Hostname: page-component-5c6d5d7d68-lvtdw Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-08-20T16:35:03.442Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

A study of rheumatic fever and streptococcal infection in different social groups in Melbourne

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  15 May 2009

Margaret C. Holmes  and
Sydney D. Rubbo
Margaret C. Holmes
Affiliation:
School of Bacteriology, University of Melbourne
Sydney D. Rubbo
Affiliation:
School of Bacteriology, University of Melbourne
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.

1. Hospital records of 1469 cases of rheumatic fever (including chorea) up to the age of 14 years were used to study the social distribution of the disease in Melbourne. On this evidence the incidence of rheumatic fever was three times greater in low than in high rental districts.

2. The results of throat-swab surveys and Dick tests on schoolchildren living in different districts showed that children in the poor districts contracted streptococcal infections more frequently than those in well-to-do districts.

3. One factor associated with the carrier rate of Streptococcus pyogenes in the various social groups was the incidence of tonsillectomy. In the better class districts where the tonsillectomy rate was high (60%) the Str. pyogenes carrier rate was 12.5%, whereas the rates in poor areas were 35 and 25.3% respectively.

4. Differences in social incidence of rheumatic fever might therefore be explained by differences in social incidence of streptococcal infection, which, in turn, might be influenced by the incidence of tonsillectomy.

We wish to thank the many persons who so willingly assisted in the collection of data for this study, particularly Dr H. L. Stokes and Dr M. M. Wilson, and Dr R. E. O. Williams for advice on presentation. This work was supported by a grant to one of us (Dr M. C. Holmes) from the Commonwealth Research Fund from the University of Melbourne.

Type
Research Article
Information
Journal of Hygiene , Volume 51 , Issue 4 , December 1953 , pp. 450 - 457
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1953

References

Bradley, W. H. (1932). Quart. J. Med. 25, 79.Google Scholar
Coburn, A. F. (1945). Milit. Surg. 96, 17.Google Scholar
Coburn, A. F. & Young, D. C. (1949). Epidemiology of Hemolytic Streptococcus. Baltimore: The Williams and Wilkins Co.Google Scholar
Daniel, G. H. (1942). J. R. statist. Soc. 105, 197.Google Scholar
Glover, J. A. (1948). Arch. Dis. Childh. 23, 1.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hammon, W. M., Sather, Gladys E. & Hollinger, Nell (1950). Amer. J. publ. Hlth, 40, 293.Google Scholar
Knowelden, J. (1949). Brit. J. soc. Med. 3, 29.Google Scholar
London County Council Report, by Members of Staff of the Public Heath Dept. (1947). Lancet, i, 668.Google Scholar
Macdonald, I., Simmons, R. T. & Keogh, E. V. (1940). Med. J. Aust. 2, 849.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Melnick, J. L. & Ledinko, Nada (1951). Amer. J. Hyg. 54, 354.Google Scholar
Morris, J. N. & Titmuss, R. M. (1942). Lancet, ii, 59.Google Scholar
Mote, J. R. & Jones, T. D. (1941). J. Immunol. 41, 35.Google Scholar
Prest, W. (1945). Econ. Rec. 21, 37.Google Scholar
Quinn, R. W., Liao, S. J. & Quinn, julia P. (1951). Amer. J. Hyg. 54, 331.Google Scholar
Quinn, R. W. & Quinn, JULIA P. (1951). Yale J. biol. Med. 24, 15.Google Scholar
Rubbo, S. D., Holmes, Margaret C. & Stokes, H. L. (1949). Lancet, ii, 311.Google Scholar
Thompson, S. & Glazebrook, A. J. (1941). J. Hyg., Camb., 41, 570.Google Scholar