Risk factors for diphtheria outbreak in children aged 1-10 years in East Kalimantan Province, Indonesia

Iwan Muhamad Ramdan; Rahmi Susanti; Riza Hayati Ifroh; Reny Noviasty

doi:10.12688/f1000research.16433.1

Home Browse Risk factors for diphtheria outbreak in children aged 1-10 years in...

ALL Metrics

-

Views

-

Downloads

Get PDF

Get XML

Export

▬

✚

Research Article

Risk factors for diphtheria outbreak in children aged 1-10 years in East Kalimantan Province, Indonesia

[version 1; peer review: 2 approved]

Iwan Muhamad Ramdan ¹, Rahmi Susanti¹, Riza Hayati Ifroh¹, Reny Noviasty¹

PUBLISHED 10 Oct 2018

Author details Author details

¹ Public Health Faculty, Mulawarman University, Samarinda, East Kalimantan, 75123, Indonesia

Iwan Muhamad Ramdan
Roles: Conceptualization, Data Curation, Formal Analysis, Investigation, Methodology, Supervision, Validation, Writing – Original Draft Preparation, Writing – Review & Editing

Rahmi Susanti
Roles: Data Curation, Formal Analysis, Methodology, Project Administration, Supervision, Validation, Writing – Review & Editing

Riza Hayati Ifroh
Roles: Data Curation, Formal Analysis, Methodology, Supervision, Validation, Writing – Review & Editing

Reny Noviasty
Roles: Data Curation, Formal Analysis, Methodology, Supervision, Validation, Writing – Review & Editing

OPEN PEER REVIEW

REVIEWER STATUS

This article is included in the ICTROPS 2018 collection.

Abstract

Background: Diphtheria remains a health problem, especially in developing countries. In November 2017, the Indonesian Ministry of Health stated that there was a diphtheria outbreak in Indonesia. East Kalimantan is one of the provinces that experienced this disease outbreak. This study analyzes the risk factors for diphtheria outbreak in children aged 1-10 years.
Methods: A case-control study was conducted on 37 respondents. Research variables consist of immunization status against diphtheria, pertussis and tetanus (DPT), nutritional status, children mobility, source of transmission, physical home environment (natural lighting, ventilation area, occupancy density, wall and floor type), knowledge of diphtheria and attitudes towards the diphtheria prevention program.
Results: We found that the most of the children who had diphtheria had been immunized against DPT. Additionally the nutritional status of children (p=0.049), mobility (p=0.000) and the source of transmission (p=0.020) were significantly associated with diphtheria.
Conclusions: Child/parent mobility (OR=8.456) is the main risk factor for diphtheria outbreak. It is recommended to limit the mobility of children to travel to areas that are experiencing increased cases of diphtheria, improve the nutritional status, and further research on the effectiveness of diphtheria vaccine.

Keywords

Pediatrics Diphtheria, immunization status, nutrition status, mobility, source of transmission, knowledge and attitude, physical home environment.

Corresponding author: Iwan Muhamad Ramdan

Competing interests: No competing interests were disclosed.

Grant information: This work was supported by Islamic Development Bank (IDB), Development of Four Higher Education Institution, Project Implementation unit of Mulawarman University of Indonesia.
The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.

Copyright: © 2018 Muhamad Ramdan I et al. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. Data associated with the article are available under the terms of the Creative Commons Zero "No rights reserved" data waiver (CC0 1.0 Public domain dedication).

How to cite: Muhamad Ramdan I, Susanti R, Ifroh RH and Noviasty R. Risk factors for diphtheria outbreak in children aged 1-10 years in East Kalimantan Province, Indonesia [version 1; peer review: 2 approved]. F1000Research 2018, 7:1625 (https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.16433.1) First published: 10 Oct 2018, 7:1625 (https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.16433.1) Latest published: 10 Oct 2018, 7:1625 (https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.16433.1)

Introduction

Although vaccination programs have succeeded in reducing the incidence of diphtheria in the world, diphtheria remains a health problem, especially in the Asian region. The World Health Organization reports that the number of diphtheria in 2013 was 4,680 cases which were widespread and mostly concentrated in the Asian continent, including India (3,313 cases), Indonesia (775 cases), Iran (190 cases), Pakistan (183 cases), and Nepal (103 cases). Indonesia has the second highest number of diphtheria cases, with 775 cases^1,2.

In November 2017, the Indonesian Ministry of Health stated that there was a diphtheria outbreak in Indonesia. This is based on reports from various provincial health offices, with 593 cases documented between 1 January and 1 November 2017. There was a surge in the number of cases. Previously, there were 415 cases in 2016, 502 cases in 2015 and 502 cases in 2014. East Kalimantan is one of the provinces that experienced a diphtheria outbreak, with all cases occurring in children aged 1–10 years³.

Diphtheria, taken from Greek "Diphtera", which means leather hide, was first identified by Hippocrates in the 5^th century BC⁴. This disease mostly occurs in children under 5 years of age, but currently occurs in children over 5 years (5–19 years) and in adults⁵. Several studies have shown that low vaccination coverage, crowding and migration, or a combination of host, agent, and environmental factors, can influence the incidence of diphtheria^6,7. Other factors include nutritional status and parental behavior, personal hygiene of children⁸, density of house occupancy, humidity in the house, type of floor of the house and the source of transmission (contracting from other people), parents knowledge about diphtheria⁹, parent education level^10,11, child age, home lighting, and house ventilation¹².

