RESUMO
Although chronic hepatitis B and chronic hepatitis C are diseases of public health importance, only a few health departments nationally have chronic viral hepatitis under surveillance; these programs rely primarily on direct reporting by medical laboratories. We conducted an evaluation to determine if lessons from these programs can guide other health departments. Between December 2002 and February 2003, we visited the Connecticut Department of Public Health, the Multnomah County Health Department in Portland, Oregon, and the Minnesota Department of Health to determine the capacity of their chronic hepatitis registries to monitor trends and provide case management. We found that the registries facilitated investigations of potentially acute cases by identifying previously known infections, and aided prevention planning by pinpointing areas where viral hepatitis was being diagnosed. For chronic cases, case management (defined as the process of ensuring that infected individuals and their partners receive medical evaluation, counseling, vaccination, and referral to specialists for treatment when indicated) was provided for hepatitis B in Multnomah County, but was limited in other programs; barriers included resource constraints, difficulties confirming chronic infection, and privacy concerns. Finding innovative ways to overcome these barriers and improve case management is important if chronic hepatitis surveillance is to realize its full potential.
Assuntos
Hepatite B Crônica/epidemiologia , Hepatite C Crônica/epidemiologia , Vigilância de Evento Sentinela , Adulto , Administração de Caso , Feminino , Humanos , Masculino , Pessoa de Meia-Idade , Avaliação de Programas e Projetos de Saúde , Administração em Saúde Pública , Sistema de Registros , Estados Unidos/epidemiologiaRESUMO
BACKGROUND: Despite the known risk of tuberculosis (TB) to health care workers (HCWs), research suggests that many are not fully adherent with local TB infection control policies. The objective of this exploratory study was to identify factors influencing HCWs' adherence to policies for routine tuberculin skin tests (TSTs) and treatment of latent TB infection (LTBI). METHODS: Sixteen focus groups were conducted with clinical and nonclinical staff at 2 hospitals and 2 health departments. Participants were segmented by adherence to TST or LTBI treatment policies. In-depth, qualitative analysis was conducted to identify facilitators and barriers to adherence. RESULTS: Among all focus groups, common themes included the perception that the TST was mandatory, the belief that conducting TSTs at the work site facilitated adherence, and a general misunderstanding about TB epidemiology and pathogenesis. Adherent groups more commonly mentioned facilitators, such as the perception that periodic tuberculin skin testing was protective and the employee health (EH) provision of support services. Barriers, such as the logistic difficulty in obtaining the TST, the perception that LTBI treatment was harmful, and a distrust of EH, emerged consistently in nonadherent groups. CONCLUSIONS: This information may be used to develop more effective interventions for promoting HCW adherence to TB prevention policies. Informed efforts can be implemented in coordination with reevaluations of infection control and EH programs that may be prompted by the publication of the revised TB infection control guidelines issued by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention in 2005.