Child-care attendance and common morbidity: evidence of association in the literature and questions of design

Papers on child-care attendance as a risk factor for acute respiratory infections and diarrhea were reviewed. There was great variety among the studies with regard to the design, definition of exposure and definition of outcomes. All the traditional epidemiological study designs have been used. The studies varied in terms of how child-care attendance in general was defined, and for different settings. These definitions differed especially in relation to the minimum time of attendance required. The outcomes were also defined and measured in several different ways. The analyses performed were not always appropriate, leading to sets of results of uneven quality, and composed of different measures of association relating different exposures and outcomes, that made summarizing difficult. Despite that, the results reported were remarkably consistent. Only two of the papers reviewed failed to show some association between child-care attendance and increased acute respiratory infections, or diarrhea. On the other hand, the magnitude of the associations reported varied widely, especially for lower respiratory infections. Taken together, the studies so far published provide evidence that children attending child-care centers, especially those under three years of age, are at a higher risk of upper respiratory infections, lower respiratory infections, and diarrhea. The studies were not consistent, however, in relation to attendance at child-care homes. Children in such settings were sometimes similar to those in child-care centers, sometimes similar to those cared for at home, and sometimes presented an intermediate risk.

Validity of self-reported hearing loss in adults: performance of three single questions

OBJECTIVE: To estimate the validity of three single questions used to assess self-reported hearing loss as compared to pure-tone audiometry in an adult population. METHODS: A validity study was performed with a random sub-sample of 188 subjects aged 30 to 65 years, drawn from the fourth wave of a population-based cohort study carried out in Salvador, Northeastern Brazil. Data were collected in household visits using questionnaires. Three questions were used to separately assess self-reported hearing loss: Q1, "Do you feel you have a hearing loss?"; Q2, "In general, would you say your hearing is 'excellent,' 'very good,' 'good,' 'fair,' 'poor'?"; Q3, "Currently, do you think you can hear 'the same as before', 'less than before only in the right ear', 'less than before only in the left ear', 'less than before in both ears'?". Measures of accuracy were estimated through seven measures including Youden index. Responses to each question were compared to the results of pure-tone audiometry to estimate accuracy measures. RESULTS: The estimated sensitivity and specificity were 79.6%, 77.4% for Q1; 66.9%, 85.1% for Q2; and 81.5%, 76.4% for Q3, respectively. The Youden index ranged from 51.9% (Q2) to 57.0% (Q1) and 57.9% (Q3). CONCLUSIONS: Each of all three questions provides responses accurate enough to support their use to assess self-reported hearing loss in epidemiological studies with adult populations when pure-tone audiometry is not feasible.