This study aims to determine the risk factors for diphtheria outbreaks in children aged 1–10 years in the East Kalimantan province of Indonesia, by involving immunization factors, children's factors, home environmental factors and parents' knowledge and attitude factors.

Methods

Study design and settings

A case control study was conducted on 37 respondents (18 cases, children with diphtheria and 19 controls, healthy children), between April to August 2018, located in six districts in the province of East Kalimantan (City of Samarinda, Bontang, Balikpapan and Districts of Kutai Kartanegara, Kutai Timur and Berau). The population approached for recruitment was all children aged 1–10 years with diphtheria recorded in the East Kalimantan provincial health office from January 1, 2017 to March 1, 2018. The study began after the researcher obtained the permission and address of the child suffering from diphtheria from the relevant authorities. Data collection was conducted through visiting the home of each child suffering from diphtheria (case) and neighbors or live close to a case group, and obtaining written informed consent from a parent/guardian.

The case group was formed of children suffering from diphtheria, with inclusion criteria: age 1–10 years, recorded in the East Kalimantan Provincial Health Office register from January 2017–February 2018, residing in the city of Balikpapan, City of Samarinda, City of Bontang, District of Kutai Timur, District of Kutai Kartanegara, and District of Berau, did not move to another area, the house that occupied had not been renovated from 1 week before the child suffering from diphtheria until the data collection, the families of the patients were willing to become respondents and were willing to be interviewed.

The control group was formed of children who did not have diphtheria, with the following inclusion criteria: aged 1–10 years, residing in the City of Balikpapan, City of Samarinda, City of Bontang, District of Kutai Timur, District of Kutai Kartanegara, and District of Berau, being a neighbor of the child with diphtheria/living in one area with a case group, not to move to another area, the house that occupied was not renovated from one week before the neighboring child was suffering from diphtheria until the time of data collection, the children’s family willing to become a respondent and willing to be interviewed.

All children with diphtheria were used as respondents (total sampling), while the control group was obtained using non-random sampling techniques. The control group was recruited by identifying children who met the inclusion criteria that were friends with those in the case group or lived nearby.

The dependent variable in this study was diphtheria, while the independent variables consisted of age, gender, DPT immunization status, nutritional status, childhood mobility (a travel history to an area that is experiencing in cases of diphtheria), source of transmission (friends at school or neighbors who are experiencing of diphtheria), the house’s physical environment (natural lighting, house ventilation, occupancy density, type of wall and floor), knowledge of diphtheria and attitude towards the diphtheria prevention program.

Data collection and measurement

Administered structured questionnaire and an observation checklist were used to collect data. The questionnaire and observation checklist used in this study consists of eight sections. Section A: Socio demographic information (initial name, place and date of birthaddress); Section B: Immunization status (data obtained by interview and confirmed by the immunization card for each child); Section C: Nutritional status (height and weight of the children, then calculation of body mass index); Section D: physical home environment (natural lighting in the house and bedroom, the width of the house ventilation, the floor area of the house, the number of people sleeping in a room with children suffering from diphtheria, the type of house wall, the type of house floor); Section E: Source of transmission (history of direct contact with a friend suffering from diphtheria in a home environment or at school); Section F: Mobility (history of child traveling/staying outside the city of domicile, one week before illness); Section G: Knowledge of diphtheria (causes, signs and symptoms, modes of transmission, benefits of DPT immunization, other prevention methods); Section H: attitude against diphtheria prevention program (favorable or unfavorable). Dataset 1 contains all de-identified responses to the questionnaire¹³.

To reduce interview bias, researchers provide adequate explanations before the interview begins, motivated respondents to give honest answers, questionnaires are arranged in simple language and easily understood and provides sufficient time for interviews. The determination of DPT immunization status, nutritional status and healthy housing standards are in line with those described by the Indonesian Health Ministry regulations^14–16.

Statistical analysis

Data were analyzed using chi square and multiple logistic regression. To see the risk factors related to Diphtheria, an odds ratio (OR) with a 95% confidence interval was calculated. Data analysis using the Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (SPSS ver. 21, Chicago, IL, USA).

Ethical approval

The study was reviewed and approved by the Ethical Commission of Health and Medical Research, Faculty of Medicine, Mulawarman University Indonesia, (approval number: 42/KEPK-FK/V/2018), which refers to The International Ethical Guidelines for Biomedical Research Involving Human Subjects and The international ethical guidelines for epidemiological studies, from Council for International Organizational Organizations of Medical Sciences (CIOMS 2016). Informed written consent was obtained from a parent or guardian of the participants prior to their participation. The informed consent stated the purpose of the study, data confidentiality, and the voluntary right of participation in the study, as well as provided the guarantee that no participant suffered any harm as a result of his/her participation in the study.

Results

Variables

The sex of the case group was mostly male (66.6%), age was mostly > 5–10 years (66.6%), DPT immunization status was mostly complete (83.3%), nutritional status was mostly bad (72.2%), mobility of the children was mostly “yes” (61.15%), source of contamination was mostly “no” (77.7%), knowledge of diphtheria was balanced between good and bad (50%), attitude towards the diphtheria prevention program was mostly favorable (55.5%), wide of home ventilation was mostly bad (77.7%), home density of occupancy was mostly good (72.2%), home wall type was mostly made from concrete brick without plastering (61.1%) and home floor type was mostly ceramics (66.6%).

