4.5 Article

An outbreak of chickenpox in an asylum seeker centre in Italy: outbreak investigation and validity of reported chickenpox history, December 2015-May 2016

期刊

EUROSURVEILLANCE
卷 22, 期 46, 页码 8-16

出版社

EUR CENTRE DIS PREVENTION & CONTROL
DOI: 10.2807/1560-7917.ES.2017.22.46.17-00020

关键词

-

资金

  1. Directorate of Health and Social Welfare, Latium Region
  2. Local Public Health Unit ASL Roma 4, Latium Region
  3. Sanitary Bureau of Asylum Seekers Center of Castelnuovo di Porto
  4. Ricerca Corrente - Italian Ministry of Health

向作者/读者索取更多资源

An outbreak of chickenpox occurred between December 2015 and May 2016 among asylum seekers in a reception centre in Latium, Italy. We describe the epidemiological and laboratory investigations, control measures and validity of reported history of chickenpox infection. Serological screening of all residents and incoming asylum seekers was performed, followed by vaccine offer to all susceptible individuals without contraindication. Forty-six cases were found and 41 were associated with the outbreak. No complications, hospitalisations or deaths occurred. Serological testing was performed in 1,278 individuals and 169 were found to be susceptible, with a seroprevalence of 86.8%. A questionnaire was administered to 336 individuals consecutively attending the CARA health post to collect their serological result. The sensitivity, specificity and the positive and negative predictive value (PPV and NPV) of the reported history of chickenpox were 45.0%, 76.1%, 88.3% and 25.6%, respectively. We observed an increasing trend for the PPV and decreasing trend for the NPV with increasing age. Our report confirms that, in the asylum seeker population, chickenpox history is not the optimal method to identify susceptible individuals. Our experience supports the need for additional prevention and control measures and highlights the importance of national and local surveillance systems for reception centres.

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

4.5
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