activities at the sub-national level.

Phase IV: Review of relevant conceptual frameworks

The systematic search identified 10 records eligible for full-text review. However, only 6 distinct conceptual frameworks focusing on HIS and public health surveillance systems met the inclusion criteria for review. Critical lessons drawn from HIS conceptual frameworks alluded to stakeholders’ involvement, the organisational setting and technological aspects. Further, reviewed public health surveillance frameworks focused on performance indicators, disease-specific surveillance aspects and outbreak detection. The proposed framework was founded upon the Health Metrics Network (HMN) framework, which recognises the critical role of stakeholders to reach consensus on decisions to strengthen HIS [19]. A pertinent component of the HMN framework focuses on inputs, processes, outputs and outcomes of HIS. These specifically includes resources, indicators, data sources, data management, dissemination and use of information by stakeholders to guide the decision-making process [19]. The framework further identifies that evaluation of HIS can be challenging considering other technical, social, organisational and cultural aspects [19]. Furthermore, the Performance of Routine Information System Management (PRISM) framework assesses HIS performance considering technical, organisational and behavioral factors [20]. The PRISM framework guided development of the current framework since it identifies inputs based on the technical, behavioral and organizational elements, which determine data management (processes) and consequentially influence data quality and utilisation (outputs), health system performance (outcomes), and net impact on health status [20]. The proposed framework further drew on the concept of “fit” based on the human, organisation and technology fit model (HOT-fit), which is concerned with HIS ability, stakeholders’ practices and the organisational setting aligned with each other [21]. The framework describes various interdependent dimensions considering how system, information and service quality work independently or in concert with one another to influence system use and users’ satisfaction. Moreover, the framework illustrates how the organisational structure and environment work jointly to impact system use and overall net benefits [21].

The current framework further adopted core and support activities indicators outlined in the conceptual framework authored by McNabb et al. [17]. The framework links surveillance activities to the resulting public health actions [17]. This framework intended to aid healthcare practitioners to design future models through a series of activities to achieve measurable outputs and outcomes [17]. Furthermore, the authors posited that the framework would be practical in developing countries undergoing both political and economic reforms having disease surveillance systems that function sub-optimally. Similarly, the proposed framework adopted comparable concepts described in a disease-specific framework informed by stakeholders’ inputs to identify either process-oriented or outcome-oriented performance indicators for evaluating surveillance core and support activities [18]. Additionally, the current framework aimed to improve epidemic preparedness and response actions, which were relatable to the processes and outputs contained in a framework for evaluating public health surveillance systems for early detection of outbreaks [34]. Lessons learned from the reviewed conceptual frameworks alluded to stakeholders’ involvement, framework components and their interlinkage and disease-focused perspectives.

Development of a framework to improve PC-NTDs surveillance and response

Framework development was informed by feasible recommendations derived from the third phase; in addition, to the lessons drawn from reviewing relevant conceptual frameworks. The proposed framework aimed to provide a logical approach hinged on the inputs, processes and outputs to enable decision makers institute evidence-based actions to achieve the intended outcomes and the desired impact [64]. A stakeholder-oriented approach was adopted throughout the framework development process to identify practically feasible recommendations for implementation and ensure utilisation of evidence-based research findings for decision-making [65]. The underlying assumption was that research findings can only be reliable to effectively influence the policy making process if they are endorsed by concerned stakeholders [65]. This assumption formed the basis for undertaking the third phase, which identified key components of the proposed framework. We also adopted the logical framework approach (LFA) as stipulated in the guide to monitoring and evaluating communicable disease surveillance and response systems [66]. The framework components were categorised based on their focus on input factors (resources), process factors (planned activities), output factors (short, medium and long-term benefits), outcome factors (intended results) and the overall impact factors [66]. Framework development was guided by findings from the first, second, third and fourth phases with the aid of a logical component matrix to identify the interrelation between the derived themes (Table 1). The proposed framework intended to improve the existing surveillance and response system focusing on PC-NTDs, which will in turn strengthen implementation of the core medical interventions for PC-NTDs control; preventive chemotherapy and intensified case finding and disease management [8, 67].

