Skip to main navigation Skip to search Skip to main content

Measles incidence estimations based on the notification by general practioners were suboptimal

  • Chantal E.D. Van Isterdael
  • , Gerrit A. Van Essen*
  • , Marijke M. Kuyvenhoven
  • , Arno W. Hoes
  • , Wim A.B. Stalman
  • , Niek J. De Wit
  • *Corresponding author for this work

Research output: Contribution to journalArticleAcademicpeer-review

15 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Objective The aim of this study was to determine the notification by general practitioners (GPs) to the Municipal Health Service (MHS) and the presentation of measles complaints by patients to the GP during a measles epidemic in a 78% vaccinated population. Study design and setting Measles cases in children under 13 years were identified via questionnaires, GPs' records, and MHS's records. Consultation rate, notification rate, and completeness of notification were determined. Determinants of consultation were identified by multivariable logistic regression analysis. Results Among 1654 responders, 164 measles cases were identified. Consultation rate: 30%; notification rate: 30% (range among GPs: 0-62%); completeness of notification: 9%. Determinants of GP consultation: perceived seriousness of illness (adjusted OR 45; 95% CI: 6-347), self-reported complications (adjusted OR 9; 95% CI: 1-70), and need to consult for respiratory tract infections (adjusted OR 8; 95% CI: 1-51). Conclusion Incidence estimations based on the notification by GPs to the MHS are suboptimal for measles in The Netherlands. Perceived seriousness of illness seemed to be the most important factor to consult.

Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)633-637
Number of pages5
JournalJournal of Clinical Epidemiology
Volume57
Issue number6
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - 1 Jun 2004

Keywords

  • Complications
  • Epidemic
  • General practitioner
  • Measles
  • Notification
  • The Netherlands

Fingerprint

Dive into the research topics of 'Measles incidence estimations based on the notification by general practioners were suboptimal'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this