Time filter

Source Type

Brockhoff H.J.,Municipal Health Service | Mollema L.,Center for Infectious Disease Control Netherlands | Sonder G.J.B.,Municipal Health Service | van Binnendijk R.S.,Center for Infectious Disease Control Netherlands | And 3 more authors.
Vaccine | Year: 2010

In September 2004 a mumps outbreak occurred at an international hotel school in The Netherlands. We investigated this outbreak to identify risk factors for mumps. There were 105 mumps cases (overall mumps attack rate (AR) 12% (95% CI: 10-15%)). The AR for Dutch vaccinated and unvaccinated participants was 12% (95% CI: 10-15%) and 15% (95% CI: 3-42%), respectively. Independent risk factor was mumps contact. Explanations for the relatively high AR among vaccinated participants include primary vaccine failure, waning immunity and incomplete vaccine-induced immunity in the context of high mumps virus exposure in a school party and a crowded boarding school. © 2010 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.


Redmond S.M.,University of Bern | Alexander-Kisslig K.,University of Bern | Woodhall S.C.,Public Health England | Van Den Broek I.V.F.,Center for Infectious Disease Control Netherlands | And 8 more authors.
PLoS ONE | Year: 2015

Background Accurate information about the prevalence of Chlamydia trachomatis is needed to assess national prevention and control measures. Methods We systematically reviewed population-based cross-sectional studies that estimated chlamydia prevalence in European Union/European Economic Area (EU/EEA) Member States and non-European high income countries from January 1990 to August 2012. We examined results in forest plots, explored heterogeneity using the I2 statistic, and conducted random effects meta-analysis if appropriate. Meta-regression was used to examine the relationship between study characteristics and chlamydia prevalence estimates. Results We included 25 population-based studies from 11 EU/EEA countries and 14 studies from five other high income countries. Four EU/EEAMember States reported on nationally representative surveys of sexually experienced adults aged 18-26 years (response rates 52-71%). In women, chlamydia point prevalence estimates ranged from3.0-5.3%; the pooled average of these estimates was 3.6%(95%CI 2.4, 4.8, I2 0%). In men, estimates ranged from 2.4-7.3% (pooled average 3.5%; 95%CI 1.9, 5.2, I2,> 27%). Estimates in EU/EEA Member States were statistically consistent with those in other high income countries (I2 0% for women, 6%for men). There was statistical evidence of an association between survey response rate and estimated chlamydia prevalence; estimates were higher in surveys with lower response rates, (p = 0.003 in women, 0.018 inmen). Conclusions Population-based surveys that estimate chlamydia prevalence are at risk of participation bias owing to low response rates. Estimates obtained in nationally representative samples of the general population of EU/EEA Member States are similar to estimates from other high income countries. © 2015 Redmond et al.


Van Den Broek I.V.,Center for Infectious Disease Control Netherlands | Sfetcu O.,Centers for Disease Control and Prevention | Van Der Sande M.A.,Center for Infectious Disease Control Netherlands | Van Der Sande M.A.,Julius Kruttschnitt Mineral Research Center | And 11 more authors.
European Journal of Public Health | Year: 2016

Background: In 2012, the levels of chlamydia control activities including primary prevention, effective case management with partner management and surveillance were assessed in 2012 across countries in the European Union and European Economic Area (EU/EEA), on initiative of the European Centre for Disease Control (ECDC) survey, and the findings were compared with those from a similar survey in 2007. Methods: Experts in the 30 EU/EEA countries were invited to respond to an online questionnaire; 28 countries responded, of which 25 participated in both the 2007 and 2012 surveys. Analyses focused on 13 indicators of chlamydia prevention and control activities; countries were assigned to one of five categories of chlamydia control. Results: In 2012, more countries than in 2007 reported availability of national chlamydia case management guidelines (80% vs. 68%), opportunistic chlamydia testing (68% vs. 44%) and consistent use of nucleic acid amplification tests (64% vs. 36%). The number of countries reporting having a national sexually transmitted infection control strategy or a surveillance system for chlamydia did not change notably. In 2012, most countries (18/25, 72%) had implemented primary prevention activities and case management guidelines addressing partner management, compared with 44% (11/25) of countries in 2007. Conclusion: Overall, chlamydia control activities in EU/EEA countries strengthened between 2007 and 2012. Several countries still need to develop essential chlamydia control activities, whereas others may strengthen implementation and monitoring of existing activities. © 2015 The Author. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the European Public Health Association.


