4.5 Article

Estimating influenza disease burden among pregnant women: Application of self-control method

期刊

VACCINE
卷 35, 期 36, 页码 4811-4816

出版社

ELSEVIER SCI LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.vaccine.2017.07.006

关键词

Influenza; Disease burden; Pregnant women; Self-control method

资金

  1. Health and Labour Sciences Research Grants from the Ministry of Health, Labor and Welfare of Japan

向作者/读者索取更多资源

To evaluate influenza disease burden among pregnant women, an epidemiological study using the self-control method was conducted. Study subjects were 12,838 pregnant women who visited collaborating maternity hospitals and clinics in Osaka Prefecture, Japan, before the 2013/14 influenza season. As a study outcome, hospitalization due to respiratory illnesses between the 2010/11 and 2013/14 seasons was collected from each study subject through a baseline survey at the time of recruitment and a second survey after the 2013/14 season. The hospitalization rates during pregnancy and non-pregnancy periods was calculated separately. To compare the hospitalization rate during pregnancy with that during non pregnancy within the same single study subject, Mantel-Haenzel rate ratios (RRMH) were calculated. During the four seasons examined in this study, nine and 17 subjects were hospitalized due to respiratory illnesses during pregnancy and non-pregnancy periods, respectively. The hospitalization rate was 2.54 per 10,000 woman-months during pregnancy and 1.08 per 10,000 woman-months during non-pregnancy. The RRMH for the hospitalization rate during pregnancy compared with that during non-pregnancy was 430 (95% confidence interval, 1.96-9.41). Our results suggest that during the influenza season, pregnant women have a higher risk than nonpregnant women for hospitalization due to respiratory illnesses. The self-control method appears to be an appropriate epidemiological method for evaluating the disease burden of influenza among pregnant women. (C) 2017 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd.

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