Hostname: page-component-8448b6f56d-gtxcr Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-23T16:25:30.717Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

A pilot study of infectious intestinal disease in England

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  15 May 2009

P. Roderick ,
J. Wheeler ,
J. Cowdex ,
P. Sockett ,
R. Skinner ,
P. Mortimer ,
B. Rowe  and
L. Rodriques
P. Roderick
Affiliation:
Medical Research Council Epidemiology and Medical Care Unit, The Wolfson Institute of Preventive Medicine, The Medical College of St Bartholomew's Hospital, Charterhouse Square, London EC1M 6BQ
J. Wheeler
Affiliation:
The London School of Hygiene and Tropical, Medicine, Keppel Street, London WC1E 7HT
J. Cowdex
Affiliation:
Communicable Disease Surveillance Centre, 61 Colindale Avenue, London NW9 5EQ
P. Sockett
Affiliation:
Communicable Disease Surveillance Centre, 61 Colindale Avenue, London NW9 5EQ
R. Skinner
Affiliation:
Department of Health, Skipton House, 80 London Road, London SE1 6LW
P. Mortimer
Affiliation:
Coventry Public Health, Coventry and Warwickshire Hospital, Stoney Stanton Road, Coventry CV1 4FH
B. Rowe
Affiliation:
Central Public Health Laboratory, 61 Colindale Avenue, London NW9 5HT
L. Rodriques
Affiliation:
The London School of Hygiene and Tropical, Medicine, Keppel Street, London WC1E 7HT
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Summary

Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.

Pilot studies to test methods to determine the incidence, agents, risk factors and socioeconomic costs of infectious intestinal disease (IID) in England were carried out as recommended by the Committee on the Microbiological Safety of Food (the Richmond Committee) by eight general practices. There were case control and enumeration studies of patients presenting to general practice with IID, a population-based prospective cohort study, and a survey of socioeconomic costs of cases of IID. Information on risk factors was obtained by questionnaire (self-administered compared with interview) and a stool sample was requested on all cases and controls. Response rates in the GP case control study were 75% for case questionnaires and 74% for stools; for controls the figures were 70% and 68% respectively. The acceptance rate into the cohort study was 49%; this was significantly higher where phone contact was made. The rate was similar if recruitment was by individual or household. Follow-up of the cohort by negative reporting was complete for up to 6 months. Direct postage by subject was required to obtain fresh stool specimens. Estimates were obtained of presentation rates of IID and the distribution of risk factors which were used to plan the main study. The pilot study demonstrated that it is possible to undertake a national study based in general practice to determine the incidence of IID in the population and presenting to GPs and its agents, risk factors and costs.

Type
Research Article
Information
Epidemiology & Infection , Volume 114 , Issue 2 , April 1995 , pp. 277 - 288
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1995

References

REFERENCES

1.The Committee on the Microbiological Safety of Food. (Richmond, Chairman M.). The microbiological safety of food. Part 1. London: HMSO. 1990.Google Scholar
2.Sockett, P. Social and economic aspects of foodborne disease. Food Policy 1993; 18: 110–19.Google Scholar
3.Dean, AG, Dean, JH.Burton, AH.Dicker, RC. Epi info, version 5: a word processing database and statistical system for epidemiology on microcomputers. Atlanta, Georgia. USA: Centres for Disease Control, 1990.Google Scholar
4.Statistics and Epidemiology Research Company. Epidemiological Graphics Estimation Testing package (EGRET) Washington, USA: SERC. 1991.Google Scholar
5.Rousseau, SA. Investigation of acute gastroenteritis in general practice – relevance of newer laboratory methods. J R Coll Gen Pract 1983: 33: 514–16.Google Scholar
6.Kendall, EJC.Tanner, EL. Campylobacter enteritis in general practice. J Hyg 1982: 88: 155–63.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
7.Cowden, JC, Lynch, D.Joseph, CA et al. . Case-control study of infections with Salmonella enteritidis phage type 4 in England. BMJ 1989: 299: 771–3.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
8.Finegold, SM, Sutter, VL.Mathisen, GE. Normal indigenous intestinal flora. In: Hentges, DJ. ed. Human intestinal microflora in heath and disease. London: Academic Press, 1983: 3–31.Google Scholar
9.Hoogenboom-Verdegaal, AMH, During, M, Engels, GB et al. . Report 149101001. Population survey into gastrointestinal complaints in four regions of the Netherlands in 1991. Part 1. Methods of investigation and calculation of incidence of gastro-enteritis. Bilthoven. Netherlands: National Institute of Public Health and Environmental Hygiene. 1991.Google Scholar
10.Monto, AS.Napier, JA.Metzner, HL. The Tecumseh study of respiratory illness. Plan of study and observations of syndromes of acute respiratory disease. Am J Epidemiol 1971: 94: 269–79.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
11.Payment, P.Richardson, L.Siemeatyci, J.Dewar, R.Edwardes, M.Franco, E. A randomised trial to evaluate and standardise the risk of gastrointestinal disease due to consumption of drinking water meeting current microbiological standards. Am J Publ Health 1991: 81: 703–8.Google Scholar
12.Office of Population Censuses and Surveys/Communicable Disease Surveillance Centre. Communicable Disease Surveillance Statistics for England and Wales 1991. Series MB2. No 18. London: HMSO. 1991.Google Scholar
13.Jarman, B. Identification of underprivileged areas. BMJ 1983: 286: 1705 9.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed