Revista medico-chirurgicala a Societatii de Medici si Naturalisti din Iasi · 2007
[Epidemiological research on rubella incidence in families with low socioeconomic status].
Аннотация на английскомСтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Costan Oana-Carmen, Manole Alina, Trifan Mihaela
Аннотация
AIM: To know some clinical epidemiological aspects of rubella familial outbreaks.
MATERIAL AND METHODS: Authors present results of a retro-prospective epidemiological study carried out on a sample of 31 familial outbreaks (15 from urban, 16 from rural area), including 133 children, 3-18 aged, between 2002-2004.
RESULTS: Typical rubella form was diagnosed in 72 of 133 children (55%). Among patients, the age group 5-11 was predominant, and repartition by sex does not represent significant differences. Low socioeconomic status (51.6% farmers, with 2-12 children; 19.3% un-employed; 16.1% parents at work abroad; 6.5% one-parent families; 6,5% both parents suffering from chronic diseases) was involved in favouring the rubella virus dissemination among children, so that, in 4 families (12.9%), 3 cases were registered, and in 27 (87%), two, respectively.
CONCLUSIONS: Comparatively, in control families with medium and high socioeconomic conditions, rubella cases were absent or singular with benign manifestations. For family and school physicians, clinical epidemiological surveillance has to be differentiated, depending on socioeconomic status of families with many children, at risk to rubella, especially during the epidemic years.
MATERIAL AND METHODS: Authors present results of a retro-prospective epidemiological study carried out on a sample of 31 familial outbreaks (15 from urban, 16 from rural area), including 133 children, 3-18 aged, between 2002-2004.
RESULTS: Typical rubella form was diagnosed in 72 of 133 children (55%). Among patients, the age group 5-11 was predominant, and repartition by sex does not represent significant differences. Low socioeconomic status (51.6% farmers, with 2-12 children; 19.3% un-employed; 16.1% parents at work abroad; 6.5% one-parent families; 6,5% both parents suffering from chronic diseases) was involved in favouring the rubella virus dissemination among children, so that, in 4 families (12.9%), 3 cases were registered, and in 27 (87%), two, respectively.
CONCLUSIONS: Comparatively, in control families with medium and high socioeconomic conditions, rubella cases were absent or singular with benign manifestations. For family and school physicians, clinical epidemiological surveillance has to be differentiated, depending on socioeconomic status of families with many children, at risk to rubella, especially during the epidemic years.