Research | Open Access | Volume 9 (Suppl 15): Article 04 | Published: 10 Jan 2026
Menu, Tables and Figures
Angelina Cui1,&, Asmae Khattabi2, Salomon Corvil2, Chelsea Horváth2, Briana Lucido1, Atalie Pestalozzi2, Reina Turcios-Ruiz1
1Division of Global Health Protection, Global Health Center, U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta, United States; 2Training Programs in Epidemiology and Public Health Interventions Network, Atlanta, United States
&Corresponding author: Angelina Cui, Division of Global Health Protection, Global Health Center, U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta, United States, Email: quw8@cdc.gov, angiecui13@gmail.com, ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7947-3596
Received: 14 May 2025, Accepted: 09 Sep 2026, Published: 10 Sep 2026
Domain: Field Epidemiology
Keywords: Field Epidemiology Training Program, workforce development, Guinea, impact evaluation, capacity building, epidemiological surveillance system
©Angelina Cui et al. Journal of Interventional Epidemiology and Public Health (ISSN: 2664-2824). This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution International 4.0 License (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
Cite this article: Angelina Cui et al., The impact of Guinea’s Frontline Field Epidemiology Training Program on Guinea’s epidemiological surveillance system. Journal of Interventional Epidemiology and Public Health. 2026; 9(Suppl 15):04. https://doi.org/10.37432/jieph-d-25-00120
Introduction: This evaluation aimed to describe best practices and challenges in implementing the first seven cohorts of Guinea’s Field Epidemiology Training Program (FETP) Frontline, evaluate training effectiveness, and assess the impact of Guinea’s FETP on the country’s surveillance system.
Methods: The evaluation was a mixed-methods, non-experimental design. We reviewed internal assessment documents and collected data from graduates, job and outbreak supervisors, program staff, and partners through structured questionnaires, semi-structured interviews, worksite visits, and outcome harvesting.
Results: We interviewed 147 graduates, of whom 88% were male, 88% worked in human health, and 80% worked at district or sub-district level. Graduates significantly improved surveillance skills from before to after training completion and to the time of the evaluation (p<0.0001). After FETP-Frontline, data timeliness reporting improved from 60% to 90%, and quality of outbreak investigation reports from 66% to 93%. The timeliness of the 2021 Ebola outbreak detection within 15 days by graduates, compared to detection within four months for the 2014-2016 outbreak, contributed to reducing the case fatality rate from 67% to 52%. Graduates’ recommendations after investigating a yellow fever outbreak contributed to 95% of the target population being vaccinated. Despite positive impacts on the surveillance system, only 21% of worksites had rumour logs, and 40% of worksites had verbal autopsy forms. Moreover, program staff noted funding as the main challenge in sustaining the program.
Conclusion: Overall, Guinea’s FETP-Frontline made a positive impact on the country’s surveillance system. However, there are areas of improvement the program should consider implementing for continued improvement in surveillance and program sustainability.
Field Epidemiology Training Programs (FETP) have trained field epidemiologists in 80 countries since 1980. Historically, FETP was modelled on the CDC’s Epidemic Intelligence Service (EIS), which is a 2-year training program aimed at strengthening workforce capacity at the national level. However, the West Africa Ebola outbreak in 2013-2015 showed gaps in the field epidemiology workforce at the district level [1]. In response to the urgent need for strengthening local capacity, the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) and several partners implemented Surveillance Training for Ebola Preparedness (STEP) to rapidly build surveillance capacity along borders around Ebola-affected countries. As a result of the success of STEP and building upon Central America’s basic FETP, CDC conceived FETP-Frontline, a 3-month field training program, in 2015. This training program targets public health staff working in surveillance at the local level to strengthen the capacity of countries to detect, prevent, and respond to public health emergencies at their source, preventing the spread of diseases and thereby enhancing global health security [2]. Since 2015, FETP has been implemented at three tiers: FETP-Advanced (2 years), FETP-Intermediate (9 months), and FETP-Frontline (3 months).
