Surveillance systems evaluation in the context of avian diseases: a scoping review on current approaches and attributes

Diseases of birds represent a unique challenge in global health, given their potential to cause major economic losses and serve as zoonotic threats. Surveillance systems are therefore pivotal in managing such threats and the assessment of their performance is paramount. However, evaluations in bird health surveillance often lack standardization, with heterogeneous approaches used. Given this background, the hereby presented scoping review aims to generate a common evidence base on attributes and methods used to evaluate surveillance systems focused on avian diseases, highlighting gaps and areas for improvement. A systematic literature search was conducted in PubMed and Web of Science, to access studies published between 2009 and 2024. A total of 15 studies were eligible, covering 16 surveillance systems across Asia, Africa and Europe. A total of 26 attributes were identified and categorized into five classes, namely Organization (number of attributes, NoA = 2), Implementation (NoA = 7), Performance (NoA = 11), Impact (NoA = 2), and One Health approach (NoA = 4). Evaluation methods varied widely, with limited use of established frameworks in bird health surveillance. Although increasingly important, the assessment of the human behavioural dimension in surveillance activities was underutilized, as the assessment of the effectiveness of surveillance’s spatial coverage. The diversity of attributes captured reflects the complexity of avian disease surveillance but also highlights the need for standardized evaluations with the integration of underutilized attributes. Addressing these gaps could enhance the effectiveness and efficiency of surveillance systems, eventually achieving better public health outcomes. RESEARCH HIGHLIGHTS: Heterogeneous methods of evaluation are applied in the context of avian disease surveillance, with 26 attributes identified. Sensitivity resulted as the attribute most frequently used, with slight variations in definition across studies. The human behavioural dimension and the effectiveness of spatial coverage in surveillance systems were infrequently addressed. Highlights the need for standardized guidelines for evaluation of disease surveillance.