The first step to developing the proposed framework involved analysing the required inputs. The existing surveillance and response system requires resource mobilisation through injection of inputs to facilitate the planned work in view of NTDs amenable to chemoprophylaxis at the sub- national levels. Therefore, stakeholders’ consensus on the feasible inputs were categorised into two sub-domains with the first being a combination of surveillance tools, equipment and infrastructure including; data analysis tools and equipment such as computers with pre-loaded analysis software, clearly formulated action thresholds, outbreak preparedness and response protocols and guidelines, surveillance activities supervisory schedules, training materials and electronic communication devices. The second sub-domain combined financial, technical and logistical support including; increased funding allocation to support surveillance activities, enhanced training on data analysis, provision of sufficient emergency supplies for outbreak response, reliable transportation and other logistical support.

The second step involved identification of practically feasible processes. The activities were categorised into four sub-domains; (i) strengthening existing surveillance tools, (ii) surveillance core activities, (iii) surveillance support activities, and (iv) surveillance system attributes concerning PC-NTDs. Actionable processes for strengthening the existing surveillance tools included; updating surveillance guidelines and the available standard case definitions currently in use and inclusion of all PC-NTDs in the reporting forms. Processes to strengthen the core activities in view of PC-NTDs included; fully equipping health facility level laboratories, availing updated reporting guidelines, ample time allocation for surveillance reports preparation and submission, enhanced PC-NTDs data analysis, provision of regular and timely feedback, adoption of electronic feedback mechanisms, increased feedback to lower levels and properly constituting outbreak response teams. Additionally, activities to strengthen support activities included; prioritising supervision of PC-NTDs surveillance activities, adequately constituting the supervisory teams, increasing community level involvement in supervisory activities, prioritising and conducting regular PC-NTDs surveillance training, improving telecommunication channels for data transmission and improving access to reliable transportation when undertaking surveillance activities. Lastly, processes to strengthen surveillance attributes regarding PC-NTDs included; simplification of existing reporting guidelines, reporting forms, standard case definitions, and data collection and analysis procedures, increased support for surveillance activities by health managers, consideration of PC-NTDs as conditions of public health importance, addressing surveillance activity challenges with minimum delays, ensuring surveillance systems are well- adapted to reporting all PC-NTDs and easily adapt to changes in information needs.

Consequently, inputs and processes in the planning phase facilitate achieving the intended results with anticipated outputs comprising; accurate case registration and reporting of PC-NTDs, improved case confirmation capacity, strengthened data analysis, improved feedback on surveillance data, improved epidemic preparedness and response, enhanced supervision of surveillance activities, improved training coverage on surveillance activities, enhanced resource capacity to support surveillance activities, improved health worker perceptions towards the surveillance system and prioritisation of PC-NTDs surveillance activities. Resultantly, the outcomes were thematically categorised into three sub-domains, which were linked to the likelihood of achieving either short, medium or long-term outcomes. The short-term outcome alluded to efficient transmission of surveillance data within the existing surveillance system while the medium-term outcome would result to improved surveillance data quality and lastly, the long- term outcome would be early detection and effective response action towards PC-NTDs. The overall impact of the resulting outcomes would be accurate estimation of disease burden, effective identification of disease transmission hotspots and implementation of targeted and cost-effective interventions.

The framework identified the intended results as a by-product of the input and process components making up the initial planned work phase (Figure 2). Consequently, the outputs were linked to one or more anticipated outcomes for strengthening PC-NTDs surveillance and response (Figure 3). First, to achieve the short-term outcome regarding efficient surveillance data transmission and improved data accuracy required enhanced supervision of surveillance activities. Moreover, achieving the medium-term outcome relating to improved surveillance data accuracy and quality relied on strengthened data analysis, improved feedback on surveillance data and enhanced support supervision. Lastly, attaining the long-term outcome of early disease detection and effective response action relied on improved case confirmation capacity, reinforced data analysis and improved epidemic preparedness and response action. Overall, all the three anticipated outcomes – short-term, medium-term and long-term – relied on accurate case registration and reporting, improved training coverage on surveillance, enhanced resource provision, improved health worker perceptions towards the surveillance system and prioritising PC-NTDs surveillance activities. The proposed framework further linked the combination of efficient surveillance data transmission and improved data accuracy and quality to the impact component on accurate estimation of reduced disease burden. Additionally, improved surveillance data accuracy and quality, early disease detection and effective response action were linked to effective identification of disease transmission hotspots. Lastly, the framework identified a link between a combination of short and medium term outcomes to implementation of targeted and cost-effective interventions as an impact component.

