Correction to: A Case-Control Study of Environmental and Occupational Risks of Leptospirosis in Sri Lanka.

The original version of this article unfortunately contained a mistake in one of the co-author's family name. The correct name should be Janith Warnasekara instead of Janith Warnasuriya. The original article has been corrected.

A Case-Control Study of Environmental and Occupational Risks of Leptospirosis in Sri Lanka.

Sri Lanka has one of the highest incidences of human leptospirosis worldwide. Outbreaks of this zoonotic infection are related to the monsoons and flooding. The study investigates risk factors associated with environmental, animal and occupational exposure while acknowledging the potential bias due to hanta viral infections in the study samples. Data were obtained from structured interviews with 483 patients (276 cases and 207 controls). Risk exposures were studied for the entire population and for two stratified occupational groups: non-paddy workers and paddy workers. A higher odds ratio (OR) of leptospirosis transmission for paddy workers was observed compared to non-paddy workers (OR 1.905, 95% CI 1.274-2.856). Rat exposure was not associated with a significant higher risk for any of the groups. Instead, cattle and household animals seemed to be important for transmission of leptospirosis to humans, especially among non-paddy workers (OR 10.655, 95% CI 1.213-93.582). Leptospirosis in paddy workers was associated with environmental factors linked to contamination and wetness in paddy fields. Interestingly, abandoned paddy fields were found to have a protective effect against transmission to paddy workers (OR 0.421, 95% CI 0.237-0.748). Keeping animals on these dryer fields may act as a boundary for contamination of paddy fields with infectious animal urine. This finding may be considered as a public health intervention targeting leptospirosis among paddy workers.

The Cholera Phone: Diarrheal Disease Surveillance by Mobile Phone in Bangladesh.

Existing methodologies to record diarrheal disease incidence in households have limitations due to a high-episode recall error outside a 48-hour window. Our objective was to use mobile phones for reporting diarrheal episodes in households to provide real-time incidence data with minimum resource consumption and low recall error. From June 2014 to June 2015, we enrolled 417 low-income households in Dhaka, Bangladesh, and asked them to report diarrheal episodes to a call center. A team of data collectors then visited persons reporting the episode to collect data. In addition, each month, the team conducted in-home surveys on diarrhea incidence for a preceding 48-hour period. The mobile phone surveillance reported an incidence of 0.16 cases per person-year (95% CI: 0.13-0.19), with 117 reported diarrhea cases, and the routine in-home survey detected an incidence of 0.33 cases per person-year (95% CI: 0.18-0.60), the incidence rate ratio was 2.11 (95% CI: 1.08-3.78). During focus group discussions, participants reported a lack in motivation to report diarrhea by phone because of the absence of provision of intervening treatment following reporting. Mobile phone technology can provide a unique tool for real-time disease reporting. The phone surveillance in this study reported a lower incidence of diarrhea than an in-home survey, possibly because of the absence of intervention and, therefore, a perceived lack of incentive to report. However, this study reports the untapped potential of mobile phones in monitoring infectious disease incidence in a low-income setting.