Hostname: page-component-7c8c6479df-27gpq Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-03-27T12:47:32.392Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

A population-based estimate of the substantial burden of diarrhoeal disease in the United States; FoodNet, 1996–2003

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  08 August 2006

T. F. JONES
Affiliation:
Tennessee Department of Health, Nashville, TN, USA
M. B. McMILLIAN
Affiliation:
Tennessee Department of Health, Nashville, TN, USA
E. SCALLAN
Affiliation:
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta, GA, USA
P. D. FRENZEN
Affiliation:
Economic Research Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Washington, DC, USA
A. B. CRONQUIST
Affiliation:
Colorado Department of Health, Denver, CO, USA
S. THOMAS
Affiliation:
Georgia Division of Public Health, Atlanta, GA, USA
F. J. ANGULO
Affiliation:
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta, GA, USA
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

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.

From 1996 to 2003, four 12-month population-based surveys were performed in FoodNet sites to determine the burden of diarrhoeal disease in the population. Acute diarrhoeal illness (ADI) was defined as [ges ]3 loose stools in 24 hours with impairment of daily activities or duration of diarrhoea >1 day. A total of 52840 interviews were completed. The overall weighted prevalence of ADI in the previous month was 5·1% (95% CI±0·3%), corresponding to 0·6 episodes of ADI per person per year. The average monthly prevalence of ADI was similar in each of the four survey cycles (range 4·5–5·2%). Rates of ADI were highest in those age <5 years. Of those with ADI, 33·8% (95% CI±2·7%) reported vomiting, 19·5% (95% CI±2·1%) visited a medical provider, and 7·8% (95% CI±1·4%) took antibiotics. Rates of ADI were remarkably consistent over time, and demonstrate the substantial burden placed on the health-care system.

Type
Research Article
Copyright
2006 Cambridge University Press

Footnotes

The views expressed in this paper are those of the authors, and may not be attributed to the Economic Research Service or the U.S. Department of Agriculture.