Jane Oliver1, Michael G Baker1, Nevil Pierse1, Jonathan Carapetis2. 1. Department of Public Health, University of Otago, Wellington, New Zealand. 2. Telethon Kids Institute, University of Western Australia, Perth, Western Australia, Australia.
Abstract
AIM: Rheumatic fever (RF) prevention, control and surveillance are increasingly important priorities in New Zealand (NZ) and Australia. We compared RF surveillance across Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) member countries to assist in benchmarking and identifying useful approaches. METHODS: A structured literature review was completed using Medline and PubMed databases, investigating RF incidence rates. Surveillance methods were noted. Health department websites were searched to assess whether addressing RF was a Government priority. RESULTS: Of 32 OECD member countries, nine reported RF incidence rates after 1999. Highest rates were seen in indigenous Australians, and NZ Māori and Pacific peoples. NZ and Australian surveillance systems are highly developed, with notification and register data compiled regularly. Only these two Governments appeared to prioritise RF surveillance and control. Other countries relied mainly on hospitalisation data. There is a lack of standardisation across incidence rate calculations. Israel and Italy may have relatively high RF rates among developed countries. CONCLUSIONS: RF lingers in specific populations in OECD member countries. At a minimum, RF registers are needed in higher incidence countries. Countries with low RF incidences should periodically review surveillance information to ensure rates are not increasing.
AIM: Rheumatic fever (RF) prevention, control and surveillance are increasingly important priorities in New Zealand (NZ) and Australia. We compared RF surveillance across Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) member countries to assist in benchmarking and identifying useful approaches. METHODS: A structured literature review was completed using Medline and PubMed databases, investigating RF incidence rates. Surveillance methods were noted. Health department websites were searched to assess whether addressing RF was a Government priority. RESULTS: Of 32 OECD member countries, nine reported RF incidence rates after 1999. Highest rates were seen in indigenous Australians, and NZ Māori and Pacific peoples. NZ and Australian surveillance systems are highly developed, with notification and register data compiled regularly. Only these two Governments appeared to prioritise RF surveillance and control. Other countries relied mainly on hospitalisation data. There is a lack of standardisation across incidence rate calculations. Israel and Italy may have relatively high RF rates among developed countries. CONCLUSIONS: RF lingers in specific populations in OECD member countries. At a minimum, RF registers are needed in higher incidence countries. Countries with low RF incidences should periodically review surveillance information to ensure rates are not increasing.