Using evidence to inform response to the 2017 plague outbreak in Madagascar: a view from the WHO African Regional Office
Epidemiology and Infection·
- DOI
- 10.1017/s0950268818001875
- PMID
- —
- PMCID
- —
- OpenAlex
- W2884659777
- Study type
- Journal article
- Publisher
- Cambridge University Press (CUP)
- Article type
- journal-article
- Integrity
- current
Why this research matters now
The article offers lessons for future outbreak responses in the WHO African region by evaluating how evidence informed the response to an unprecedented urban pneumonic plague outbreak.
Structured evidence summary
Research question
The article documents how evidence was collected and used by WHO and Madagascar's Ministry of Public Health during the 2017 plague outbreak response, and evaluates that evidence use against four operational research goals.
Study design
This is a descriptive case study that documents quantitative and qualitative data collection during an outbreak response and evaluates evidence utilization for operational decision-making.
Population and setting
The outbreak occurred in Madagascar in 2017, with 2417 reported cases and 209 deaths during the acute urban pneumonic phase. WHO African Regional Office, WHO Country Office, WHO Headquarters, and Madagascar's Ministry of Public Health were involved in the response.
Main findings
The article presents key findings from data collected during the response and describes actions taken based on that evidence, though specific epidemiologic or intervention findings are not detailed in the abstract.
Public-health relevance
The article offers lessons for future outbreak responses in the WHO African region by evaluating how evidence informed the response to an unprecedented urban pneumonic plague outbreak.
Important limitations
This summary relies on the supplied single-article abstract and bibliographic metadata. The full paper is required for decision-grade interpretation of the evidence quality, completeness of data collection methods, and generalizability of lessons learned.
GIDS interpretation
The article is discoverable under plague, Madagascar, health policy, One Health, and outbreak investigation. It documents evidence use during a 2017 response and does not represent current surveillance activity.
Related GIDS surveillance
Literature context does not validate, explain, or change a surveillance signal. Exact and contextual relationships are shown separately.
Evidence relationships
This article has 9 auditable classifier relationships to diseases, places, topics, and study design.