Search PubMed⌕ Search

PubMed · 2062411

Multiple sclerosis: changing times.

Abstract

Multiple sclerosis (MS) is distributed about the world in three zones of high, medium, and low frequency. All high- and medium-risk areas are among predominantly white populations. Migration studies indicate MS is already acquired by age 15 in high-risk endemic areas and that low-to-high migrants increase their risk from age 11 years. Therefore MS is an environmental disease ordinarily acquired in adolescence with a long incubation before symptom onset. Susceptibility is limited to the period from about age 11 to 47. In general, MS death rates have been declining over time while prevalence rates have increased. Incidence rates have also increased, however, in: northeastern Scotland; Turku, Finland; Hordaland, Norway; Rochester, Minn.; Lower Saxony; several areas of Italy. Incidence was unchanged in northernmost Norway. Conversely, incidence and prevalence rates have decreased in the Shetland-Orkneys; there was a cyclical pattern in incidence in Rostock, GDR; and there was a transient doubling of incidence in Iceland in the post-World War II decade. In the Faroe Islands, MS was absent before 1943 when a major point-source epidemic began, reaching an incidence rate of 10 per 100,000 population in 1945. This was followed by two consecutively smaller epidemics with respective peaks each about 12 years later, and there is now a new epidemic IV on these islands. Explanations for changing incidence of MS over time should bring us closer to solving the etiology of this disease.

Explore related subjects

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

J F Kurtzke. 1991. Multiple sclerosis: changing times.. https://doi.org/10.1159/000110240

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related citations

Cross-cultural organizational behavior.

This article reviews research on cross-cultural organizational behavior (OB). After a brief review of the history of cross-cultural OB, we review research on work motivation, or the factors that energize, direct, and sustain effort across cultures. We next consider the relationship between the individual and the organization, and review research on culture and organizational commitment, psychological contracts, justice, citizenship behavior, and person-environment fit. Thereafter, we consider how individuals manage their interdependence in organizations, and review research on culture and negotiation and disputing, teams, and leadership, followed by research on managing across borders and expatriation. The review shows that developmentally, cross-cultural research in OB is coming of age. Yet we also highlight critical challenges for future research, including moving beyond values to explain cultural differences, attending to levels of analysis issues, incorporating social and organizational context factors into cross-cultural research, taking indigenous perspectives seriously, and moving beyond intracultural comparisons to understand the dynamics of cross-cultural interfaces.

Cross-Cultural Comparison↗

Ethnic minorities and prescription medication; concordance between self-reports and medical records.

BACKGROUND: Ethnic differences in health care utilisation are frequently reported in research. Little is known about the concordance between different methods of data collection among ethnic minorities. The aim of this study was to examine to which extent ethnic differences between self-reported data and data based on electronic medical records (EMR) from general practitioners (GPs) might be a validity issue or reflect a lower compliance among minority groups. METHODS: A cross-sectional, national representative general practice study, using EMR data from 195 GPs. The study population consisted of Dutch, Turks, Surinamese, Antilleans and Morrocans. Self-reported data were collected through face-to-face interviews and could be linked to the EMR of GPs. The main outcome measures were the level of agreement between annual prescribing rate based on the EMRs of GPs and the self-reported receipt and use of prescriptions during the preceding 14 days. RESULTS: The pattern of ethnic differences in receipt and use of prescription medication depended on whether self-reported data or EMR data were used. Ethnic differences based on self-reports were not consistently reflected in EMR data. The percentage of agreement above chance between EMR data and self-reported receipt was in general relative low. CONCLUSION: Ethnic differences between self-reported data and EMR data might not be fully perceived as a cross-cultural validity issue. At least for Moroccans and Turks, compliance with the prescribed medication by the GP is suggested not to be optimal.

Cross-Cultural Comparison↗