Risk and Prevention of Meningococcal Disease among Education Workers: A Review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The aims of the present study were to review the risk of invasive meningococcal disease (IMD) among education workers, particularly pregnant women, and to evaluate preventive measures, in a context of endemicity, outbreak or epidemic as observed in the province of Quebec. The literature was reviewed and persons in charge of IMD surveillance in France, Quebec, the United Kingdom and the United States were interviewed. Surveys of asymptomatic carriage of Neisseria meningitidis show that transmission among students is higher than transmission between students and teachers. IMD incidence among education workers was analyzed in Cheshire (United Kingdom) in the period from 1997 to 1999, and the results indicated a risk six times higher than that in the general population. Overestimation of the magnitude of the risk is possible because the analysis focused on a cluster. None of the population-based studies of IMD mentioned a risk of secondary cases among education workers. Six IMD cases in education workers were identified in five clusters in schools in the United Kingdom, but not in the other countries. There is no epidemiological study on IMD risk among pregnant women, and this factor was not mentioned in any published review of IMD. Immunization of education workers at the beginning of their employment, using serogroup C glycoconjugate vaccine or a combined A, C, W-135, and Y conjugate vaccine (still under development), could reduce IMD risk, but the cost effectiveness of this measure should be evaluated. The societal benefit of excluding pregnant women from the work place during an outbreak seems to be very low, even if disease risk could be decreased for this specific group. When chemoprophylaxis is indicated for the control of an outbreak in an educational setting, treatment should be offered both to students and teachers in the group at risk.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".