London's Pulse: Medical Officer of Health reports 1848-1972
View report page
Hints from the Health Department. Leaflet from the archive of the Society of Medical Officers of Health. Credit: Wellcome Collection, London
Leyton 1935
[Report of the Medical Officer of Health for Leyton]
This page requires JavaScript
The detailed analysis shown above may be summarised thus:—
| (1)Primary Cases | (2) Contacts of School Age | (3) Ratio of (2) to (1) | (4) No. of contacts attacked | (5) Percentage of contacts attacked | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1932-3. | Hospital | 662 | 816 | 1.23 | 19 | 2.3 |
| Home | 369 | 214 | .58 | 12 | 5.6 | |
| Total | 1,031 | 1,030 | .99 | 31 | 3.00 | |
| 1934-5. | Hospital | 681 | 746 | 1.09 | 24 | 3.2 |
| Home | 393 | 261 | .66 | 11 | 4.2 | |
| Total | 1,074 | 1,007 | .93 | 35 | 3.4 | |
It will be observed from these figures that the two periods show
no wide disparity in respect of incidence and school eon toots. The
circumstances are therefore suitable as a means of comparing the
efficacy of school exclusion.
The one outstanding difference between the hospital-treated
and home-treated groups is the ratio of contacts to primary oases.
For instance, in the period 1932-33 the ratio was 1.23 for hospitaltreated
cases and 0.58 for home-treated cases; in 1934-35 it was
1.09 for hospital and 0.06 for home cases. This is to be expected
when one considers that many cases are admitted to hospital simply
because the number of home contacts makes isolation at home
difficult. However, by accepting as the basis of comparison the
percentage of contacts attacked, the two groups are comparable.
When comparison is made between the percentage contactattack
rates of hospital-treated and home-treated cases it will be
seen that in each of the two periods the percentage was greater when
the primary cases were treated at home ; but although the difference
is statistically significant in the first period, it is not so in the second.
The important point, however, is whether the shortening of the
school exclusion period was followed by any significant change in
the risk, and it will be seen that such was not the case; for although
the resulting contact rate during the second period was slightly
greater in respect of hospital-treated cases, it was slightly less in
respect of home-treated cases.