An official website of the United States government.
<p>A prospective study involving 84 GP practices across the UK using 'future-proof' microbiological techniques and comprising:</p>
<ul>
<li>a population cohort study (8,400 person-years of follow-up)</li>
<li>a study of cases of IID presenting to GPs</li>
<li>a study of routine clinical practice in primary care</li>
<li>a study to estimate the completeness of reporting to the four national surveillance centres</li>
<li>a telephone survey (sample size 3,600 per country)</li>
</ul>
<p>The study was designed to be able to detect a 20% decline in severe disease and data will be used to re-calibrate national surveillance data, defining the relationship between disease in the community and official statistics.</p>
<p>Background: The public health impact of gastrointestinal infection was underlined by the publication of the IID (Infectious Intestinal Disease) Study in England by the Food Standards Agency in 2000. As well as defining disease burden, a major component of the IID study was calibration of national surveillance systems, in other words, estimation of the factor by which the number of cases of infection with specified pathogens needed to be multiplied to establish the actual number of infections in the community.</p>
<p>The FSA's foodborne disease reduction target has been a major Government public health initiative. Progress is measured using laboratory surveillance data for five key pathogens: salmonellas, campylobacters, Clostridium perfringens, Escherichia coli O157 and Listeria monocytogenes. However, to reflect on recent figures and to measure future progress, the FSA will need to know whether or not the relationship between disease burden in the community and official statistics is similar to the situation over a decade ago.</p>
<p>Since the original IID Study was undertaken in the mid 1990s, several structural changes have occurred in national surveillance and these might have altered that relationship to a greater or lesser degree. Therefore, contemporary information on the relationships in the reporting pyramid is required. To determine this information, a second IID study was commissioned by the FSA and was undertaken by the University of Manchester in collaboration with the Health Protection Agency (Centre for Infections and Local and Regional Services), Medical Research Council General Practice Research Framework, London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, University of East Anglia, University of Nottingham, Communicable Disease Surveillance Centre Northern Ireland, National Public Health Service in Wales, Health Protection Scotland and NHS Direct.</p>
The main aims of this study were:
<ul><li>to estimate prospectively the burden and causes of IID in the population and presenting to general practitioners in the UK and to compare these results with national surveillance data</li>
<li>to estimate the burden of self-reported IID in each UK nation via a telephone survey and to compare these results with the prospective estimate</li></ul>