The sex of the control group were mostly male (52.6%), the age was mostly 1–5 years (52.6%), DPT immunization status was mostly complete (63.1%), nutritional status was mostly good (63.1%), mobility of the children was mostly “yes” (84.2%), source of contamination was mostly “yes” (63.1%), knowledge of diphtheria was mostly good (52.6%), attitude towards the diphtheria prevention program was mostly favorable (52.6%), wide of home ventilation was mostly bad (68.4%), home density of occupancy was mostly good (63.1%), home wall type was mostly made from concrete brick without plastering (57.8%) and home floor type was mostly ceramics (63.1%) (Table 1 and Table 2).

Table 1. Characteristics of respondents (n=37).

Characteristics	Cases		Control		Total
Characteristics	n	%	n	%	n	%
Gender
Male	12	66.6	10	52.6	22	59.4
Female	6	33.3	9	47.3	15	40.5
Age, years
1–5	6	33.3	10	52.6	16	43.2
>5–10	12	66.6	9	47.3	21	56.7
DPT immunization status
Complete	15	83.3	12	63.1	27	72.9
Incomplete	3	16.6	7	36.8	10	27.0
Nutritional status
Good	5	27.7	12	63.1	21	56.7
Bad	13	72.2	7	36.8	16	43.2

Table 2. Results of bivariate analysis.

Risk factor	Cases		Control		P-value	OR (95% CI)
Risk factor	N	%	N	%	P-value	OR (95% CI)
Age, years					0.325	0.450 (0.119–1.703)
1–5	6	33.3	10	52.6
>5–10	12	66.6	9	47.3
Gender					0.508	1.800 (0.476–6.812)
Male	12	66.6	10	52.6
Female	6	33.3	9	47.3
DPT immunization status					0.269	0.343 (0.073–1.617)
Complete	15	83.3	12	63.1
In complete	3	16.6	7	36.8
Nutritional status					0.049	4.457 (1.11–17.89)
Good	9	50	12	63.1
Bad	9	50	7	36.8
Mobility					0.000	6.800 (2.253–31.645)
Yes	11	61.1	16	84.2
No	7	38.8	2	10.5
Source of contamination					0.020	0.167 (0.039–0.711)
Yes	4	22.2	12	63.1
No	14	77.7	7	36.8
Knowledge parent					1.000	1.111 (0.306–4.037)
Good	9	50	10	52.6
Bad	9	50	9	47.3
Attitude towards immunization program					1.000	0.889 (0.244–3.243)
Favorable	10	55.5	10	52.6
Unfavorable	8	44.4	9	47.3
Wide of home ventilation					0.714	1.615 (0.370–7.049)
Good (>10%)	4	22.2	6	31.5
Bad (<10%)	14	77.7	13	68.4
Home density of occupancy					1.000	0.833 (0.203–3.427)
Good (>8 m²/person)	13	72.2	12	63.1
Bad (<8 m²/person)	5	27.7	7	36.8
Home wall type					1.000	1.143 (0.307–4.254)
Plastering concrete brick	7	38.8	8	42.1
Concrete brick without plastering	11	61.1	11	57.8
Home floor type					1.000	1.167 (0.302–4.512)
Concrete plastering	6	33.3	7	36.8
Ceramics	12	66.6	12	63.1

Analysis of the variables

The results of the bivariate test showed that nutritional status (p=0.049) (OR=4.457), mobility (p<0.001) (OR=6.812) and source of transmission (p=0.020) (OR=0.16) were significantly associated with the incidence of diphtheria in East Kalimantan Province, Indonesia (Table 2).

Multivariate analysis performed on the variables which proved to be significantly associated with the incidence of diphtheria, i.e. nutritional status, mobility and source of transmission. The results show that mobility variables (OR=8.456) is the main risk factor for diphtheria in East Kalimantan Province. (Table 3).

Table 3. Results of logistic regression for risk factors of diphtheria.

Risk factors	Adjusted OR	95% CI	P-value
Nutritional status	0.810	0.065–10.073	0.870
Source of contamination	0.134	0.012–1.519	0.105
Mobility	8.456	5.643–12.672	0.001

OR, odds ratio; CI, confidence interval.

Dataset 1.All raw data and demographic information obtained from subjects during the present study.

Discussion

The results of univariate analysis demonstrated that most patients with diptheria had received complete DPT immunization. The result of bivariate analysis revealed no correlation between DPT immunization status and diphtheria infection. This result is notable, and indicates that further investigation is required on the effectiveness and potential of vaccines. A further example documented by Ningtyas et al.¹⁷, concerning cases of measles in children in Indonesia, also concluded that the incidence of measles in children remained high in areas with high measles immunization coverage; however, this was related to the effectiveness of vaccine quality due to health worker skill factors in providing vaccines and availability of vaccine facilities. Other studies have documented the variable thermolability of vaccines, caused by breaks in the cold chain, can lead to loss of vaccine potency¹⁸. The results of this study complement the findings of Dhinata et al.¹⁹, which found no correlation between patient immunization status and severity, or fatality of diphtheria in the Sampang District of Indonesia.

Complete immunization status does not guarantee the child is free from the risk of diphtheria. Sadoh and Sadoh²⁰ concluded that two out of three children with diphtheria in Nigeria had been completely immunized against DPT, and suggested the use of DT boosters in developing countries. Previously, Gowin et al.²¹ proved that even though tetanus and diphtheria antibody concentrations are quite high in children that have been immunized, the percentage of children protected against diphtheria is smaller than those against tetanus. Likewise, the results of research by Phadke et al.²², revealed that several pertussis outbreaks in United States also occurred in highly vaccinated populations, and indicating waning immunity.

