Volume 18, Number 7—July 2012
Research
Retrospective Evaluation of Control Measures for Contacts of Patient with Marburg Hemorrhagic Fever
, Leslie D. Isken, Patricia Willemse, Franchette van den Berkmortel, Marion P.G. Koopmans, Danielle E.C. van Oudheusden, Chantal P. Bleeker-Rovers, Annemarie E. Brouwer, Richard P.T.M. Grol, Marlies E.J.L. Hulscher, and Jaap T. van Dissel
Table 3
Compliance with temperature monitoring and reporting in persons who had contact with a person with Marburg hemorrhagic fever, the Netherlands, 2008*
| Variable | High-risk group score, mean (SD) | Low-risk group score, mean (SD) | p value† |
|---|---|---|---|
| Temperature monitoring week | |||
| 1 | 4.87 (0.63) | 4.25 (1.16) | 0.004 |
| 2 | 4.87 (0.63) | 3.84 (1.30) | <0.0001 |
| 3 | 4.82 (0.68) | 3.34 (1.54) | <0.0001 |
| Temperature reporting week | |||
| 1 | 4.73 (1.01) | 1.56 (1.37) | <0.0001 |
| 2 | 4.73 (1.01) | 1.50 (1.34) | <0.0001 |
| 3 | 4.71 (1.01) | 1.50 (1.34) | <0.0001 |
*Answers were given on a 5-point Likert scale, according to the following categories: 1, never; 2, seldom; 3, sometimes; 4, often; 5, always. High-risk contact, unprotected contact with the patient or her body fluids; low-risk contact, contact with the patient or her body fluids while following strict isolation measures.
†By 2-sample Student t test assuming unequal variances. Because of the relatively large sample sizes of 45 and 32 and data that consisted of scores from 1 through 5 with the indicated SDs, this test is justified by the central limit theorem and because the t distribution with 75 = 45 + 32 – 2 df is almost identical with that of a normal distribution. All p values were statistically significant (p<0.05).