Converting single case reporting to default aggregate case reporting format

[aninek]

Purpose:
All text messages will be stored in #48 as "Original message". Accurate volunteer reports will follow either of the two reporting structures:

• [Number] # [Number] # [Number] (two hash - single event Parse an SMS containing a single case report #44 )
• [Number] # [Number] # [Number] # [Number] # [Number] (four hash - aggregate event Parse an SMS containing several case reports for a health event #46)

We want to map how two hash reports fit into the the four hash database.

Conversation:

Event	Sex	age
3	1	1
4	1	2
5	2	1
6	2	2

Event is defined by Event UID in Event database #33
Sex is defined as Male =1, Female =2
Age is defined as <5 =1, >5=2

Database structure: Converting previous two hash text messages into four hash database.

Event	Male<5	Male>5	Female<5	Female>5
3	1	0	0	0
4	0	1	0	0
5	0	0	1	0
6	0	0	0	1

Related background tickets:

• SMS to database Inbound API (SMS to Report database) #25
• How events are stores: Health Risk storage #33
• Background on single case reporting: Parse an SMS containing a single case report #44
• Background on aggregated case reporting: Parse an SMS containing several case reports for a health event #46
• Report database Report database #48
• Get SMS format flag from CBS form definition Define new CBS project - form (page 2) #37
• Mapping of phone to location A system for mapping phone number to location #26

Constraints:
Original report is always kept as its own variable.

Confirmation:
All example two hash text messages sent and recorded in 4 hash system database.

[karolikl]

@aninek, at the moment all single case reports and aggregated case reports are displayed in the same way, meaning you're not able to see the actual age (you only see over5/under5).

My worry is that you, in fact, want to see the specific age supplied in the single case reports. Could you please provide some insights into this?

At the moment, this is what is listed:

[aninek]

@karolikl We have gone around in circles on this, but have landed on <5 and >5 being sufficient data for outbreak investigation/deciding on response. Limiting to <5 and >5 age groups also means single case reports will be less identifiable (e.g. perhaps only 1 13 year old boy living in the community, but many >5 years), which is good. So in conclusion: we only need under five or over five.