PubMed | University of Amsterdam, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Public Health England, Imperial College London and 6 more.
Type: Journal Article | Journal: European journal of public health | Year: 2016

In 2012, the levels of chlamydia control activities including primary prevention, effective case management with partner management and surveillance were assessed in 2012 across countries in the European Union and European Economic Area (EU/EEA), on initiative of the European Centre for Disease Control (ECDC) survey, and the findings were compared with those from a similar survey in 2007.Experts in the 30 EU/EEA countries were invited to respond to an online questionnaire; 28 countries responded, of which 25 participated in both the 2007 and 2012 surveys. Analyses focused on 13 indicators of chlamydia prevention and control activities; countries were assigned to one of five categories of chlamydia control.In 2012, more countries than in 2007 reported availability of national chlamydia case management guidelines (80% vs. 68%), opportunistic chlamydia testing (68% vs. 44%) and consistent use of nucleic acid amplification tests (64% vs. 36%). The number of countries reporting having a national sexually transmitted infection control strategy or a surveillance system for chlamydia did not change notably. In 2012, most countries (18/25, 72%) had implemented primary prevention activities and case management guidelines addressing partner management, compared with 44% (11/25) of countries in 2007.Overall, chlamydia control activities in EU/EEA countries strengthened between 2007 and 2012. Several countries still need to develop essential chlamydia control activities, whereas others may strengthen implementation and monitoring of existing activities.


PubMed | University of Amsterdam, Public Health England, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Imperial College London and 6 more.
Type: Journal Article | Journal: PloS one | Year: 2015

Accurate information about the prevalence of Chlamydia trachomatis is needed to assess national prevention and control measures.We systematically reviewed population-based cross-sectional studies that estimated chlamydia prevalence in European Union/European Economic Area (EU/EEA) Member States and non-European high income countries from January 1990 to August 2012. We examined results in forest plots, explored heterogeneity using the I statistic, and conducted random effects meta-analysis if appropriate. Meta-regression was used to examine the relationship between study characteristics and chlamydia prevalence estimates.We included 25 population-based studies from 11 EU/EEA countries and 14 studies from five other high income countries. Four EU/EEA Member States reported on nationally representative surveys of sexually experienced adults aged 18-26 years (response rates 52-71%). In women, chlamydia point prevalence estimates ranged from 3.0-5.3%; the pooled average of these estimates was 3.6% (95% CI 2.4, 4.8, I 0%). In men, estimates ranged from 2.4-7.3% (pooled average 3.5%; 95% CI 1.9, 5.2, I 27%). Estimates in EU/EEA Member States were statistically consistent with those in other high income countries (I 0% for women, 6% for men). There was statistical evidence of an association between survey response rate and estimated chlamydia prevalence; estimates were higher in surveys with lower response rates, (p = 0.003 in women, 0.018 in men).Population-based surveys that estimate chlamydia prevalence are at risk of participation bias owing to low response rates. Estimates obtained in nationally representative samples of the general population of EU/EEA Member States are similar to estimates from other high income countries.


