A European survey on public health policies for managing cases of meningococcal disease and their contacts

M Hoek; G Hanquet; S Heuberger; P Stefanoff; P Zucs; M Ramsay; J Stuart; on behalf of the European Union Invasive Bacterial Infections Surveillance Network (EU-IBIS)

doi:10.2807/ese.13.10.08060-en

Euroroundups Open Access

Like 0

Download

A European survey on public health policies for managing cases of meningococcal disease and their contacts
M Hoek^1,2 , G Hanquet³ , S Heuberger⁴ , P Stefanoff⁵ , P Zucs⁶ , M Ramsay² , J Stuart² , on behalf of the European Union Invasive Bacterial Infections Surveillance Network (EU-IBIS) ⁷
View Affiliations Hide Affiliations

Affiliations: ¹ European Programme for Intervention Epidemiology Training ² Health Protection Agency, London, United Kingdom ³ Scientific Institute of Public Health, Brussels, Belgium ⁴ Austrian Agency for Food and Health Safety, Graz, Austria ⁵ National Institute of Hygiene, Warsaw, Poland ⁶ Federal Office of Public Health, Berne, Switzerland ⁷ European Union Invasive Bacterial Infections Surveillance Network (EU-IBIS)

Correspondence:
J Stuart
james.stuart hpa.org.uk
View Citation Hide Citation

Citation style for this article: Hoek M, Hanquet G, Heuberger S, Stefanoff P, Zucs P, Ramsay M, Stuart J, on behalf of the European Union Invasive Bacterial Infections Surveillance Network (EU-IBIS) . A European survey on public health policies for managing cases of meningococcal disease and their contacts. Euro Surveill. 2008;13(10):pii=8060. https://doi.org/10.2807/ese.13.10.08060-en

Abstract

In 2007, a European survey was conducted to compare national policies on public health management of cases of meningococcal disease and their contacts. An electronic questionnaire was sent to 27 national public health institutes; 22 countries responded (response rate 81%). The results of the survey revealed differences in definitions of close contacts and prophylactic regimens between countries. These differences can be attributed to a lack of evidence on optimal prevention and treatment strategies. The development of guidance for best practice in priority areas, based on evidence or consensus, is therefore recommended.