Established in 2016, Guinea’s FETP-Frontline was initiated through a FETP partners’ implementation meeting, which included CDC, African Field Epidemiology Network (AFENET), Research Triangle Institute International (RTI), and Guinea’s National Agency for Security of Health of the Ministry of Health (MoH). A collaborative initiative between partners produced a roadmap that designated FETP-Frontline as responsible for training the heads of disease prevention and control at local, regional, and national levels. FETP-Frontline in Guinea aims to strengthen the epidemiological capacities of the country’s MoH, Ministry of Livestock, and Ministry of Environment to detect and respond to epidemic-prone diseases. Guinea’s FETP-Frontline has graduated seven cohorts and trained 213 graduates to date.
In 2018, RTI conducted an evaluation of the first two FETP-Frontline cohorts [3]. From 2018 to 2022, five additional cohorts have been trained. The first evaluation identified perceived successes and challenges of the program. However, it was not comprehensive and did not assess impact on the system. FETP-Frontline represents a significant investment by Guinea, AFENET, and CDC. CDC-Guinea requested an evaluation of FETP-Frontline to better understand the outcomes and impacts of the program. The objectives of the evaluation are to describe the best practices and challenges in implementing the first seven cohorts, evaluate training effectiveness, and assess the impact of Guinea’s FETP-Frontline program on the country’s surveillance system.
Evaluation design and population
This evaluation was a mixed-methods, non-experimental design that collected data through document review, structured questionnaires, semi-structured interviews, worksite visits, and outcome harvesting [4]. The evaluation population included all graduates of Guinea’s FETP-Frontline (cohorts 1-7), graduates’ job and outbreak supervisors, select FETP program staff, and select program partners. Graduates who retired or were out of the country at the time of data collection were excluded from this evaluation. The program staff were those working in program implementation and included resident advisors, program directors, and mentors. The program partners selected were those working in the surveillance field, independent of FETP-Frontline implementation, but knowledgeable about FETP.
Data collection, tools, and techniques
We adapted data collection tools, such as the structured questionnaires, semi-structured interview guides, and worksite visit tools from the CDC Evaluation toolkit, comprised of data collection instruments developed and piloted with selected CDC-supported programs, to the Guinea context, in collaboration with Guinea MoH, AFENET Guinea, Training Programs in Epidemiology and Public Health Interventions Network (TEPHINET), and CDC-Guinea [5]. We developed all data collection tools in English and translated them into French. Some interviews from the success case interviews and semi-structured interviews with program staff were recorded and transcribed. To ensure accurate translation, computer translation was used, followed by review by Francophone speakers.
We hired an evaluation consultant and a scheduler to coordinate in-person data collection. In addition, we recruited and trained ten data collectors from neighbouring countries’ FETPs, who collected data by WhatsApp from August to September 2022. Furthermore, we recruited and trained five evaluators from the same neighbouring countries’ FETPs to conduct the in-person interviews and the worksite visits.
The evaluation consultant conducted the document review by reviewing the program’s internal assessment tools (IAT) that were used during program implementation. These tools included Collaborative Technical Assistance Plans (CTAPs), which documented the level of institutionalisation of FETP; the trainees’ pre- and post-tests, which assessed knowledge change; the baseline and end-of-cohort participant questionnaires, which collected data on surveillance activities at the beginning and at the end of each cohort, respectively; and the exit interviews and end-of-cohort reports, which assessed selection criteria of graduates and mentors as well as the impact, success, and challenges of the program. Additionally, the evaluation consultant conducted semi-structured interviews with program staff to understand the best practices and challenges during FETP implementation. Finally, the evaluation consultant conducted in-person semi-structured interviews with national partners.
The data collectors conducted WhatsApp structured questionnaires with graduates and job and outbreak supervisors, and in-person structured questionnaires with selected graduates and subnational partners. From the structured questionnaires, data were collected on sociodemographic characteristics, graduates’ self-assessed skill level of FETP-Frontline competencies, graduates’ use of FETP-Frontline competencies, facilitators and barriers in using competencies, graduates’ participation in epidemiological surveillance activities and outbreak response activities, and mentorship. A section of the graduates’ questionnaire collected data on animal and environmental health surveillance activities. For the self-assessment of competencies, we asked graduates to assess their skill level on FETP competencies at three points in time: before training, directly after their graduation, and at the point of administering the questionnaire. The following skill level scale was established: 0-not applicable to my position at the time; 1-basic knowledge of the activity, or no experience; 2-limited experience with the activity and need help with execution; 3-can perform the activity independently, but still needs occasional assistance from an expert; 4-can perform this activity without assistance; 5-expert in this activity and can provide guidance on how to do this activity.
