Advertisement

Canadian Journal of Public Health

, Volume 89, Issue 1, pp 66–69 | Cite as

Improved Disease Reporting: A Randomized Trial of Physicians

  • Susan G. Squires
  • Kristan J. AronsonEmail author
  • Robert S. Remis
  • John R. Hoey
Article
  • 1 Downloads

Abstract

Objectives: To determine if a heightened, passive surveillance system increases the number of physicians reporting two notifiable diseases during a six-month period.

Methods: We conducted a randomized trial among 145 community-based primary care physicians in two counties in Eastern Ontario. Intervention group physicians received a threepart intervention aimed at improving their communication with the health unit to whom all physicians are mandated to report notifiable diseases. The control group physicians remained part of the usual disease reporting system. The outcome was assessed by a relative risk comparing the number of physicians reporting among the intervention group to that in the control group.

Results: Seventy physicians received the intervention and 75 physicians were in the control group. The relative risk for the number of physicians reporting at least one case was 5.9 (95% CI 2.6–13.2).

Conclusions: The intervention had an impact on reporting of notifiable diseases by physicians.

Résumé

Objectifs: Déterminer si un système de surveillance passive plus rigoureux augmente le nombre de médecins qui déclarent deux maladies à déclaration obligatoire au cours d’une période de six mois.

Méthodes: Nous avons procédé à une étude randomisée auprès de 145 médecins communautaires de première ligne dans deux comtés de l’est de l’Ontario. Les médecins du groupe d’intervention ont reçu une intervention en trois volets qui visait à améliorer leurs communications avec le service de santé auquel tous les médecins doivent signaler les maladies à déclaration obligatoire. Les médecins du groupe témoin sont demeurés dans le système habituel de déclaration obligatoire des maladies. On a évalué le résultat en fonction d’un risque relatif en comparant le nombre de médecins du groupe d’intervention qui ont produit un rapport à celui des médecins du groupe témoin qui l’ont fait.

Résultats: Soixante-dix médecins ont reçu l’intervention et le groupe témoin en comptait 75. Le risque relatif quant au nombre de médecins signalant au moins un cas s’est établi à 5,9 (IC à 95 %, 2,6 à 13,2).

Conclusions: L’intervention a eu un effet considérable en encourageant les médecins à signaler les maladies à déclaration obligatoire.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Vogt R, LaRue D, Klaucke D, Jillson D. Comparison of an active and passive surveillance system of primary care providers for hepatitis, measles, rubella, and salmonellosis in Vermont. Am J Public Health 1983;73:795–97.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Weiss B, Strassburg M, Fannin S. Improving disease reporting in Los Angeles county: Trial and results. Public Health Rep 1988;103:415–21.PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Valleron AJ, Bouvet E, Garnerin P, et al. A computer network for the surveillance of communicable diseases: The French experiment. Am J Public Health 1986;76:1289–92.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Thacker S, Redmond S, Rothenberg R, et al. A controlled trial of disease surveillance. Am J Prev Med 1986;2:345–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Goodman R, Berkelman R. Physicians, vital statistics, and disease reporting. JAMA 1987;258:379–81.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Konowitz P, Petrossian G, Rose D. The underreporting of disease and physicians’ knowledge of reporting requirements. Public Health Rep 1984;99:31–35.PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Haward R. Scale of undernotification of infectious diseases by general practitioners. Lancet 1973;808:873–74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Kimball A, Thacker S, Levy M. Shigella surveillance in a large metropolitan area: Assessment of a passive surveillance system. Am J Public Health 1980;70:164–66.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Marier R. The reporting of communicable diseases. Am J Epidemiol 1977;105:587–90.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Government of Ontario. Health Promotion and Protection Act, 1983. Amendments 1988. Ministry of the Attorney General. Toronto: Queen’s Printer for Ontario, September 1988.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Voss S. How much do doctors know about the notification of infectious diseases? BMJ 1992;304:755.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Schramm M, Vogt R, Momolen M. The surveillance of communicable diseases in Vermont: Who reports? Public Health Rep 1991;106:95–97.PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Harvey I. Infectious disease notification — a neglected legal tool. Health Trends 1991;23:73–74.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Tizes R, Pravda D. Proposed toll-free telephone reporting of notifiable diseases. Health Serv Rep 1972;87:633–37.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Benenson AS (Ed.) Control of Communicable Diseases in Man 15th ed. Washington, DC: American Public Health Association, 1990;83–86, 318–22.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Cutts F, Waldman R, Zoffman H. Surveillance for the expanded programme on immunization. WHO Bulletin OMS 1993;71:633–39.Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Centers for Disease Control. Guidelines for evaluating surveillance systems. MMWR 1988;37S5:1–18.Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Hauck W, Gillis C, Donner A, Gortner S. Randomization by cluster. Nurs Res 1991;40:356–58.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Health and Welfare Canada. Canadian communicable disease surveillance system: Diseasespecific case definitions and surveillance methods. Can Dis Wkly Rep 1991;17S3:13–14, 26.Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Canadian Medical Directory 1994. Toronto: Seccombe House, 1994.Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Carr P, Mowat D. Community Health Status Report. Kingston: KFL&A Health Unit, 1994.Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Donner A. An empirical study of cluster randomization. Int J Epidemiol 1982;11:283–86.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Altman D. Practical Statistics for Medical Research. London: Chapman & Hall, 1991;194–97.Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Selvin S. Practical Biostatistical Methods. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth Publishing Company, 1995;342.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© The Canadian Public Health Association 1998

Authors and Affiliations

  • Susan G. Squires
    • 1
    • 2
  • Kristan J. Aronson
    • 1
    • 2
    Email author
  • Robert S. Remis
    • 3
  • John R. Hoey
    • 1
    • 2
  1. 1.Department of Community Health and EpidemiologyQueen’s UniversityKingstonCanada
  2. 2.Kingston, Frontenac and Lennox & Addington Health UnitKingstonCanada
  3. 3.Montreal Regional Health DepartmentSTD/AIDS Prevention ProgramMontrealCanada

Personalised recommendations