tetano
Editor, Senior Moderator
BMJ Open 2011;1:e000234 doi:10.1136/bmjopen-2011-000234
Public health
Self-diagnosis of influenza during a pandemic: a cross-sectional survey
Free via Creative Commons: OPEN ACCESS
Annemarie Jutel1,
Michael G Baker2,
James Stanley2,
Q Sue Huang3,
Don Bandaranayake4
+ Author Affiliations
1Graduate School of Nursing, Midwifery and Health, Victoria University of Wellington, Wellington, New Zealand
2Department of Public Health, University of Otago, Wellington, New Zealand
3Department of Public Health, University of Otago, Wellington, New Zealand
4WHO National Influenza Centre, Institute of Environmental Science and Research, Upper Hutt, New Zealand
Correspondence to Dr Annemarie Jutel; annemarie.jutel@vuw.ac.nz
Received 28 June 2011
Accepted 20 July 2011
Published 12 September 2011
Abstract
Background Self-diagnosis of influenza is an important component of pandemic control and management as it may support self-management practices and reduce visits to healthcare facilities, thus helping contain viral spread. However, little is known about the accuracy of self-diagnosis of influenza, particularly during pandemics.
Methods We used cross-sectional survey data to correlate self-diagnosis of influenza with serological evidence of 2009 pandemic influenza A(H1N1) infection (haemagglutination inhibition titres of ≥1:40) and to determine what symptoms were more likely to be present in accurate self-diagnosis. The sera and risk factor data were collected for the national A(H1N1) seroprevalence survey from November 2009 to March 2010, 3 months after the first pandemic wave in New Zealand (NZ).
Results The samples consisted of 318 children, 413 adults and 423 healthcare workers. The likelihood of being seropositive was no different in those who believed they had influenza from those who believed they did not have influenza in all groups. Among adults, 23.3% (95% CI 11.9% to 34.7%) of those who reported having had influenza were seropositive for H1N1, but among those reporting no influenza, 21.3% (95% CI 13% to 29.7%) were also seropositive. Those meeting NZ surveillance or Ministry of Health influenza case definitions were more likely to believe they had the flu (surveillance data adult sample OR 27.1, 95% CI 13.6 to 53.6), but these symptom profiles were not associated with a higher likelihood of H1N1 seropositivity (surveillance data adult sample OR 0.93, 95% CI 0.5 to 1.7).
Conclusions Self-diagnosis does not accurately predict influenza seropositivity. The symptoms promoted by many public health campaigns are linked with self-diagnosis of influenza but not with seropositivity. These findings raise challenges for public health initiatives that depend on accurate self-diagnosis by members of the public and appropriate self-management action.
http://bmjopen.bmj.com/content/1/2/e000234.full
Public health
Self-diagnosis of influenza during a pandemic: a cross-sectional survey
Free via Creative Commons: OPEN ACCESS
Annemarie Jutel1,
Michael G Baker2,
James Stanley2,
Q Sue Huang3,
Don Bandaranayake4
+ Author Affiliations
1Graduate School of Nursing, Midwifery and Health, Victoria University of Wellington, Wellington, New Zealand
2Department of Public Health, University of Otago, Wellington, New Zealand
3Department of Public Health, University of Otago, Wellington, New Zealand
4WHO National Influenza Centre, Institute of Environmental Science and Research, Upper Hutt, New Zealand
Correspondence to Dr Annemarie Jutel; annemarie.jutel@vuw.ac.nz
Received 28 June 2011
Accepted 20 July 2011
Published 12 September 2011
Abstract
Background Self-diagnosis of influenza is an important component of pandemic control and management as it may support self-management practices and reduce visits to healthcare facilities, thus helping contain viral spread. However, little is known about the accuracy of self-diagnosis of influenza, particularly during pandemics.
Methods We used cross-sectional survey data to correlate self-diagnosis of influenza with serological evidence of 2009 pandemic influenza A(H1N1) infection (haemagglutination inhibition titres of ≥1:40) and to determine what symptoms were more likely to be present in accurate self-diagnosis. The sera and risk factor data were collected for the national A(H1N1) seroprevalence survey from November 2009 to March 2010, 3 months after the first pandemic wave in New Zealand (NZ).
Results The samples consisted of 318 children, 413 adults and 423 healthcare workers. The likelihood of being seropositive was no different in those who believed they had influenza from those who believed they did not have influenza in all groups. Among adults, 23.3% (95% CI 11.9% to 34.7%) of those who reported having had influenza were seropositive for H1N1, but among those reporting no influenza, 21.3% (95% CI 13% to 29.7%) were also seropositive. Those meeting NZ surveillance or Ministry of Health influenza case definitions were more likely to believe they had the flu (surveillance data adult sample OR 27.1, 95% CI 13.6 to 53.6), but these symptom profiles were not associated with a higher likelihood of H1N1 seropositivity (surveillance data adult sample OR 0.93, 95% CI 0.5 to 1.7).
Conclusions Self-diagnosis does not accurately predict influenza seropositivity. The symptoms promoted by many public health campaigns are linked with self-diagnosis of influenza but not with seropositivity. These findings raise challenges for public health initiatives that depend on accurate self-diagnosis by members of the public and appropriate self-management action.
http://bmjopen.bmj.com/content/1/2/e000234.full