01730nas a2200265   4500000000100000008004100001260001300042653001500055653002500070653002200095653001100117653002300128653001200151653003900163653002800202653002300230100001400253245005400267856005900321300001100380490000700391050003200398520102000430022001401450       1996                            d  c1996 Jun10aBangladesh10aDeveloping countries10aFollow-Up Studies10aHumans10aLeprostatic Agents10aleprosy10aPeripheral Nervous System Diseases10aPopulation Surveillance10aProgram evaluation1 aCroft R P00aActive surveillance in leprosy: how useful is it?  uhttp://leprev.ilsl.br/pdfs/1996/v67n2/pdf/v67n2a06.pdf  a135-400 v67  aInfolep Library - available3 a<p>In this paper, active surveillance is compared with self-reporting as a method of detecting new nerve function loss in leprosy patients who have completed multidrug therapy (MDT). Five hundred and three patients were selected according to new surveillance guidelines in one part of the Danish-Bangladesh Leprosy Mission leprosy control project working area. Surveillance coverage of 71% was achieved in a 7-month period. During this time, 10 released-from-treatment (RFT) patients from among the study group were found to have acute nerve damage requiring prednisolone treatment. Out of the 10, only 2 were detected actively; the remaining 8 self-reported. It is concluded that health education given at RFT time is effective in motivating patients to self-report with acute nerve damage, and that the time spent on active surveillance could have been better used in other activities, i.e., case detection. As a result of these findings, active surveillance has been abandoned in the leprosy control project.</p>  a0305-7518