For the in-person interviews, graduates were selected based on a systematic random sampling method, with purposeful sampling to ensure geographic distribution. In conjunction with in-person interviews, data collectors conducted worksite visits to observe the availability of surveillance tools and to assess the quality of the data on case notification forms for epidemic-prone diseases and investigation reports.
During the program partners’ interviews, we collected data on their understanding of the contribution of FETP-Frontline in improving the epidemiologic surveillance system, the support that partners provide, and partners’ perceived opportunities and threats to FETP-Frontline.
Lastly, outcome harvesting, a qualitative evaluation method that understands how individual outcomes contribute to broader systems changes, was used to assess FETP-Frontline’s contribution to improving Guinea’s public health system, including outbreak responses and epidemiologic surveillance capacity [6]. The outcome harvesting consultant collected data from graduates through a two-part outcome harvesting workshop. The online 90-minute workshops took place on September 6 and 12, 2022. In harvesting outcomes, participants were asked to send their individual results by composing an outcome statement, which described a specific change, supported by a significance statement, which explained why the change helped improve public health in Guinea, and a contribution statement, which detailed what graduates and other actors, including the government, health officials, organizations, and communities, did to achieve the change. Outcomes were refined for completeness and to clarify meaning, substantiated by a third party, and analysed by the evaluation team.
Data analysis
We collected data in Microsoft Word and in Kobo Toolbox, cleaned data in MS Excel, and analyzed quantitative data in RStudio. We calculated descriptive statistics and paired T-tests to determine statistical significance in differences in self-assessed competence levels, setting statistical significance at p<0.05. Using the worksite visit tool, the notification forms and outbreak investigation reports that were ˃80% complete were considered “completely completed” or good quality; those 50-79% complete were considered “partially completed” or moderate quality, and those ˂50% complete were considered “not completed” or bad quality.
Qualitative analysis was conducted on data from the structured questionnaires with graduates, supervisors, and partners, and semi-structured interviews with program staff. Qualitative data were analyzed in French using NVivo. An inductive codebook was developed by identifying the most frequent terms and phrases that appeared in responses from graduates, supervisors, partners, and staff. Overarching results and conclusions were developed through thematic analysis. Outcome harvesting used an inductive approach to analyze the data, allowing patterns of change – expected or not – to emerge from it, then triangulating the results with program goals.
Ethical considerations
This evaluation received a non-research determination by CDC and the Guinea MoH ethics committee. Oral consent was obtained from participants prior to participation. Only the evaluation team had access to the data via password-protected files.
The graduate response rate was 94% by WhatsApp and 90% for in-person interviews. The response rate for job supervisors was 65%, outbreak supervisors was 98%, and all program partners and program staff responded.
Best practices and challenges in program implementation
Of the 213 IATs expected, 88% of baseline participant questionnaires, 67% of cohort participant questionnaires, and 44% of exit interviews were received. The review of the end-of-cohort reports showed that mentors were selected based on their prior experience with FETP-Advanced or FETP-Intermediate, and participants were selected because of their current role in surveillance and commitment to working in surveillance for at least three years after the training. Lastly, the review of the CTAPs showed that FETP-Frontline had made significant progress in integrating within the MoH and achieved advanced levels in several of the indicators of CDC’s Institutionalisation Matrix. The CTAP also showed that graduates have a strong presence in the MoH, with more than 50% of the FETP technical support being MoH staff, and MoH actively uses graduates in outbreak responses over 75% of the time.
Although the program showed several successes and best practices, it also faced several challenges, including the retention of mentors and staff for the program. One of the program staff members said:
“The biggest challenge is perhaps mentoring, and so far, it is a part that is not yet well mastered. So, we have a problem with mentors because mentors are not permanent”.
Additionally, the CTAP and program staff interviews noted sustainable funding for FETP-Frontline as a challenge in program implementation. Specifically, one staff member said:
“And the last challenge I’m going to tell you that I have the concern about is the concern of funding for the continuity of the FETP”.
From the supervisors’ perspective, 39% stated that graduates did not encounter any difficulties participating in FETP-Frontline. However, 22% said graduates had limited time to apply what they learned, and 14% reported that the course material was too difficult.
