Biomedical subjects

Javier Segura del Pozo

Publications and source records attributed to Javier Segura del Pozo.

2 recordsLinked to original sources

PubMed2002

[Pertussis outbreak in a poorly immunized community].

BACKGROUND: The aim of this study was to describe the clinical, serological and epidemiological findings of a pertussis outbreak in an insufficiently vaccinated gipsy community. PATIENTS AND METHOD: Ten cases (catarrhal illness with cough of 2 weeks duration) were identified through an active search. In four of them, two paired serum samples were obtained and total IgG against Bordetella pertussis and IgG and IgA against pertussis toxin (PT) and filamentous hemagglutinin (FHA) were determined. The diagnostic criteria was seroconversion. A comparative analysis between cases and healthy children younger than 15 years (gipsy community) was carried out and we estimated, by means of a logistical regression analysis, the odds ratio (OR) of several factors. RESULTS: The highest attack rate (50%) was found in the 5 to 9 year-old group; 30% cases had not been vaccinated while 50% had been incorrectly vaccinated. No significant differences for age, gender or the vaccine status were detected. Three cases showed seroconversion for total IgG and two for IgG-PT and IgA-PT. Other possible pathogens were ruled out by serology. CONCLUSIONS: Despite the high vaccine coverage against pertussis in paediatric age in Spain, some susceptible population groups remain, mainly due to an incorrect vaccination. Our serological results firmly support the suspicion of B. pertussis as the etiologic agent of the outbreak.

Antibodies, Bacterial↗

PubMedDate not supplied

[Field epidemiology and social epidemiology].

Comparing field epidemiology and social epidemiology, we pretend to think about the no explicit images and meanings operating in both necessary convergent fields, about the obstacles present in epidemiological practice to fulfil its social function and about the necessity of changing epistemological, methodological and practice grounds, beginning with field epidemiologists teaching programmes. Field epidemiology would tend to act in an absent theoretical frame. On the other hand, social epidemiology would tend to prioritize theoretical developments (thinking and research about social determinants) without correspondent action, because of the limits to change public policies. Other differences are found at intervention level (micro-macrospace), its aim (outbreak control vs. inequalities control) and the way to communicate with society. They are similar in the methodological concern, the predominance of orientation based on positivism and framed through statistic methods, but in process of epistemological opening, the stress experienced between the alternative relationship to a virtual world of data bases or to the real society, their peripherical situation in relation of the political, social, institutional and professional system and the tendency to professional frustration. Finally, we ask ten questions to the field epidemiologists related with their present practice, in order to consider if they are developing social epidemiology, and propose some changes in epidemiologist teaching and practice.

Epidemiology↗