attachment
attachment

Answer

Reading File
Finding Sources
Reading File

Secondary Attack Rate Calculation

Step 1: Determine the susceptible pool
  • Total under-five children = 100
  • Vaccinated with 2 doses (60% coverage) = 60 children
  • Assuming 100% protection rate → all 60 are immune
  • Susceptible (unprotected) children = 100 - 60 = 40
Step 2: Apply the SAR formula
Per Park's definition (Park's Textbook of Preventive and Social Medicine, p. 165-166 equivalent section "Secondary attack rate"):
SAR = (Number of exposed/susceptible persons developing disease within the incubation period / Total number of exposed "susceptible" contacts) × 100 The primary case is excluded from both the numerator and the denominator.
  • The primary (index) measles case is one of the 40 susceptible children, so it must be removed from the denominator: 40 - 1 = 39 susceptible contacts
  • Secondary cases (those developing measles following the primary case) = 26
SAR = 26 / 39 × 100 ≈ 66.7%

Comment

A secondary attack rate of roughly 67% is extremely high and reflects a major failure of outbreak control in this village:
  • Vaccine coverage of 60% is far below the herd immunity threshold for measles (~93-95%), because measles is one of the most contagious diseases known (R0 approximately 12-18). Even assuming perfect (100%) vaccine efficacy, leaving 40% of children susceptible is more than enough to sustain an outbreak once an index case is introduced.
  • The near two-thirds attack rate among the 39 susceptible contacts is consistent with what is expected when a highly infectious pathogen spreads through a largely unprotected pool of close contacts (household/playmate-level exposure in under-fives), similar in magnitude to the textbook illustrative example (2/3 = 66.6% SAR among susceptible family contacts).
  • This outbreak illustrates why measles elimination programs target >95% two-dose coverage: partial coverage (60%) still permits explosive secondary transmission.
  • Public health response should include: identifying and isolating cases, conducting a mopping-up/catch-up immunization campaign in the village for all susceptible under-fives (and any older unimmunized children), case-based surveillance, and vitamin A supplementation for cases per national guidelines, along with root-cause analysis of why routine coverage stalled at 60% (access, hesitancy, cold-chain issues, missed second dose).
This is a standard epidemiology teaching calculation; no recent primary literature contradicts this textbook approach, so no additional PubMed evidence was needed for this exercise.
This is a shared conversation. Sign in to Orris to start your own chat.