Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-fscjk Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-22T15:09:16.406Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Varying Epidemiology of Q Fever in the South-East Region of Great Britain I. In an Urban Area

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  15 May 2009

B. P. Marmion  and
M. S. Harvey
B. P. Marmion*
Affiliation:
Department of Pathology, University of Cambridge
M. S. Harvey
Affiliation:
Health Department, City of Canterbury
*
Member of the staff of the Public Health Laboratory Service seconded to the Department of Pathology.
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.

An investigation in an urban area of south-east Kent of 160 patients who had had either pneumonia or unexplained fever during the period from the end of 1948 to the beginning of 1954 revealed that twenty-three (14%) had probably had Q fever.

A comparison of the epidemiological histories of patients who had had Q fever with those of the remainder showed that the use of a household supply of raw milk was commoner among the former.

Occupational exposure to animals (or animal products), visits to potentially infectious places, or residence near potential sources of infection were not significantly more frequent among the Q-fever cases as compared with the controls.

The isolation of Rickettsia burneti from the bulked milk of some local herds supplying retail dairies in the towns, together with the general epidemiological evidence, suggested that Q fever in the towns was predominantly milk-borne.

Type
Research Article
Information
Journal of Hygiene , Volume 54 , Issue 4 , December 1956 , pp. 533 - 546
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1956

References

Beck, M. D., Bell, J. A., Shaw, E. W. & Huebner, R. J. (1949). Pub. Hlth Rep., Wash., 64, 41.Google Scholar
Clark, W. H., Lennette, E. H., Railsback, O. C. & Romer, M. S. (1951). Arch, intern. Med. 88, 155.Google Scholar
Clark, W. H., Romer, M. S., Holmes, M. A., Welsh, H. H., Lennette, E. H. & Abinanti, F. R. (1951). Amer. J. Hyg. 54, 25.Google Scholar
DeLay, P. D., Lennette, E. H. & DeOme, K. B. (1950). J. Immunol. 65, 211.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Derrick, E. H. (1937). Med. J. Aust. 2, 281.Google Scholar
Enright, J. B., Thomas, R. C. & Mullett, P. A. (1953). J. Milk Tech. 16, 263.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fisher, R. A. & Yates, F. (1948). Statistical Tables for Biological, Agricultural and Medical Research. Edinburgh: Dewer and Boyd.Google Scholar
Harvey, M. S., Forbes, G. B. & Marmion, B. P. (1951). Lancet, 2, 1152.Google Scholar
Lennette, E. H. & Clark, W. H. (1951). J. Amer. med. Ass. 145, 306.Google Scholar
Marmion, B. P., Rowlands, A., MacCallum, F. O. & Thiel, C. C. (1951). Mon. Bull. Minist. Hlth Lab. Serv. 10, 119.Google Scholar
Marmion, B. P. & Stoker, M. G. P. (1950). Lancet, 2, 611.Google Scholar
Marmion, B. P. & Stoker, M. G. P. (1956). J. Hyg., Camb., 54, 547.Google Scholar
Stoker, M. G. P., Page, Z. & Marmion, B. P. (1955). Bull. Wld. Hlth Org. 13, 807.Google Scholar
Welsh, H. H. (1951). J. Amer. med. Ass. 145, 316.Google Scholar
WhittiCK, J. W. (1950). Brit. med. J. 1, 979.Google Scholar