We found the nutritional status of children was significantly associated with the incidence of diphtheria. The results of this study are consistent with other studies that concluded nutritional status associated with increased risk and/or severity of infections disease²³; Children's nutritional status is significantly associated with diphtheria in Situbondo Indonesia²⁴, Children's nutritional status and immune deficiencies reduce the body's response to vaccines^25,26. The implications of this finding are, to reduce the risk of the occurrence of diphtheria in children, the improvement of nutrition is absolutely necessary.

The results prove that the mobility of respondents (travel history to an area that is experiencing a surge in cases of diphtheria) is significantly related to the incidence of diphtheria, this result is consistent with other studies by Patil et al.²⁷ which concludes the mobility creates a vulnerability of pediatrics diphtheria outbreak in district of central India. Population migration increases the risk of transmission of infectious diseases²⁸, transmission of measles, rubella, diphtheria, tetanus, polio and Haemophilus influenzae is strongly influenced by population mobility²⁹. High mobility, poor living conditions, and barriers to accessing healthcare are risk factors to facilitate the spread of infectious diseases such as tuberculosis (active and latent), HIV, hepatitis B, hepatitis C, measles, mumps, rubella, diphtheria, tetanus, pertussis, H. influenzae type b, strongyloidiasis and schistosomiasis³⁰. Based on this conclusion, the prohibition or limitation of children/parents visiting areas that are experiencing diphtheria outbreaks should be recommended so that the risk of transmission is reduced

Conclusion

Nutritional status, child mobility and source of transmission were significantly associated with diphtheria. Most children who had diphtheria (83.3%) had received complete immunization of DPT. Mobility of children is the main risk factor of diphtheria. It is recommended to forbid children/parents to visiting the area where a diphtheria outbreak is occurring, and to improve the condition of the child's nutritional status. Further research is needed on the effectiveness of diphtheria vaccine in East Kalimantan Province, Indonesia.

Data availability

Dataset 1. All raw data and demographic information obtained from subjects during the present study. DOI: https://doi.org/10.5256/f1000research.16433.d220825¹³.

Grant information

This work was supported by Islamic Development Bank (IDB), Development of Four Higher Education Institution, Project Implementation unit of Mulawarman University of Indonesia.

The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.

Acknowledgements

The author are grateful to all of respondent in this research, Rector of Mulawarman University and Islamic Development Bank.

