Advertisement

Monitoring the Public Health

  • Michael Alderson
Chapter

Abstract

This chapter is very different from the preceding nine, each of which has dealt with one specific source of data. The present chapter considers the broad issues of ‘monitoring the public health’, interpreting the requirements for this in a rather general fashion. This results in consideration of a number of topics for which there is need to have available a wide range of routine and ad hoc statistics, plus the ability to mount ad hoc field studies to explore various issues.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

11.11 Bibliography 11.11.1 Method

  1. Alderson (1973b, 1974), Wites et al. (1974), Griesser (1980), Haro (1980), Kiselev (1980), Giel (1983), Esquivel and Zolla (1986)Google Scholar

11.11.2 Indicators

  1. Reviews Stoutman and Falk (1936), Sullivan (1966), Culyer et al. (1971), Sullivan (1971), WHO (1971e), Grogono (1973), Chen and Bryant (1975), Chen et al. (1975), Chen (1976a,b), WHO (1976d), Rosser and Kind (1978), Rosser and Watts (1978), Goldberg et al. (1979), Organization for Economic and Cultural Development (1982), Carr-Hill (1983), Culyer (1983), Deliege (1983), Rosser (1983), UN (1984c), Hansluwka (1985), Peron and Strohmenger (1985) Elderly Powell Lawton et al. (1967), Henrad (1979)Google Scholar
  2. Incapacity Robine and Colvez (1984)Google Scholar
  3. Level of living Drewnoski (1966)Google Scholar
  4. Mental health Kramer and Anthony (1983)Google Scholar
  5. Sociomedical Elinson and Siegmann (1979)Google Scholar

11.11.3 Infectious Disease Surveillance

  1. Raska (1966), Brachman (1982), Demina et al. (1986)Google Scholar

11.11.4 Dietary Surveillance

  1. WHO (1971f), DHSS (1972), Lindgren (1976), DHSS (1976b, 1981), Wenlock et al. (1986)Google Scholar

11.11.5 Adverse Drug Reactions

  1. Side-effects annual (world survey)Google Scholar
  2. Dukes and Beeley (1986)Google Scholar
  3. Australia Hall (1984)Google Scholar
  4. Czechoslovakia Stika (1984)Google Scholar
  5. Germany (FDR) Gross (1984)Google Scholar
  6. Yugoslavia Stanulovic and Jakovljevic (1984)Google Scholar
  7. Northern Ireland King and Griffiths (1984)Google Scholar
  8. Norway Hjort et al. (1984)Google Scholar
  9. Sweden Wiholm and Westerholm (1984)Google Scholar
  10. United States Jones et al. (1984)Google Scholar

Method Issues

  1. Stolley (1982), Inman (1986), Rossi et al. (1987)Google Scholar
  2. Reports on Adverse Drug ReactionsGoogle Scholar
  3. Czechoslovakia Stika et al. (1979)Google Scholar
  4. Denmark Hvidberg et al. (1979). Set up in 1968; reports divided into possible, probable, definite and unclassified. Has led to a number of special studies quantifying drug hazards.Google Scholar
  5. England Darby and Greenberg (1979). In 1964 set up a system for doctors to voluntarily report any recognised adverse reaction. Discussed the special studies that had resulted from the register.Google Scholar
  6. Finland Idanpaan-Heikkila (1979). Mentions an ADR register, but gives no information.Google Scholar
  7. Iceland Grimsson (1979). Because of the size of the country, it was not considered that an ADR register was a suitable proposition.Google Scholar
  8. Netherlands Sammuels Brusse et al. (1979)Google Scholar
  9. Northern Ireland McDevitt and McMekin (1979)Google Scholar
  10. Norway Halvorsen et al. (1979). Mentions an ADR register, but gives no details.Google Scholar
  11. Scotland Moir et al. (1979). Describes the detailed information available from certain Scottish hospitals, which permitted the examination of drugs prescribed against recorded discharge diagnoses. Provides examples of how this might point to and facilitate detailed scrutiny of ADRs.Google Scholar
  12. Sweden Westerholm (1979). Indicates an ADR reporting system, but gives no details.Google Scholar
  13. United States Rossi et al. (1987)Google Scholar

11.11.6 Patient Satisfaction

  1. McKinlay (1970), Bone (1973), Cartwight and Lucas (1974), Gregory (1978),Google Scholar
  2. Cartwright (1979), Royal Commission on the NHS (1979), Oakley (1980), Macintyre (1981), O’Brien and Smith (1981), Ritchie et al. (1981), Roberts (1985)Google Scholar

11.11.7 Surveillance of the Environment

  1. Redmond and Breslin (1975), Kline et al. (1977), Paddle (1981)Google Scholar

11.11.8 Registers

  1. Chronic diseases—variousChronic diseases in Canada (1983, 1986)Google Scholar
  2. Congenital rubella Dudgeon et al. (1973)Google Scholar
  3. Diabetic children Bloom et al. (1975)Google Scholar
  4. Genetic disorders Lancet (1983b,c)Google Scholar
  5. Handicapped children Renwick (1967)Google Scholar
  6. Hydatidiform mole Bagshawe et al. (1973)Google Scholar
  7. Myocardial infarction Horwitz (1972), WHO Regional Office for Europe (1976)Google Scholar
  8. Paediatric conditions (various rare diseases) British Paediatric Surveillance Unit (1986)Google Scholar
  9. Phenylketonuria Hawcroft and Hudson (1974)Google Scholar
  10. Psychiatric Baldwin (1971), Wing and Hailey (1972), Babigian (1972), National Institute of Mental Health (quoted by Brooke, 1974) Radiation workers National Radiological Protection Board (1978)Google Scholar
  11. Renal transplant Hopenwell (1966)Google Scholar
  12. Rheumatic fever Gordis et al. (1969)Google Scholar
  13. Sarcoid Alsbirk (1964)Google Scholar
  14. Stroke Harmsen et al. (1979), Oxfordshire Community Stroke Project (1983) Trauma Boyd et al. (1973b)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Michael Alderson 1988

Authors and Affiliations

  • Michael Alderson
    • 1
  1. 1.SouthamptonUK

Personalised recommendations