Sociodemographic characteristics
Of the 147 graduates interviewed, 88% were male, 88% worked in the human health sector, 7% worked in animal and environmental health, and 80% worked at the sub-district and district levels. Sixty-nine (47%) graduates were promoted in their jobs after completing FETP-Frontline, and 97% attributed their job promotion to skills learned in FETP-Frontline.
Training effectiveness
The pre- and post-tests showed improvement in surveillance skills from before to after training completion, based on overall respective measures of 11.9 to 17.9 (p < 0.00001). Additionally, graduates’ self-assessed skill level increased for each of the 11 FETP-Frontline surveillance competencies from before (mean = 0.9–1.6) to after (mean = 3.0–4.0) FETP-Frontline, as well as from after completing FETP-Frontline (mean = 3.0–4.0) to the time of the evaluation (mean = 4.0). This improvement was statistically significant at p<0.001 (Figure 1) between all three points in time. This shows that training was effective from before to after and shows evidence of skill retention from after to the time of the evaluation.
Eighty six percent of graduates stated that they spend 3-5 days a week on surveillance activities in their current work. The majority of graduates (99%) used skills learned from FETP-Frontline to collect or receive data on reportable diseases, and more than 50% have applied all the skills learned from FETP-Frontline. However, 37% and 22% of graduates don’t use fishbone problem analysis and SWOT analysis in their work activities, respectively (Figure 2). Additionally, findings from the worksite visits indicated that 92% had a list of reportable diseases available, 91% had a list of diseases requiring immediate notification, 90% had case definitions, and 75% had trend bar charts. The case investigation forms were fully completed at 74%, where the remaining 26% were partially filled or not filled. However, rumour logs and verbal autopsies were not available in 79% and 60% of sites, respectively (Figure 3).
Graduates mentioned several facilitating factors in applying what they learned in training. Specifically, 90% had support from their supervisors, 67% had the opportunity to apply what they learned, 64% had the time to apply what they learned, 56% had colleagues who supported them in using their skills, and 42% had the resources needed. However, 50% of graduates reported on their current challenges using the content of FETP-Frontline in their work, of which 24% said they didn’t have the resources they needed, 15% said they needed additional training in the field, and 11% stated they didn’t have time to use what they learned.
Impact of FETP-Frontline on Guinea’s surveillance system
The majority (89%) of job supervisors answered that the FETP-Frontline training had a significant positive impact on the country’s surveillance system. All 13 partners interviewed said that graduates positively changed the way surveillance activities were conducted, and 69% of them responded that FETP-Frontline contributed to more than half of the observed changes in surveillance. When partners were asked to give more explanation, they said:
“Regarding surveillance, there is a marked improvement in the timeliness and completeness of data.”
Another partner stated:
“Since Ebola until now, there has been a great improvement in the way of presenting information: well-defined indicators; the analysis (time, place, person) facilitates decision-making.”
Additionally, the first most frequently reported change from the outcome harvesting was in improved surveillance, including data management, analysis, and reporting, which appeared in 53% of all graduate outcomes and is best exemplified by the following statement:
“In 2022, in Guinea, the reporting rate of surveillance data from the country’s 38 districts increased to 90% compared to 60% in 2017.”
Another key finding of this evaluation was FETP-Frontline graduates’ contribution to outbreak responses in Guinea. Between 2020 and 2022, 123 (81%) graduates said they participated in 123 outbreak responses. Among them, 35% of the outbreak responses were for measles, 25% for COVID-19, 14% for Lassa fever, 8% for Ebola, 4% for poliomyelitis, and 14% for the remaining (Rabies, Marburg, yellow fever, tetanus, anthrax, foot and mouth disease, avian flu, and infectious bursal disease). The public health emergency response or outbreak investigations took place at all levels; more specifically, 96% occurred at the sub-district or district level. Program staff described that through FETP-Frontline training, the quality of surveillance activities and investigations conducted by graduates was greatly improved. Using the worksite visit tool to indicate completeness of surveillance documents, the quality of outbreak investigation reports improved from 66% from before FETP to 93% after FETP
From the outcome harvesting data collection process, the second and the third most frequently mentioned outcomes were outbreak response/containment or reduction in cases, which appeared in 51% of outcomes, and early detection and/or investigation, which appeared in 40% of outcomes. Both outcome categories are best exemplified by this quote:
“The early detection of the 2021 Ebola outbreak (15 days) by FETP frontline graduates and their deployment on the field to respond to this outbreak compared to the late detection of the 2014-2016 Ebola outbreak (four months) decreased the case fatality rate from 67% for the 2014-2016 Ebola outbreak to 52% for the 2021 Ebola outbreak.”
