Skip Navigation

This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to My Personal Archive
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by THOMAS, J C.
Right arrow Articles by NEUMANN, C. G
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by THOMAS, J C.
Right arrow Articles by NEUMANN, C. G
Social Bookmarking
Add to CiteULike   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us  
What's this?

© 1992 Oxford University Press

research-article

Choosing an Appropriate Measure of Diarrhoea Occurrence: Examples from a Community-Based Study in Rural Kenya

J CONLEY THOMAS* and CHARLOTTE G NEUMANN{dagger}

*University of North Carolina, Department of Epidemiology, Infectious Disease Program CB# 7400, Chapel Hill, NC 27599, USA
{dagger} University of California at Los Angeles. Division of Population and Family Health Los Angeles, CA 90024, USA

Epidemiological studies which aim to identify protective or risk factors for diarrhoea may rely on any of several established measures of disease occurrence, including cumulative incidence (CI), incidence density (ID), and point prevalence (P); each with its own strengths and limitations. Comparison of these measures was afforded by a community-based study in rural Kenya in which the incidence and prevalence of diarrhoea were measured simultaneously but by independent means in the same group of children. In a cohort study, CI and ID among 138 infants laged 0–6 months) were 26.1% and 1.41 episodes per 100 infant-weeks, respectively. Among 111 toddlers (aged 18–29 months) CI and ID were 39.6% and 1.96 episodes per 100 toddler-weeks, respectively. In a cross-sectional study of these children, the Ps among infants and toddlers were 9.8 and 6.1%, respectively. Data on incident cases required more time and resources to obtain and evidenced more underreporting of diarrhoea episodes relative to the prevalence data. Other community-based studies have reported the ID of diarrhoea five times more often than any other measure, but appear to have calculated ID incorrectly. The infrequency with which CI and P are reported does not reflect their actual utility.

Received 1 November 1991


Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us    What's this?




Disclaimer:
Please note that abstracts for content published before 1996 were created through digital scanning and may therefore not exactly replicate the text of the original print issues. All efforts have been made to ensure accuracy, but the Publisher will not be held responsible for any remaining inaccuracies. If you require any further clarification, please contact our Customer Services Department.