F1000 recommended

References

1. WHO: Diptheria Reported Case. 2014. Reference Source
2. InfoDATIN: Situasi Imunisasi di Indonesia (Immunization situation in Indonesia). 2016. Reference Source
3. Minister of Health, Indonesia: Imunisasi Efektif Cegah Dipteri (Effective Immunization can Prevent Diphtheria). Reference Source
4. CDC: Corynebacterium diphtheriae. In: Epidemiology & Prevention of Vaccine-Preventable Diseases. United States: Centers for Disease Control and Prevention; 2015; 107–118. Reference Source
5. Murhekar MV, Bitragunta S: Persistence of diphtheria in India. Indian J Community Med. 2011; 36(2): 164–5. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text
6. Bisgard KM, Rhodes P, Hardy IR, et al.: Diphtheria toxoid vaccine effectiveness: A case-control study in Russia. J Infect Dis. 2000; 181 Suppl 1: S184–S187. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
7. Nanthavong N, Black AP, Nouanthong P, et al.: Diphtheria in Lao PDR: Insufficient Coverage or Ineffective Vaccine? PLoS One. 2015; 10(4): e0121749. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text
8. Mukarami H, Phuong NM, Thang HV, et al.: Endemic diphtheria in Ho Chi Minh City; Viet Nam: a matched case-control study to identify risk factors of incidence. Vaccine. 2010; 28(51): 8141–8146. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
9. Kartono B, Purwana R, Djaja I: Hubungan antara lingkungan rumah dengan kejadian Difteri di Kabupaten Garut dan Tasikmalaya, Indonesia) Correlation between home environment with Diphtheria outbreak in Tasikmalaya and Garut Districk of Indonesia. Makara, Kesehatan Indones. 2008; 12(1): 8–12. Reference Source
10. Arifin I, Prasasti C: FAKTOR YANG BERHUBUNGAN DENGAN KASUS DIFTERI ANAK DI PUSKESMAS BANGKALAN, INDONESIA (Related factors to Diphtheria case in children in Bangkalan health center, Indonesia). J Berk Epidemiol. 2016; 5(1): 26–36. Publisher Full Text
11. Garib Z, Danovaro-Holliday MC, Tavarez Y, et al.: Diphtheria in the Dominican Republic: reduction of cases following a large outbreak. Rev Panam Salud Publica. 2015; 38(4): 292–299. PubMed Abstract
12. Saifudin N, Wahyuni C, Martini S: FAKTOR RISIKO KEJADIAN DIFTERI DI KABUPATEN BLITAR, INDONESIA) (RISK FACTOR OF DIPHTHERIA INCIDENCE IN BLITAR, INDONESIA). J Wiyata Indones. 2016; 3(2): 61–66. Reference Source
13. Muhamad Ramdan I, Susanti R, Ifroh RH, et al.: Dataset 1 in: Risk Factors of Diphtheria Outbreak in Children aged 1-10 years in East Kalimantan Province of Indonesia. F1000Research. 2018. http://www.doi.org/10.5256/f1000research.16433.d220825
14. Menteri Kesehatan RI: Peraturan Menteri Kesehatan Republik Indonesia Nomor 12 Tahun 2017 tentang Penyelenggaraan Imunisasi. Kementeri Kesehat. 2017; 1–162. Reference Source
15. Kemenkes: Standar Antropometri Penilaian Status Gizi Anak. 2010; 40. Reference Source
16. Kesehatan M, Indonesia R: Keputusan Menteri Kesehatan No. 829 Tahun 1999 Tentang: Persyaratan Kesehatan Perumahan. 1999; (829). Reference Source
17. Ningtyas DW, Wibowo A: Pengaruh Kualitas Vaksin Campak Terhadap Kejadian Campak Di Kabupaten Pasuruan. J Berk Epidemiol. 2015; 3(3): 315–326. Reference Source
18. Kristensen D, Chen D, Cummings R: Vaccine stabilization: research, commercialization, and potential impact. Vaccine. 2011; 29(41): 7122–7124. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
19. Dhinata KS, Atika A, Husada D, et al.: Correlation between immunization status and pediatric diphtheria patients outcomes in the Sampang District, 2011-2015. Paediatr Indones. 2018; 58(3): 110–115. Publisher Full Text
20. Sadoh AE, Sadoh WE: Diphtheria mortality in Nigeria: the need to stock diphtheria antitoxin. African J Clin Exp Microbiol. 2011; 12(2): 82–85. Publisher Full Text
21. Gowin E, Wysocki J, Kałużna E, et al.: Does vaccination ensure protection? Assessing diphtheria and tetanus antibody levels in a population of healthy children: A cross-sectional study. Medicine (Baltimore). 2016; 95(49): e5571. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text
22. Phadke VK, Bednarczyk RA, Salmon DA, et al.: Association Between Vaccine Refusal and Vaccine-Preventable Diseases in the United States: A Review of Measles and Pertussis. JAMA. 2016; 315(11): 1149–1158. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text
23. Prendergast AJ: Malnutrition and vaccination in developing countries. Philos Trans R Soc Lond B Biol Sci. 2015; 370(1671): pii: 20140141. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text
24. Sundoko TW, Rasni H, Hardiani RS: Hubungan antara peran orang tua dan faktor risiko kejadian Difteri di Kabupaten Situbondi, Indonesia (Correlation Between the Role of Parents and Risk of Diphtheria Subdistrict at Situbondo Regency, Indonesia.). J Heal Libr Indones. 2015; 3(1): 96–102. Reference Source
25. Lalor MK, Floyd S, Gorak-Stolinska P, et al.: BCG vaccination: a role for vitamin D? PLoS One. 2011; 6(1): e16709. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text
26. Kaufman DR, De Calisto J, Simmons NL, et al.: Vitamin A deficiency impairs vaccine-elicited gastrointestinal immunity. J Immunol. 2011; 187(4): 1877–1883. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text
27. Patil N, Gawade N, Gaidhane A, et al.: Investigating diphtheria outbreak: A qualitative study in rural area. Int J Med Sci Public Heal. 2014; 3(4): 513–516. Publisher Full Text
28. Gushulak BD, MacPherson DW: Globalization of infectious diseases: the impact of migration. Clin Infect Dis. 2004; 38(12): 1742–1748. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
29. Castelli F, Sulis G: Migration and infectious diseases. Clin Microbiol Infect. 2017; 23(5): 283–289. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
30. Pottie K, Mayhew AD, Morton RL, et al.: Prevention and assessment of infectious diseases among children and adult migrants arriving to the European Union/European Economic Association: a protocol for a suite of systematic reviews for public health and health systems. BMJ Open. 2017; 7(9): e014608. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text

Comments on this article Comments (0)

Version 1

VERSION 1 PUBLISHED 10 Oct 2018

Author details Author details

¹ Public Health Faculty, Mulawarman University, Samarinda, East Kalimantan, 75123, Indonesia

Iwan Muhamad Ramdan
Roles: Conceptualization, Data Curation, Formal Analysis, Investigation, Methodology, Supervision, Validation, Writing – Original Draft Preparation, Writing – Review & Editing

Rahmi Susanti
Roles: Data Curation, Formal Analysis, Methodology, Project Administration, Supervision, Validation, Writing – Review & Editing

Riza Hayati Ifroh
Roles: Data Curation, Formal Analysis, Methodology, Supervision, Validation, Writing – Review & Editing

Reny Noviasty
Roles: Data Curation, Formal Analysis, Methodology, Supervision, Validation, Writing – Review & Editing

Competing interests

No competing interests were disclosed.

Grant information

This work was supported by Islamic Development Bank (IDB), Development of Four Higher Education Institution, Project Implementation unit of Mulawarman University of Indonesia.
The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.

Article Versions (1)

version 1

Published: 10 Oct 2018, 7:1625

https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.16433.1

Copyright

© 2018 Muhamad Ramdan I et al. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. Data associated with the article are available under the terms of the Creative Commons Zero "No rights reserved" data waiver (CC0 1.0 Public domain dedication).

