Abstract
The Vermont Department of Health reviewed 2,035 reports of selected notifiable diseases received from January 1, 1986, through December 31, 1987. Laboratories provided 1,160, or 71 percent, of the initial reports on 1,636 confirmed cases. This demonstrates that laboratories, when required by law and when part of active surveillance, can make a significant contribution to surveillance of infectious disease. A survey of primary care physicians indicated that 18 percent always reported notifiable diseases. The most frequently mentioned reason for lack of reporting was an assumption that the laboratory would report the cases.
Full text
PDF
Selected References
These references are in PubMed. This may not be the complete list of references from this article.
- Godes J. R., Hall W. N., Dean A. G., Morse C. D. Laboratory-based disease surveillance. A survey of state laboratory directors. Minn Med. 1982 Dec;65(12):762–764. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Konowitz P. M., Petrossian G. A., Rose D. N. The underreporting of disease and physicians' knowledge of reporting requirements. Public Health Rep. 1984 Jan-Feb;99(1):31–35. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Marier R. The reporting of communicable diseases. Am J Epidemiol. 1977 Jun;105(6):587–590. doi: 10.1093/oxfordjournals.aje.a112424. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Sacks J. J. Utilization of case definitions and laboratory reporting in the surveillance of notifiable communicable diseases in the United States. Am J Public Health. 1985 Dec;75(12):1420–1422. doi: 10.2105/ajph.75.12.1420. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Vogt R. L., LaRue D., Klaucke D. N., Jillson D. A. 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 Jul;73(7):795–797. doi: 10.2105/ajph.73.7.795. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]