METHODS: A new outcome score based on a 15-item questionnaire was developed after a literature review, examination of current assessment tools, discussion with experts and a pilot study. The score was used to evaluate 100 children in Malaysia (56 Japanese encephalitis patients, 2 patients with encephalitis of unknown etiology and 42 controls) and 95 in India (36 Japanese encephalitis patients, 41 patients with encephalitis of unknown etiology and 18 controls). Inter- and intra-observer variability in the outcome score was determined and the score was compared with full clinical assessment.
FINDINGS: There was good inter-observer agreement on using the new score to identify likely dependency (Kappa = 0.942 for Malaysian children; Kappa = 0.786 for Indian children) and good intra-observer agreement (Kappa = 1.000 and 0.902, respectively). In addition, agreement between the new score and clinical assessment was also good (Kappa = 0.906 and 0.762, respectively). The sensitivity and specificity of the new score for identifying children likely to be dependent were 100% and 98.4% in Malaysia and 100% and 93.8% in India. Positive and negative predictive values were 84.2% and 100% in Malaysia and 65.6% and 100% in India.
CONCLUSION: The new tool for assessing disability in children after Japanese encephalitis was simple to use and scores correlated well with clinical assessment.
METHODS: We systematically searched for publications in PubMed® and Scopus, manually searched the grey literature and consulted with national health and nutrition officials, with no restrictions on publication type or language. We included low- and middle-income countries in the World Health Organization South-East Asia Region, and the Association of Southeast Asian Nations and China. We analysed the included programmes by adapting the United States Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's public health surveillance evaluation framework.
FINDINGS: We identified 82 surveillance programmes in 18 countries that repeatedly collect, analyse and disseminate data on nutrition and/or related indicators. Seventeen countries implemented a national periodic survey that exclusively collects nutrition-outcome indicators, often alongside internationally linked survey programmes. Coverage of different subpopulations and monitoring frequency vary substantially across countries. We found limited integration of food environment and wider food system indicators in these programmes, and no programmes specifically monitor nutrition-sensitive data across the food system. There is also limited nutrition-related surveillance of people living in urban deprived areas. Most surveillance programmes are digitized, use measures to ensure high data quality and report evidence of flexibility; however, many are inconsistently implemented and rely on external agencies' financial support.
CONCLUSION: Efforts to improve the time efficiency, scope and stability of national nutrition surveillance, and integration with other sectoral data, should be encouraged and supported to allow systemic monitoring and evaluation of malnutrition interventions in these countries.