Van Den Broek I.V.F.,Center for Infectious Disease Control Netherlands | Van Bergen J.E.A.M.,University of Amsterdam | Brouwers E.E.H.G.,South Limburg Public Health Service | Fennema J.S.A.,Amsterdam Public Health Service | And 15 more authors.
BMJ (Online) | Year: 2012

Objective: To evaluate the effectiveness of register based, yearly chlamydia screening. Design: Controlled trial with randomised stepped wedge implementation in three blocks. Setting: Three regions of the Netherlands: Amsterdam, Rotterdam, and South Limburg. Participants: 317 304 women and men aged 16-29 years listed on municipal registers at start of trial. Intervention: From March 2008 to February 2011, the Chlamydia Screening Implementation programme offered yearly chlamydia screening tests. Postal invitations asked people to use an internet site to request a kit for self collection of samples, which would then be sent to regional laboratories for testing. Treatment and partner notification were done by the general practitioner or at a sexually transmitted infection clinic. Main outcome measures: Primary outcomes were the percentage of chlamydia tests positive (positivity), percentage of invitees returning a specimen (uptake), and estimated chlamydia prevalence. Secondary outcomes were positivity according to sex, age, region, and sociodemographic factors; adherence to screening invitations; and incidence of self reported pelvic inflammatory disease. Results: The participation rate was 16.1% (43 358/269 273) after the first invitation, 10.8% after the second, and 9.5% after the third, compared with 13.0% (6223/48 031) in the control block invited at the end of round two of the intervention. Chlamydia positivity in the intervention blocks at the first invitation was the same as in the control block (4.3%) and 0.2% lower at the third invitation (odds ratio 0.96 (95% confidence interval 0.83 to 1.10)). No substantial decreases in positivity were seen after three screening rounds in any region or sociodemographic group. Among the people who participated three times (2.8% of all invitees), positivity fell from 5.9% to 2.9% (odds ratio 0.49 (0.47 to 0.50)).Conclusions: There was no statistical evidence of an impact on chlamydia positivity rates or estimated population prevalence from the Chlamydia Screening Implementation programme after three years at the participation levels obtained. The current evidence does not support a national roll out of this register based chlamydia screening programme.


Mollema L.,Center for Infectious Disease Control Netherlands | Mollema L.,National Institute for Public Health and the Environment | Wijers N.,Center for Infectious Disease Control Netherlands | Wijers N.,VU University Amsterdam | And 4 more authors.
BMC Public Health | Year: 2012

Background: Knowledge about the determinants of participation and attitude towards the National Immunisation Program (NIP) may be helpful in tailoring information campaigns for this program. Our aim was to determine which factors were associated with nonparticipation in the NIP and which ones were associated with parents' intention to accept remaining vaccinations. Further, we analyzed possible changes in opinion on vaccination over a 10 year period. Methods. We used questionnaire data from two independent, population-based, cross-sectional surveys performed in 1995-96 and 2006-07. For the 2006-07 survey, logistic regression modelling was used to evaluate what factors were associated with nonparticipation and with parents' intention to accept remaining vaccinations. We used multivariate multinomial logistic regression modelling to compare the results between the two surveys. Results: Ninety-five percent of parents reported that they or their child (had) participated in the NIP. Similarly, 95% reported they intended to accept remaining vaccinations. Ethnicity, religion, income, educational level and anthroposophic beliefs were important determinants of nonparticipation in the NIP. Parental concerns that played a role in whether or not they would accept remaining vaccinations included safety of vaccinations, maximum number of injections, whether vaccinations protect the health of one's child and whether vaccinating healthy children is necessary. Although about 90% reported their opinion towards vaccination had not changed, a larger proportion of participants reported to be less inclined to accept vaccination in 2006-07 than in 1995-96. Conclusion: Most participants had a positive attitude towards vaccination, although some had doubts. Groups with a lower income or educational level or of non-Western descent participated less in the NIP than those with a high income or educational level or indigenous Dutch and have been less well identified previously. Particular attention ought to be given to these groups as they contribute in large measure to the rate of nonparticipation in the NIP, i.e., to a greater extent than well-known vaccine refusers such as specific religious groups and anthroposophics. Our finding that the proportion of the population inclined to accept vaccinations is smaller than it was 10 years ago highlights the need to increase knowledge about attitudes and beliefs regarding the NIP. © 2012 Mollema et al; licensee BioMed Central Ltd.

Loading Center for Infectious Disease Control Netherlands collaborators
Loading Center for Infectious Disease Control Netherlands collaborators