Knowledge, attitudes, and practices among border crossers during temporary enforcement of a formal entry requirement for Mexican-style soft cheeses, 2009.

Mexican-style soft cheese known as queso fresco (QF), which is often unpasteurized, has been implicated in outbreaks of foodborne illness in the United States. The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) exercises discretion in enforcement of noncommercial importation of cheese. To test control measures aimed at decreasing unlawful QF importation, in 2009 the FDA temporarily enforced a requirement for formal commercial entry for all cheeses over 5 lb (2.3 kg) at the San Diego-Tijuana border. Enforcement was combined with educational outreach. Border crossers importing cheese and those not importing cheese were surveyed at the beginning and end of the temporary enforcement period. Data collected included participant demographic information, knowledge of QF-associated health risks, and attitudes and practices regarding QF consumption and importation. We surveyed 306 importers and 381 nonimporters. Compared with nonimporters, importers had a lower level of knowledge regarding QF-associated health risks (P < 0.0001). Border crossers carrying cheese were more likely to have less education, be U.S. or dual residents, consume QF more frequently, and cross the border less often. Importation and consumption of unpasteurized QF remained prevalent among border crossers during the temporary enforcement period, and the level of knowledge regarding QF-associated risks remained low among these crossers. More vigorous, sustained messaging targeted at high-risk groups is needed to change behaviors. Definition and consistent enforcement of limits will likely be needed to reduce QF importation and the risk of QF-associated diseases along the U.S.-Mexico border; however, public health benefits will need to be balanced against the cost of enforcement.

Mass screening for fever in children: a comparison of 3 infrared thermal detection systems.

OBJECTIVES: Infrared thermal detection systems (ITDSs) have been used with limited success outside the United States to screen for fever during recent outbreaks of novel infectious diseases. Although ITDSs are fairly accurate in detecting fever in adults, there is little information about their utility in children. METHODS: In a pediatric emergency department, we compared temperatures of children (<18 years old) measured using 3 ITDSs (OptoTherm Thermoscreen, FLIR ThermoVision 360, and Thermofocus 0800H3) to standard, age-appropriate temperature measurements (confirmed fever defined as ≥38.0°C [oral or rectal], ≥37.0°C [axillary]). Measured temperatures were compared with parental reports of fever using descriptive, multivariate, and receiver operating characteristic analyses. RESULTS: Of 855 patients, 400 (46.8%) had parent-reported fever, and 306 (35.8%) had confirmed fever. At optimal fever thresholds, OptoTherm and FLIR had sensitivity (83.0% and 83.7%, respectively) approximately equal to parental report (83.9%) and greater than Thermofocus (76.8%), and specificity (86.3% and 85.7%) greater than parental report (70.8%) and Thermofocus (79.4%). Correlation coefficients between traditional thermometry and ITDSs were 0.78 (OptoTherm), 0.75 (FLIR), and 0.66 (Thermofocus). CONCLUSIONS: Compared with traditional thermometry, FLIR and OptoTherm were reasonably accurate in detecting fever in children and better predictors of fever than parental report. These findings suggest that ITDSs could be a useful noninvasive screening tool for fever in the pediatric age group.

Comparison of 3 infrared thermal detection systems and self-report for mass fever screening.

Despite limited evidence regarding their utility, infrared thermal detection systems (ITDS) are increasingly being used for mass fever detection. We compared temperature measurements for 3 ITDS (FLIR ThermoVision A20M [FLIR Systems Inc., Boston, MA, USA], OptoTherm Thermoscreen [OptoTherm Thermal Imaging Systems and Infrared Cameras Inc., Sewickley, PA, USA], and Wahl Fever Alert Imager HSI2000S [Wahl Instruments Inc., Asheville, NC, USA]) with oral temperatures (≥ 100 °F = confirmed fever) and self-reported fever. Of 2,873 patients enrolled, 476 (16.6%) reported a fever, and 64 (2.2%) had a confirmed fever. Self-reported fever had a sensitivity of 75.0%, specificity 84.7%, and positive predictive value 10.1%. At optimal cutoff values for detecting fever, temperature measurements by OptoTherm and FLIR had greater sensitivity (91.0% and 90.0%, respectively) and specificity (86.0% and 80.0%, respectively) than did self-reports. Correlations between ITDS and oral temperatures were similar for OptoTherm (ρ = 0.43) and FLIR (ρ = 0.42) but significantly lower for Wahl (ρ = 0.14; p < 0.001). When compared with oral temperatures, 2 systems (OptoTherm and FLIR) were reasonably accurate for detecting fever and predicted fever better than self-reports.