Tetanus seropositive prevalence and perceived protection from emergency admissions.

Emerging health threats journal Pub Date : 2012-01-01 Epub Date: 2012-02-09 DOI:10.3402/ehtj.v5i0.7718
Marcus A Moore, Kimberly R Barber, Todd Britt
{"title":"Tetanus seropositive prevalence and perceived protection from emergency admissions.","authors":"Marcus A Moore, Kimberly R Barber, Todd Britt","doi":"10.3402/ehtj.v5i0.7718","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Emergency physicians see many people who present to the emergency department stating that they are immunized against tetanus, when in fact, they are not. The patient history is not dependable for determining true tetanus status and simple patient surveys do not provide actual prevalence. The objective of this study was to determine the prevalence of tetanus status by antibody titer seropositivity and quantify such status among patients reporting tetanus protection.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>This study is a single center prospective convenience sample of patients presenting to the emergency department 12 years of age or older. Patients deemed study candidates and willing to be in the study filled out an eight-question questionnaire that included the question 'is your tetanus shot up to date'. A blood sample was then drawn for tetanus antibody titer and quantified according to a pre-determined cutoff for protection.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>A total of 163 patients were enrolled. Of patients responding yes to the query 'is your tetanus shot up to date' 12.8% (N=5) of them were not seropositive. Of the 26 people who were seronegative in the study all had been to a doctor in the past year and 88.5% (N=23) had been to their family physician.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>The study suggests that it may be difficult to trust the tetanus immunization history given by patients presenting to the emergency room. The study also observed that a large percentage of patients who were serenegative were seen by a primary care physician and not had a necessary tetanus immunization.</p>","PeriodicalId":72898,"journal":{"name":"Emerging health threats journal","volume":"5 ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2012-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://ftp.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pub/pmc/oa_pdf/22/fd/EHTJ-5-7718.PMC3278263.pdf","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Emerging health threats journal","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.3402/ehtj.v5i0.7718","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2012/2/9 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: Emergency physicians see many people who present to the emergency department stating that they are immunized against tetanus, when in fact, they are not. The patient history is not dependable for determining true tetanus status and simple patient surveys do not provide actual prevalence. The objective of this study was to determine the prevalence of tetanus status by antibody titer seropositivity and quantify such status among patients reporting tetanus protection.

Methods: This study is a single center prospective convenience sample of patients presenting to the emergency department 12 years of age or older. Patients deemed study candidates and willing to be in the study filled out an eight-question questionnaire that included the question 'is your tetanus shot up to date'. A blood sample was then drawn for tetanus antibody titer and quantified according to a pre-determined cutoff for protection.

Results: A total of 163 patients were enrolled. Of patients responding yes to the query 'is your tetanus shot up to date' 12.8% (N=5) of them were not seropositive. Of the 26 people who were seronegative in the study all had been to a doctor in the past year and 88.5% (N=23) had been to their family physician.

Conclusion: The study suggests that it may be difficult to trust the tetanus immunization history given by patients presenting to the emergency room. The study also observed that a large percentage of patients who were serenegative were seen by a primary care physician and not had a necessary tetanus immunization.

Abstract Image

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
破伤风血清学阳性流行率和预防急诊入院的感知保护。
背景:急诊医生看到许多到急诊科就诊的人说他们接种了破伤风疫苗,而事实上他们并没有。患者病史不能可靠地确定真正的破伤风状况,简单的患者调查也不能提供实际的流行率。本研究的目的是通过抗体滴度血清阳性来确定破伤风状态的流行率,并量化报告破伤风保护的患者的破伤风状态。方法:本研究是一个单中心前瞻性方便样本,样本为12岁或12岁以上急诊科就诊的患者。被视为研究候选人并愿意参与研究的患者填写了一份由八个问题组成的问卷,其中包括“你的破伤风疫苗是最新的吗”。然后抽取血样进行破伤风抗体滴度测定,并根据预先确定的保护临界值进行定量。结果:共有163名患者入选。在回答“你的破伤风疫苗是最新的吗”的患者中,12.8%(N=5)的患者没有血清阳性。在研究中血清阴性的26人中,所有人在过去一年都看过医生,88.5%(N=23)看过他们的家庭医生。结论:研究表明,可能很难相信急诊室患者提供的破伤风免疫史。该研究还观察到,很大比例的阴性患者由初级保健医生就诊,并且没有进行必要的破伤风免疫接种。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
The Natural World Individuals and Society Hospital preparedness in community measles outbreaks-challenges and recommendations for low-resource settings. Detection of blaIMP4 and blaNDM1 harboring Klebsiella pneumoniae isolates in a university hospital in Malaysia. Two vicious circles contributing to a diagnostic delay for tuberculosis patients in Arkhangelsk.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1