ArticleCanadian journal of public health = Revue canadienne de sante publique2013
Are Campylobacter cases low risk for public health follow-up?
Article in Canadian journal of public health = Revue canadienne de sante publique, 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesMost Campylobacter cases are treated as low risk enterics (LRE) and receive a mailed letter from Toronto Public Health (TPH) with a questionnaire to gather basic risk information. This study sought to identify reasons why Campylobacter cases who were sent this questionnaire did not respond to the letter and to determine whether any of these cases were working in a high-risk occupation.
methodsCases reported to TPH between June 11, 2012 and December 6, 2012 who had not returned the questionnaire within 30 days were telephoned. Participants were asked about awareness of the original letter, reasons for not responding, and whether they worked in a high-risk occupation.
resultsOf the 226 cases identified as not responding to the letter, 172 (76.1%) were reached, and 162 (71.7%) answered the survey questions. The most frequent reason chosen for not responding to the original letter was "forgot" (54.4%). The most common suggestion chosen for ways to encourage response to the original letter was "more information on importance of returning questionnaire" (19.1%). Of the 119 cases with a known occupation, 3 (2.4%) were employed in a sensitive occupation - these include a family physician, a food server, and a line cook. None worked while ill. When prompted with a list of reasons for not returning the questionnaire, the majority of respondents indicated that they "forgot" (54.4%); the next most frequent response was "recovered by illness no longer considered it relevant" (21.5%).
conclusionTo increase response rates in the future, a cover letter should more clearly explain why the response is being solicited by Public Health, even after recovery from the illness, and the form should be simplified for mail return. A very small number of clients originally not reached through the course of the routine LRE program were working in sensitive occupations. Since none reported working while ill, the likelihood of direct or indirect transmission of Campylobacter from these three individuals was low. Using a LRE system to monitor a widespread mostly low-morbidity gastroenteric illness can be an effective public health strategy.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.