• Download figure
• Open in new tab

Figure 2. Draft framework for improving PC-NTDs surveillance and response

• Download figure
• Open in new tab

Figure 3. Draft schematic illustration of component interlinkages in the intended results phase

Framework validation

The purpose of framework development was to propose a logical approach for strengthening specific surveillance functions at the sub-national level to improve PC-NTDs surveillance and response. Therefore, a multi-phased approach was utilised to validate the proposed framework using: (i) consultative meetings with stakeholders at the sub-national and national levels and (ii) presentation of the draft framework in a conference meeting constituted of NTD researchers and policy experts. The aim of the consultative discussions was to review the draft framework components based on the expertise and experiences of healthcare stakeholders and decision makers. In addition, presentation of the draft framework in a scientific forum was intended to obtain further inputs to improve the framework components and assess scalability and adoptability of the framework especially at the sub-national level based on NTD research experts’ opinions. The validation process presented an opportunity to ascertain the accuracy of information underpinning the draft framework and identified key points for framework refinement (Figure 4). The process allowed participants to comment freely on the framework components in an open forum, which allowed for extensive discussions and drew out diverse stakeholder and expert opinions.

• Download figure
• Open in new tab

Figure 4. Key points of framework improvement

Validation process for the proposed framework

Phase II

The framework development process was further presented in a virtual conference meeting in the form of a research poster. The forum was partly composed of breakout sessions that enabled extensive discussions of the framework components with various NTD researchers and policy experts. Participants identified the need for interrelating the desired outcomes with the concerned disease interventions, similar to stakeholder resolutions in the first phase. They envisaged that such an interrelation would provide a clear link between implementing specific control interventions and achieving the overall goals. Additionally, participants recommended that the impact components be rephrased to portray “sustained” control efforts even post-elimination. Lastly, participants reached a common consensus on the relevance and feasibility of adopting the proposed framework at sub-national levels. They further agreed that the framework provided a logical approach to guide stakeholders’ actions to achieve improved PC-NTDs surveillance and response in endemic settings (Figure 5). Stakeholder consultations in both phases aided in identifying critical interlinkages between the long-term outcomes and impact components in various combinations (Figure 6). First, improved implementation of targeted and cost-effective PC interventions, in addition to enhancing identification of disease transmission hotspots through active CF would have an overall impact of reducing costs for implementing treatment interventions. Secondly, identification of disease transmission hotspots and improved estimation of overall disease burden would inform effective implementation of PC interventions and intensify disease management, which would contribute to halted disease transmission. Finally, a combination of all long-term outcomes on implementation of targeted PC interventions, identification of disease transmission hotspots through active CF and improved estimation of overall disease burden to inform IDM would achieve reduced disease burden relating PC-NTDs.

• Download figure
• Open in new tab

Figure 5. Final validated framework for improving PC-NTDs surveillance and response

• Download figure
• Open in new tab

Figure 6. Final schematic illustration of component interlinkages in the intended results phase

The overall impact of reduced costs for treatment interventions, halted disease transmission and reduced disease burden contribute towards achieving sustainable PC-NTDs elimination.

Strengths and limitations

A key strength of developing the framework lies within the third phase involving a Delphi survey, which identified the implementable actions considering health personnel perspectives. Therefore, the framework components were informed by feasible recommendations to improve surveillance and response to PC-NTDs at the sub-national levels. Validation of the framework involving relevant stakeholders was crucial and identified further opportunities for improving the framework components and assessing adoptability at the sub national level. However, to operationalise the framework, an in depth understanding of the decision making process at the sub-national level is vital to identify who makes decisions, what information is required to make decisions, and how and when decisions are to be made. The framework postulates improving existing surveillance systems considering both an integrated and targeted process to controlling PC-NTDs. However, it may only apply to regions co-endemic of at least two or more PC-NTDs since the framework components intend to guide the decision-making process considering an integrated disease control approach. Furthermore, the framework validation phase was undertaken amid the COVID-19 pandemic, which resulted in conducting the validation process while strictly adhering to the Kenya Ministry of Health COVID-19 guidelines. This limited the number of face-to-face sessions undertaken and restricted the number of participants present within a given session. However, further resolutions from stakeholders were obtained through adopting alternative virtual mechanisms.