Download

Export To

metrics

	Views	Downloads
F1000Research	-	-
PubMed Central Data from PMC are received and updated monthly.	-	-

Citations

0

SEE MORE DETAILS

CITE

how to cite this article

Muhamad Ramdan I, Susanti R, Ifroh RH and Noviasty R. Risk factors for diphtheria outbreak in children aged 1-10 years in East Kalimantan Province, Indonesia [version 1; peer review: 2 approved]. F1000Research 2018, 7:1625 (https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.16433.1)

NOTE: If applicable, it is important to ensure the information in square brackets after the title is included in all citations of this article.

track

receive updates on this article

Track an article to receive email alerts on any updates to this article.

Open Peer Review

Version 1

VERSION 1

PUBLISHED 10 Oct 2018

Views

13

Reviewer Report 06 Nov 2019

Yves Buisson, Institut de la Francophonie pour la Médecine Tropicale (IFMT), Vientiane, Lao People's Democratic Republic

Approved

https://doi.org/10.5256/f1000research.17956.r42801

This is an interesting, well-structured study analyzing the risk factors for contracting diphtheria in Indonesian children. The article is well written but some improvements are needed before indexing:

What were the criteria for defining cases of

This is an interesting, well-structured study analyzing the risk factors for contracting diphtheria in Indonesian children. The article is well written but some improvements are needed before indexing:

What were the criteria for defining cases of diphtheria? Only clinically or after bacteriological confirmation?
Specify the age group >5-10 years: is it 5-10, or >10, or both (>5)?
In "Methods - statistical analysis", it must be stipulated that only the parameters giving a p <0.05 are entered in the logistic regression.
The results obtained (cases better vaccinated than the controls and better nutritional status in the controls than in the cases) should lead to discuss more deeply the possibility of a weaker immune response among the cases and suggest a complementary study with dosage of post- vaccine antibodies.
A source of contamination was found among the controls, not among the cases; it is in contradiction with the fact that among diphtheria cases, mobility in a region experiencing a recrudescence of diphtheria proves to be the main risk factor. Such discrepancy should be analysed in the discussion.

Is the work clearly and accurately presented and does it cite the current literature?

Yes
Is the study design appropriate and is the work technically sound?

Yes
Are sufficient details of methods and analysis provided to allow replication by others?

Yes
If applicable, is the statistical analysis and its interpretation appropriate?

Yes
Are all the source data underlying the results available to ensure full reproducibility?

Yes
Are the conclusions drawn adequately supported by the results?

Partly

Competing Interests: No competing interests were disclosed.

I confirm that I have read this submission and believe that I have an appropriate level of expertise to confirm that it is of an acceptable scientific standard.

CITE

Report a concern

Respond or Comment

Views

28

Reviewer Report 19 Oct 2018

Soedjajadi Keman, Faculty of Public Health, Airlangga University, Surabaya, Indonesia

Approved

https://doi.org/10.5256/f1000research.17956.r39315

This research article is very good. However, please complete the conclusion in the Abstract: Child/parent mobility (OR=8.456) is the main risk factor for diphtheria outbreak and the nutritional status of children and the source of transmission as well.

... Continue reading

This research article is very good. However, please complete the conclusion in the Abstract: Child/parent mobility (OR=8.456) is the main risk factor for diphtheria outbreak and the nutritional status of children and the source of transmission as well.

The keywords, introduction, methods, results (including statistical analysis), discussion, conclusion and references are okay.

Additional comments:

1.         The study design is appropriate and the work is technically sound.
2.         The method is quite detailed and analysis provided is absolutely perfect to allow replication by other researchers.
3.         The statistical analysis is correct and its interpretation is also appropriate.
4.         The conclusions drawn should be: the main risk factors for diphtheria outbreak are children mobility, source of transmission, and nutritional status. It is recommended to the parents to limit mobility of their children to areas that are experiencing increased cases of diphtheria and improve their childrens’ nutritional status as well. It is recommended for further study to analyze the effectiveness of diphtheria vaccines since both study and control group have already got diphtheria vaccination.

Is the work clearly and accurately presented and does it cite the current literature?

Yes
Is the study design appropriate and is the work technically sound?

Yes
Are sufficient details of methods and analysis provided to allow replication by others?

Yes
If applicable, is the statistical analysis and its interpretation appropriate?

Yes
Are all the source data underlying the results available to ensure full reproducibility?

Yes
Are the conclusions drawn adequately supported by the results?

Yes

Competing Interests: No competing interests were disclosed.

Reviewer Expertise: Public Health, especially Environmental and Occupational Health

I confirm that I have read this submission and believe that I have an appropriate level of expertise to confirm that it is of an acceptable scientific standard.

CITE

Report a concern

Respond or Comment

Comments on this article Comments (0)

Version 1

VERSION 1 PUBLISHED 10 Oct 2018

Open Peer Review

Reviewer Status

Reviewer Reports

	Invited Reviewers
	1	2
Version 1 10 Oct 18	read	read

Soedjajadi Keman, Airlangga University, Surabaya, Indonesia
Yves Buisson, Institut de la Francophonie pour la Médecine Tropicale (IFMT), Vientiane, Lao People's Democratic Republic

Comments on this article

All Comments(0)

Add a comment

Sign up for content alerts

Browse by related subjects

Back to all reports

Reviewer Report

13 Views

06 Nov 2019 | for Version 1

Yves Buisson, Institut de la Francophonie pour la Médecine Tropicale (IFMT), Vientiane, Lao People's Democratic Republic

13 Views Cite this report Responses(0)

Approved

This is an interesting, well-structured study analyzing the risk factors for contracting diphtheria in Indonesian children. The article is well written but some improvements are needed before indexing:

What were the criteria for defining cases of diphtheria? Only clinically or after bacteriological confirmation?
Specify the age group >5-10 years: is it 5-10, or >10, or both (>5)?
In "Methods - statistical analysis", it must be stipulated that only the parameters giving a p <0.05 are entered in the logistic regression.
The results obtained (cases better vaccinated than the controls and better nutritional status in the controls than in the cases) should lead to discuss more deeply the possibility of a weaker immune response among the cases and suggest a complementary study with dosage of post- vaccine antibodies.
A source of contamination was found among the controls, not among the cases; it is in contradiction with the fact that among diphtheria cases, mobility in a region experiencing a recrudescence of diphtheria proves to be the main risk factor. Such discrepancy should be analysed in the discussion.

