山西省四县出生缺陷监测质量的评估

目的 了解山西省出生缺陷高发的平定县、昔阳县、太谷县和泽州县出生缺陷监测系统的可靠性。方法 2004年每个县各选取1个乡（镇），由统一培训的乡村级调查员于2004年2—3月人户对2003年该地区的出生情况和出生缺陷病例进行调查与核实。调查获得的出生数、出生缺陷数与监测系统上报的结果进行比较。各县的监测出生数还要与当地其他部门收集的资料进行比较。漏报评价标准为：抽样地区出生漏报应≤5％，重大体表畸形漏报≤10％。此外，北京大学医学部项目人员对部分监测点的基础卫生工作情况进行检查。结果 4个乡镇通过人户调查得到的出生数为1043人，而监测系统上报的出生数为997人，漏报46人，漏报率为4．4％。调查共核实30例体表先天畸形病例，而通过监测系统上报的先天畸形数为29例，漏报1例，漏报率为3．3％。4个县监测系统的出生数与当地出生人口资料估计的出生数相差1．2％。对部分监测点的工作情况调查发现，各监测点均有较为完善的卫生常规登记资料，有专门负责出生缺陷监测工作的人员。结论 山西省4个县出生缺陷监测系统尽管存在一定的出生和畸形病例的漏报，但漏报率很低。基层监测点具有较为完善的出生和畸形登记、上报和管理机制，监测人员对于出生缺陷监测相关知识有所了解，并且具备对于出生和畸形的记录和报告意识，因此监测资料的来源较为可靠。

Evaluation on birth defects surveillance system in four counties of Shanxi province,China

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the reliability of the birth defects surveillance system in four counties with high prevalence of birth defects (Pingding, Xiyang, Taigu and Zezhou counties) in Shanxi province, China. METHODS: One township was selected from each county as study site. The health workers chosen from township or village level were trained to visit families on the outcomes of each pregnancy who gave birth during year 2003 in the study site. The number of births and cases collected in the study were compared with that from the surveillance system. The number of births reported by surveillance system in four counties was also compared with the data from the local government. The criteria of evaluation were: 1) number of the missing report of births should < or = 5%, 2) the number of missing report on major external birth defects cases should < or = 10%. Researchers from the Peking University were responsible for examining the quality of surveillance in some terminal units of surveillance system. RESULTS: The numbers of births reported in the study and from the surveillance system for four-township were 1043 and 997, respectively. 46 births were missing and the rate of misreporting for births was 4.4%. The numbers of birth defects cases reported in the study and from the surveillance system were 30 and 29, respectively. 1 case of birth defect as missed, and rate of misreporting for birth defects cases was 3.3%. The total number of births reported from surveillance was similar to that in the study in four counties, with a difference of 1.2%. Birth registry data was rather readable and special health workers responsible for surveillance work were present in all the terminal units of the surveillance system. CONCLUSION: The misreporting of births and cases existed in the birth defects surveillance system of the four counties in Shanxi province, but were lower than the allowable criteria. The surveillance units had better registration, reporting and administration of births and birth defect cases. Hence, the quality of the data from the surveillance system in these four counties was reliable.