4.6 Article

Q Fever and Pneumonia in an Area with a High Livestock Density: A Large Population-Based Study

期刊

PLOS ONE
卷 7, 期 6, 页码 -

出版社

PUBLIC LIBRARY SCIENCE
DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0038843

关键词

-

资金

  1. Dutch Ministry of Economic Affairs, Agriculture and Innovation
  2. Dutch Ministry of Health, Welfare and Sport

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Concerns about public health risks of intensive animal production in the Netherlands continue to rise, in particular related to outbreaks of infectious diseases. The aim was to investigate associations between the presence of farm animals around the home address and Q fever and pneumonia. Electronic medical record data for the year 2009 of all patients of 27 general practitioners (GPs) in a region with a high density of animal farms were used. Density of farm animals around the home address was calculated using a Geographic Information System. During the study period, a large Q fever outbreak occurred in this region. Associations between farm exposure variables and pneumonia or 'other infectious disease', the diagnosis code used by GPs for registration of Q fever, were analyzed in 22,406 children (0-17 y) and 70,142 adults (18-70 y), and adjusted for age and sex. In adults, clear exposure-response relationships between the number of goats within 5 km of the home address and pneumonia and 'other infectious disease' were observed. The association with 'other infectious disease' was particularly strong, with an OR [95% CI] of 12.03 [8.79-16.46] for the fourth quartile (>17,190 goats) compared with the first quartile (<2,251 goats). The presence of poultry within 1 km was associated with an increased incidence of pneumonia among adults (OR [95% CI] 1.25 [1.06-1.47]). A high density of goats in a densely populated region was associated with human Q fever. The use of GP records combined with individual exposure estimates using a Geographic Information System is a powerful approach to assess environmental health risks.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据