Conference Abstract | Volume 8, Abstract ELIC2025267 (Poster 144) | Published: 07 Aug 2025
Charity Osafemi1, Yetunde Abioye1, Rimamdeyati Yashe1, Fatima Saleh1, Jide Idris1, Favour Adeniji2, Nwenyi Okoro3, Wari Numbere4
1Nigeria Centre for Disease Control and Prevention, Abuja, 2Jhpiego, Abuja, Nigeria, 3Africa Centres for Disease Control and Prevention, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia, 4Task Force for Global Health, Atlanta, GA, USA
&Corresponding author: Charity Osafemi, Nigeria Centre for Disease Control and Prevention, Abuja, Nigeria. Email: Charity.osafemi@ncdc.gov.ng
Received: 10 May 2025, Accepted: 09 Jul 2025, Published: 07 Aug 2025
Domain: Infectious Disease Epidemiology
Keywords: Reporting, health facilities, communities, Lassa fever
©Charity Osafemi 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: Charity Osafemi et al., Comparative analysis of Lassa fever case identification: Health facilities vs. community settings. Journal of Interventional Epidemiology and Public Health. 2025;8(ConfProc5):00288. https://doi.org/10.37432/JIEPH-CONFPRO5-00288
Lassa fever is endemic in Nigeria, especially in areas where multimammate rats are common. It has been a public health concern in Nigeria since 1950. The study emphasizes the significance of integrated surveillance systems, identifying detection gaps, understanding underreporting factors, and strengthening collaboration between community health workers and healthcare facilities in Nigeria.
This study conducted a retrospective analysis of Lassa fever cases reported between Epi Week 1 and Epi Week 20, 2025, using data from the Surveillance Outbreak Response Management and Analysis System (SORMAS). Comparison of case detection and reporting effectiveness between health facilities and community settings, examining modes of reporting and detection performance was analysed.
Health Facility Cases: 87% (n=426) of cases were detected, with a median reporting time of 2 days. Community Cases: 13% (n=62) of cases were identified, with a median reporting time of 4 days. Health facilities reported cases more promptly and in higher numbers compared to community settings, underscoring their importance in Lassa fever surveillance.
The study shows disparities in reporting timeliness and case detection rates between two critical surveillance settings. Health facilities are crucial for Lassa fever surveillance, but community-based detection is also essential. Strengthening community surveillance, integrating health workers, addressing case identification gaps, enhancing community awareness, and fostering collaboration between facilities and communities are recommended.
Menu