Is the work clearly and accurately presented and does it cite the current literature?

Yes
Is the study design appropriate and is the work technically sound?

Yes
Are sufficient details of methods and analysis provided to allow replication by others?

Yes
If applicable, is the statistical analysis and its interpretation appropriate?

Yes
Are all the source data underlying the results available to ensure full reproducibility?

Yes
Are the conclusions drawn adequately supported by the results?

Partly

Competing Interests

No competing interests were disclosed.

I confirm that I have read this submission and believe that I have an appropriate level of expertise to confirm that it is of an acceptable scientific standard.

Respond to this report

Responses (0)

Back to all reports

Reviewer Report

28 Views

19 Oct 2018 | for Version 1

Soedjajadi Keman, Faculty of Public Health, Airlangga University, Surabaya, Indonesia

28 Views Cite this report Responses(0)

Approved

This research article is very good. However, please complete the conclusion in the Abstract: Child/parent mobility (OR=8.456) is the main risk factor for diphtheria outbreak and the nutritional status of children and the source of transmission as well.

The keywords, introduction, methods, results (including statistical analysis), discussion, conclusion and references are okay.

Additional comments:

1.         The study design is appropriate and the work is technically sound.
2.         The method is quite detailed and analysis provided is absolutely perfect to allow replication by other researchers.
3.         The statistical analysis is correct and its interpretation is also appropriate.
4.         The conclusions drawn should be: the main risk factors for diphtheria outbreak are children mobility, source of transmission, and nutritional status. It is recommended to the parents to limit mobility of their children to areas that are experiencing increased cases of diphtheria and improve their childrens’ nutritional status as well. It is recommended for further study to analyze the effectiveness of diphtheria vaccines since both study and control group have already got diphtheria vaccination.

Is the work clearly and accurately presented and does it cite the current literature?

Yes
Is the study design appropriate and is the work technically sound?

Yes
Are sufficient details of methods and analysis provided to allow replication by others?

Yes
If applicable, is the statistical analysis and its interpretation appropriate?

Yes
Are all the source data underlying the results available to ensure full reproducibility?

Yes
Are the conclusions drawn adequately supported by the results?

Yes

Competing Interests

No competing interests were disclosed.

Reviewer Expertise

Public Health, especially Environmental and Occupational Health

I confirm that I have read this submission and believe that I have an appropriate level of expertise to confirm that it is of an acceptable scientific standard.

Respond to this report

Responses (0)

[1] 1. WHO: Diptheria Reported Case. 2014. Reference Source

[2] 2. InfoDATIN: Situasi Imunisasi di Indonesia (Immunization situation in Indonesia). 2016. Reference Source

[3] 3. Minister of Health, Indonesia: Imunisasi Efektif Cegah Dipteri (Effective Immunization can Prevent Diphtheria). Reference Source

[4] 4. CDC: Corynebacterium diphtheriae. In: Epidemiology & Prevention of Vaccine-Preventable Diseases. United States: Centers for Disease Control and Prevention; 2015; 107–118. Reference Source

[5] 5. Murhekar MV, Bitragunta S: Persistence of diphtheria in India. Indian J Community Med. 2011; 36(2): 164–5. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text

[6] 6. Bisgard KM, Rhodes P, Hardy IR, et al.: Diphtheria toxoid vaccine effectiveness: A case-control study in Russia. J Infect Dis. 2000; 181 Suppl 1: S184–S187. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text

[7] 7. Nanthavong N, Black AP, Nouanthong P, et al.: Diphtheria in Lao PDR: Insufficient Coverage or Ineffective Vaccine? PLoS One. 2015; 10(4): e0121749. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text

[8] 8. Mukarami H, Phuong NM, Thang HV, et al.: Endemic diphtheria in Ho Chi Minh City; Viet Nam: a matched case-control study to identify risk factors of incidence. Vaccine. 2010; 28(51): 8141–8146. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text

[9] 9. Kartono B, Purwana R, Djaja I: Hubungan antara lingkungan rumah dengan kejadian Difteri di Kabupaten Garut dan Tasikmalaya, Indonesia) Correlation between home environment with Diphtheria outbreak in Tasikmalaya and Garut Districk of Indonesia. Makara, Kesehatan Indones. 2008; 12(1): 8–12. Reference Source

[10] 10. Arifin I, Prasasti C: FAKTOR YANG BERHUBUNGAN DENGAN KASUS DIFTERI ANAK DI PUSKESMAS BANGKALAN, INDONESIA (Related factors to Diphtheria case in children in Bangkalan health center, Indonesia). J Berk Epidemiol. 2016; 5(1): 26–36. Publisher Full Text

