4.4 Article

Are Well-Child Visits a Risk Factor for Subsequent Influenza-Like Illness Visits?

期刊

INFECTION CONTROL AND HOSPITAL EPIDEMIOLOGY
卷 35, 期 3, 页码 251-256

出版社

CAMBRIDGE UNIV PRESS
DOI: 10.1086/675281

关键词

-

资金

  1. National Institutes of Health [K01 AI75089]
  2. University of Iowa Institute for Clinical and Translational Science [KL2]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

(See the commentary by Saiman, on pages 257--258.)Objective.To determine whether well-child visits are a risk factor for subsequent influenza-like illness (ILI) visits within a child''s family.Design.Retrospective cohort.Methods.Using data from the Medical Expenditure Panel Survey from the years 1996--2008, we identified 84,595 families. For each family, we determined those weeks in which a well-child visit or an ILI visit occurred. We identified 23,776 well-child-visit weeks and 97,250 ILI-visit weeks. We fitted a logistic regression model, where the binary dependent variable indicated an ILI clinic visit in a particular week. Independent variables included binary indicators to denote a well-child visit in the concurrent week or one of the previous 2 weeks, the occurrence of the ILI visit during the influenza season, and the presence of children in the family in each of the age groups 0--3, 4--7, and 8--17 years. Socioeconomic variables were also included. We also estimated the overall cost of well-child-exam-related ILI using data from 2008.Results.We found that an ILI office visit by a family member was positively associated with a well-child visit in the same or one of the previous 2 weeks (odds ratio, 1.54). This additional risk translates to potentially 778,974 excess cases of ILI per year in the United States, with a cost of $500 million annually.Conclusions.Our results should encourage ambulatory clinics to strictly enforce infection control recommendations. In addition, clinics could consider time-shifting of well-child visits so as not to coincide with the peak of the influenza season.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.4
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据