Neftaly: Evaluating the Impact of Innovations on Biomarker Surveillance Outcomes
Introduction
In recent years, health systems have embraced a wave of innovation in biomarker surveillance—from digital diagnostics and mobile health tools to artificial intelligence and real-time reporting platforms. While these advancements offer significant promise, their true value lies in measurable improvements to surveillance quality, speed, equity, and decision-making.
At Neftaly, we believe that rigorous evaluation is essential to understanding what works, for whom, and under what conditions. This ensures that innovation is not only adopted but delivers lasting impact on public health outcomes.
Why Evaluation Matters
Implementing new surveillance technologies without proper evaluation risks wasting resources and missing opportunities to scale what works. Evaluating innovation allows health systems to:
- Measure effectiveness and efficiency
- Identify barriers and enablers
- Justify investments to stakeholders
- Ensure accountability and transparency
- Inform evidence-based scale-up and policy decisions
Key Evaluation Dimensions for Biomarker Surveillance Innovations
1. Data Quality and Timeliness
- Has the innovation improved the accuracy, completeness, and speed of biomarker data collection?
- Are results being reported in time to inform clinical decisions and public health actions?
2. Reach and Equity
- Has access to biomarker testing improved, especially in rural, marginalized, or high-risk populations?
- Are innovations closing or widening health equity gaps?
3. System Responsiveness
- Are health authorities able to respond faster to emerging threats due to real-time data?
- Is there improved coordination and communication between surveillance units, labs, and policy teams?
4. Health Outcomes
- Are innovations contributing to earlier detection, better disease management, or fewer complications?
- Is there evidence of reduced morbidity or mortality in targeted areas?
5. Cost-Effectiveness
- Are resources being used more efficiently (e.g., fewer delays, reduced duplications, better targeting)?
- How do costs compare to traditional surveillance methods?
6. User Experience and System Adoption
- Are frontline health workers and decision-makers using and trusting the new tools?
- What feedback do communities and providers give on usability and cultural relevance?
Neftaly’s Evaluation Approach
We use a mixed-methods evaluation framework that combines quantitative metrics with qualitative insights to provide a 360-degree view of innovation performance.
Our services include:
- Baseline and endline assessments
- Surveillance impact evaluations
- User feedback and satisfaction surveys
- Data system audits and performance reviews
- Policy-level outcome mapping
We work with governments and partners to ensure findings are actionable, contextualized, and aligned with national priorities.
Case Example: Strengthening Surveillance in Southern Africa
In partnership with ministries of health, Neftaly helped evaluate the rollout of mobile biomarker testing units in rural clinics. The evaluation showed:
- A 48% increase in early HIV and TB diagnoses
- Real-time reporting reduced referral time by 60%
- Frontline staff reported higher confidence in decision-making
- Cost per test decreased due to reduced transport and lab overheads
These results informed a national policy shift to expand mobile testing in high-burden districts.
Recommendations for Effective Innovation Evaluation
- Integrate evaluation into planning from the outset
- Use local context to guide indicator selection and interpretation
- Engage stakeholders in defining success and reviewing findings
- Share results transparently to promote learning and accountability
- Adapt based on evidence—discontinue what doesn’t work and scale what does
Conclusion
Innovation without evaluation is guesswork. At Neftaly, we turn innovation into impact by ensuring that new surveillance methods are not only adopted—but are effective, equitable, and scalable.