Most notably, both of these categories defined by the evaluation team fell squarely under the Impact level of the FETP-Frontline’s logic model, and 60% of all outcomes reflected one or both of these impact-level changes.
The fourth most frequent outcome was increased vaccination, noted in 30% of all outcomes and exemplified by the following statement:
“On February 22, 2020, a Yellow Fever epidemic detected by a FETP frontline graduate broke out in the Koundara health district. This epidemic resulted in 12 deaths and 105 suspected cases, 3 of which were confirmed at the Nongo Hemorrhagic Fever Laboratory. Following the implementation of recommendations from FETP-frontline yellow fever outbreak investigations, 148,400 inhabitants (95%) of the target population were vaccinated, reducing the mortality rate to almost zero.”
Lastly, the fifth most frequent outcome was the improved competencies of public health officials, including training, support, and supervision, which appeared in 28% of all outcomes. This outcome was best exemplified by the following statement:
“The training of district and local supervisors, followed by teaching and supervision of the immunization teams, and strengthening the capacity of those in charge of the Expanded Program on Immunization (EPI) to identify bottlenecks or shortcomings in EPI services and to propose corrective solutions has made it possible to improve immunization coverage to more than 90% of children, according to the WHO LQAS survey in this last commune.”
The evaluation identified the program’s best practices and challenges in implementation. The program showed evidence of utilizing best practices in using internal assessment tools, applying appropriate selection criteria for targeting graduates working in surveillance, and showing progress in integration into the MoH. Although Guinea FETP-Frontline is integrated into the MoH, there is no sustainable funding for implementation. Other evaluations, such as Ethiopia FETP-Advanced, Yemen FETP, and Central Africa FETP (CAFETP), have also noted sustainable funding as a challenge [5, 7-8]. CAFETP suggests that through ensuring relevant career opportunities for graduates, establishing a career pathway for graduates, and encouraging government ownership of FETP, sustainability may be achieved [8]. Guinea FETP-Frontline should consider working with MoH in identifying and establishing a career pathway for graduates, as well as continue to advocate to MoH on supporting FETP.
The sociodemographic characteristics of graduates indicated that Guinea’s FETP-Frontline is training individuals at the district and subdistrict level, which is appropriate targeting for the Frontline tier. However, a significant finding highlighted inequity, with one out of five graduates being female. This finding is similar to the previous evaluation of the first two cohorts of FETP-Frontline in Guinea [3]. Despite the inequities between men and women in FETP-Frontline, 51% of health personnel in Guinea are women [9]. Although there are more women in the health workforce in Guinea, a low proportion of women are appointed to positions of leadership for surveillance at the district, regional, and national levels. Thus, Guinea’s FETP-Frontline should continue to encourage women to apply to FETP, and advocate to the MoH to prioritise equity between men and women in surveillance positions in the districts. We recommend close coordination with the higher education sector to ensure a strong educational pipeline that specifically encourages female graduates to pursue careers in the public sector.
Guinea’s FETP-Frontline implemented the program using a One Health approach by adapting modules in the curriculum to include One Health concepts and selecting trainees from animal and environmental health sectors. However, only 7% of FETP-Frontline graduates were animal or environmental health surveillance officers. In Guinea, there is a parallel program, In-Service Applied Veterinary Epidemiology Training (ISAVET), where veterinarians are trained. Due to this program, the number of animal health service officers training in FETP-Frontline is reduced. Recruitment to include more animal and environmental health trainees and curriculum adaptation to include more animal and environmental health content should be considered for Guinea’s FETP-Frontline.
FETP-Frontline was successful in its training effectiveness, where graduates significantly increased their surveillance skill levels from before to after training, and from after training to the time of the evaluation. Skills learned in FETP-Frontline aided 46% of graduates in being promoted in their job after completing training. The graduates used their acquired surveillance skills to conduct surveillance activities in their current work.
