Skip directly to search Skip directly to A to Z list Skip directly to page options Skip directly to site content

Volume 18, Number 7—July 2012


Retrospective Evaluation of Control Measures for Contacts of Patient with Marburg Hemorrhagic Fever

Aura TimenComments to Author , 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
Author affiliations: Author affiliations: National Institute for Public Health and the Environment (RIVM), Bilthoven, the Netherlands (A. Timen, L.D. Isken, M.P.G. Koopmans); Elkerliek Hospital, Helmond, the Netherlands (P. Willemse); Atrium Medical Centre, Heerlen, the Netherlands (F. van den Berkmortel); Public Health Service Brabant-Zuidoost, Helmond (D.E.C. van Oudheusden); Radboud University Nijmegen Medical Centre, Nijmegen, the Netherlands (C.P. Bleeker-Rovers, R.P.T.M. Grol, M.E.J.L. Hulscher); Elisabeth Hospital, Tilburg, the Netherlands (A.E. Brouwer); Leiden University Medical Centre, Leiden, the Netherlands (J.T. van Dissel)

Main Article

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).

Main Article