Mobile phones as potential tools for surveillance in Tanzania.

<p>(A) Access and use of mobile phones versus computers by surveillance system users and 95% confidence intervals. The effects are shown of user (B) age and (C) self-reported use of text messaging (short message service or SMS), on the standardized time to complete surveillance forms on mobile phones, with boxes shaded in proportion to the sample size in the group (<a href="http://www.plosmedicine.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pmed.1002002#pmed.1002002.s002" target="_blank">S2 Data</a>). Time to completion in minutes was standardized by computing z-scores by sector, because forms used by health workers for recording bite patients were longer than forms used by livestock field officers to record mass dog vaccination campaigns (<a href="http://www.plosmedicine.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pmed.1002002#pmed.1002002.s005" target="_blank">S3 Table</a>, <a href="http://www.plosmedicine.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pmed.1002002#pmed.1002002.s008" target="_blank">S1 Text</a>). (D) Number and percentage of mobile phone form submissions where helpline support was used (<8% overall and <3% for the most commonly used form, that for bite patient records, data in <a href="http://www.plosmedicine.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pmed.1002002#pmed.1002002.s003" target="_blank">S1 Table</a>). Additional forms submitted by staff involved in system development and therefore familiar with the mobile phone application were excluded.</p

Example of mobile phone surveillance application.

<p>Mobile phone interface showing form being (A) completed for an example bite patient and (B) submitted.</p

The mobile-phone–based surveillance system.

<p>In the map, blue dots represent facilities that provide post-exposure prophylaxis (PEP) and report using the surveillance system (large dots represent hospitals, small dots represent health centres). The map is shaded by population density with wildlife-protected areas in white. The panels illustrate example surveillance data (<a href="http://www.plosmedicine.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pmed.1002002#pmed.1002002.s001" target="_blank">S1 Data</a>) from different districts that are annotated on the map by their initials. These data show monthly incidence of bite patients per 100,000 people on Pemba Island (P) and Ulanga (U), PEP use and shortages for Kibaha rural (KR) and Kisarawe (K), progress switching from intramuscular (IM) to intradermal (ID) administration of PEP for Morogoro rural (MR) and Rufiji (R), and numbers of dogs vaccinated each month for Nachingwea (N) and Masasi (M).</p