Screening for hepatitis b surface antigen in an obstetric population in the Júlio Dinis maternity hospital

Authors

  • M. L. Lima Assistente Hospitalar de Imuno-Hemoterapia (M.J.D. - Porto);
  • Graça Rodrigues Interna do Internato Complementar de Obstetrícia e Ginecologia (M.J.D. - Porto)
  • Helena Gonçalves Internas do Internato Complementar de Obstetrícia e Ginecologia (M.J.D. - Porto)
  • Cristina Lino Internas do Internato Complementar de Obstetrícia e Ginecologia (M.J.D. - Porto)
  • Cristina Carrapatoso Interna Prolongada de Obstetrícia e Ginecologia com o grau de Assistente Hospitalar (M.J.D. - Porto);
  • Raúl Nogueira Assistente Hospitalar de Obstetrícia (M.J.D. -- Porto)

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.32385/rpmgf.v16i1.9779

Keywords:

Hepatitis B, Pregnancy, Seroprevalence

Abstract

The autors estimate the prevalence of Hepatitis B Surface Antigen in an obstetric population, admitted to the out-patient clinic of M.J.D. during one year. A questionnaire was designed to identify the possible risk factors associated whith the presence of HB surface antigen. Among 1333 pregnant women, 1258 were screened, and 627 concluded the study: screening and questionnaire. In the overall sample, the prevalence of Hepatitis B Surface Antigen was 2,4% and the prevalence in the group that completed the study protocol was 2.9% (95% confidence interval: 1.8-4.5%). No significant differences were found for HBs Ag positive or negative women according to the characteristics evaluated, except for a past history of clinically recognised hepatitis. This study confirms the usefulness of the present policy of universal screening of all pregnant women, showing that in this population a selective screening based on known risk factors would lead to a biased selection of women for HBs Ag screening.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

Published

2000-01-01

How to Cite

Screening for hepatitis b surface antigen in an obstetric population in the Júlio Dinis maternity hospital. (2000). Portuguese Journal of Family Medicine and General Practice, 16(1), 35-42. https://doi.org/10.32385/rpmgf.v16i1.9779