4.4 Article

Determining the Burden of Neurological Disorders in Populations Living in Tropical Areas: Who Would Be Questioned? Lessons from a Mexican Rural Community

期刊

NEUROEPIDEMIOLOGY
卷 36, 期 3, 页码 194-203

出版社

KARGER
DOI: 10.1159/000327496

关键词

Latin America; Prevalence study, questionnaires; Headache; Neuropathy; Epilepsy

资金

  1. Instituto Cientifico Pfizer, Mexico
  2. ECOS North/ANUIES (Evaluation-orientation de la Cooperation Scientifique France - Amerique Latine) [M06S01]
  3. Universite de Limoges, France [ED258]
  4. Regional Council of the Limousin Region, France

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background: The best approach to determine the burden of neurological disorders in developing countries is to perform population-based studies. Our objectives were to determine the prevalence of neurological disorders in a Mexican rural community and assess the usefulness of a household screening questionnaire. Methods: The survey took place in a Mexican rural community of Puebla State in Mexico. This was a cross-sectional, population-based, 2-phase study including a comparison of the usefulness levels of the individual (IQ) and household (HQ) questionnaires. Results: A total of 4,008 individuals participated in the prevalence study using the IQ; of these, 280 neurological examinations allowed to identify 127 individuals suffering from at least 1 neurological disease. The most frequent ailments were headache (22.4/1,000, 95% confidence interval, CI: 17.7-28.2), neuropathy (7.1/1,000, CI 95%: 4.4-11.3) and epilepsy (3.9/1,000, CI 95%: 2.3-6.5). The HQ, used in parallel with the IQ, detected significantly fewer neurological cases. This result was mainly due to the low capacity of the HQ to detect headache. Conclusions: Results of the prevalence study are discussed emphasizing their relevance in adequately allocating resources. The usefulness of the HQ for screening neurological disorders in general was low, but could be adequate for specific neurological disorders. Copyright (C) 2011 S. Karger AG, Basel

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