Compared to the previous evaluation, similarities were observed in the availability of the case definition at the worksite visits. However, this evaluation showed significant improvements in the availability of other surveillance documents. For example, availability of the list of diseases requiring immediate notification increased from 54% to 91%, and trend bar charts increased from 22% to 75%. Despite the increases in availability of surveillance documents, rumour logs were not available in 79% of sites visited for this evaluation, compared to 84% from the previous evaluation [3].
This evaluation provided evidence and specific examples to show that FETP-Frontline has contributed to increased timeliness and completeness of surveillance data and has contributed to early detection, notification, and response during outbreaks and public health emergencies. Surveillance data reporting improved from 60% before FETP-Frontline implementation to 90% after FETP-Frontline implementation, according to the outcome harvest results. Similarities have been observed in Benin, where surveillance data completeness improved from 35% to 85% after the implementation of the first FETP-Frontline cohort [1]. This continues to confirm how FETP contributes to strengthening a country’s overall surveillance system through workforce development and capacity building, thus improving global health security.
This evaluation has several limitations. First, self-reported data may lead to a misestimation of abilities when compared with objective assessments. This may be compounded by issues of comprehension and memory recall bias. To address this response bias, we used the worksite visits and job and outbreak supervisor questionnaire data to compare with the graduate questionnaire data. Second, the results of this evaluation cannot be generalised outside of the FETP-Frontline program in Guinea. However, these findings may be useful for the development and implementation of other workforce capacity-building efforts in Guinea or other West African countries. Third, there may also be other concurrent training that graduates took that contributed to the strengthening of the surveillance system. Thus, by conducting this evaluation and sharing the results with other programs and capacity-building partners, it is possible that improvements will be made to a broader list of workforce development programs.
Guinea FETP-Frontline was successful in imparting surveillance skills in graduates, and graduates showed success in using skills learned after training. Guinea’s FETP-Frontline made a significant and positive impact on the surveillance system and outbreak response. Guinea-FETP should emphasise the importance of keeping rumour logs and verbal autopsy forms at worksites, consider advocating for equity between men and women in surveillance positions, and advocate for program sustainability. Recommendations from this evaluation should be considered in future implementation of Guinea FETP-Frontline and in other workforce development programs.
What is already known about the topic
What this study adds
The authors thank Dr. Nouanan Gbamou, Dr. Julie Sinclair, Dr. Boubacar Diallo, Peter Thomas, Lesley Chace, and Dr. Lise Martel for their support and contributions in conducting this evaluation. The authors are grateful to the Guinea CDC Country Office and FETP program staff for logistical support, and to the data collectors and scheduler for their data collection. Lastly, the authors appreciate all the participants who have agreed to participate in this evaluation and shared their perspectives.
Disclaimer
The conclusions, findings, and opinions expressed by authors contributing to this journal do not necessarily reflect the official position of the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, or the authors’ affiliated institutions.
Conceptualization: Angelina Cui, Salomon Corvil, Reina Turcios-Ruiz
Formal analysis: Angelina Cui, Asmae Khattabi, Briana Lucido
Investigation: Angelina Cui, Asmae Khattabi, Salomon Corvil, Atalie Pestalozzi, Reina Turcios-Ruiz
Methodology: Angelina Cui, Salomon Corvil, Chelsea Horváth, Atalie Pestalozzi, Reina Turcios-Ruiz
Project administration: Angelina Cui, Asmae Khattabi, Salomon Corvil, Chelsea Horváth, Atalie Pestalozzi, Reina Turcios-Ruiz
Resources: Angelina Cui
Software: Angelina Cui
Supervision: Angelina Cui, Asmae Khattabi, Chelsea Horváth, Reina Turcios-Ruiz
Validation: Angelina Cui, Salomon Corvil, Briana Lucido, Reina Turcios-Ruiz
Visualization: Angelina Cui
Writing – original draft: Angelina Cui, Atalie Pestalozzi
Writing – review & editing: Angelina Cui, Asmae Khattabi, Salomon Corvil, Chelsea Horváth, Briana Lucido, Atalie Pestalozzi, Reina Turcios-Ruiz