[11] 11. Garib Z, Danovaro-Holliday MC, Tavarez Y, et al.: Diphtheria in the Dominican Republic: reduction of cases following a large outbreak. Rev Panam Salud Publica. 2015; 38(4): 292–299. PubMed Abstract

[12] 12. Saifudin N, Wahyuni C, Martini S: FAKTOR RISIKO KEJADIAN DIFTERI DI KABUPATEN BLITAR, INDONESIA) (RISK FACTOR OF DIPHTHERIA INCIDENCE IN BLITAR, INDONESIA). J Wiyata Indones. 2016; 3(2): 61–66. Reference Source

[13] 13. Muhamad Ramdan I, Susanti R, Ifroh RH, et al.: Dataset 1 in: Risk Factors of Diphtheria Outbreak in Children aged 1-10 years in East Kalimantan Province of Indonesia. F1000Research. 2018. http://www.doi.org/10.5256/f1000research.16433.d220825

[14] 14. Menteri Kesehatan RI: Peraturan Menteri Kesehatan Republik Indonesia Nomor 12 Tahun 2017 tentang Penyelenggaraan Imunisasi. Kementeri Kesehat. 2017; 1–162. Reference Source

[15] 15. Kemenkes: Standar Antropometri Penilaian Status Gizi Anak. 2010; 40. Reference Source

[16] 16. Kesehatan M, Indonesia R: Keputusan Menteri Kesehatan No. 829 Tahun 1999 Tentang: Persyaratan Kesehatan Perumahan. 1999; (829). Reference Source

[17] 17. Ningtyas DW, Wibowo A: Pengaruh Kualitas Vaksin Campak Terhadap Kejadian Campak Di Kabupaten Pasuruan. J Berk Epidemiol. 2015; 3(3): 315–326. Reference Source

[18] 18. Kristensen D, Chen D, Cummings R: Vaccine stabilization: research, commercialization, and potential impact. Vaccine. 2011; 29(41): 7122–7124. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text

[19] 19. Dhinata KS, Atika A, Husada D, et al.: Correlation between immunization status and pediatric diphtheria patients outcomes in the Sampang District, 2011-2015. Paediatr Indones. 2018; 58(3): 110–115. Publisher Full Text

[20] 20. Sadoh AE, Sadoh WE: Diphtheria mortality in Nigeria: the need to stock diphtheria antitoxin. African J Clin Exp Microbiol. 2011; 12(2): 82–85. Publisher Full Text

[21] 21. Gowin E, Wysocki J, Kałużna E, et al.: Does vaccination ensure protection? Assessing diphtheria and tetanus antibody levels in a population of healthy children: A cross-sectional study. Medicine (Baltimore). 2016; 95(49): e5571. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text

[22] 22. Phadke VK, Bednarczyk RA, Salmon DA, et al.: Association Between Vaccine Refusal and Vaccine-Preventable Diseases in the United States: A Review of Measles and Pertussis. JAMA. 2016; 315(11): 1149–1158. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text

[23] 23. Prendergast AJ: Malnutrition and vaccination in developing countries. Philos Trans R Soc Lond B Biol Sci. 2015; 370(1671): pii: 20140141. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text

[24] 24. Sundoko TW, Rasni H, Hardiani RS: Hubungan antara peran orang tua dan faktor risiko kejadian Difteri di Kabupaten Situbondi, Indonesia (Correlation Between the Role of Parents and Risk of Diphtheria Subdistrict at Situbondo Regency, Indonesia.). J Heal Libr Indones. 2015; 3(1): 96–102. Reference Source

[25] 25. Lalor MK, Floyd S, Gorak-Stolinska P, et al.: BCG vaccination: a role for vitamin D? PLoS One. 2011; 6(1): e16709. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text

[26] 26. Kaufman DR, De Calisto J, Simmons NL, et al.: Vitamin A deficiency impairs vaccine-elicited gastrointestinal immunity. J Immunol. 2011; 187(4): 1877–1883. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text

[27] 27. Patil N, Gawade N, Gaidhane A, et al.: Investigating diphtheria outbreak: A qualitative study in rural area. Int J Med Sci Public Heal. 2014; 3(4): 513–516. Publisher Full Text

[28] 28. Gushulak BD, MacPherson DW: Globalization of infectious diseases: the impact of migration. Clin Infect Dis. 2004; 38(12): 1742–1748. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text

[29] 29. Castelli F, Sulis G: Migration and infectious diseases. Clin Microbiol Infect. 2017; 23(5): 283–289. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text

[30] 30. Pottie K, Mayhew AD, Morton RL, et al.: Prevention and assessment of infectious diseases among children and adult migrants arriving to the European Union/European Economic Association: a protocol for a suite of systematic reviews for public health and health systems. BMJ Open. 2017; 7(9): e014608. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text

Risk factors for diphtheria outbreak in children aged 1-10 years in East Kalimantan Province, Indonesia

Abstract

Keywords

Introduction

Methods

Study design and settings

Data collection and measurement

Statistical analysis

Ethical approval

Results

Variables

Table 1. Characteristics of respondents (n=37).

Table 2. Results of bivariate analysis.

Analysis of the variables

Table 3. Results of logistic regression for risk factors of diphtheria.

Discussion

Conclusion

Data availability

Grant information

Acknowledgements

References

Comments on this article Comments (0)

Open Peer Review

Comments on this article Comments (0)

Open Peer Review

Reviewer Status

Reviewer Reports

Comments on this article

Browse by related subjects

The problem

How to fix it

Competing Interests Policy

Stay Updated