Copyright
©The Author(s) 2016.
World J Gastroenterol. Nov 28, 2016; 22(44): 9853-9859
Published online Nov 28, 2016. doi: 10.3748/wjg.v22.i44.9853
Published online Nov 28, 2016. doi: 10.3748/wjg.v22.i44.9853
Table 2 Risk factor analysis
| Potential risk factors (n = 131) | Univariate analyses | |||
| Groups | n (IgG%) | P value | OR (95%CI) | |
| Race (n = 161) | Black African (n = 389) | 94 (24.2%) | 0.073 | - |
| MA/Coloured (n = 452) | 128 (28.3%) | 1.24 (0.91-1.69) | ||
| White (n = 320) | 102 (31.9%) | 1.47 (1.06-2.04) | ||
| Gender (n = 161) | Male (n = 541) | 161 (29.8%) | 0.189 | - |
| Female (n = 620) | 163 (26.3%) | 0.842 (0.65-1.09) | ||
| Pork (n = 131) | Yes (n = 690) | 228 (33.0%) | < 0.001 | 1.93 (1.45-2.55) |
| No (n = 441) | 90 (20.4%) | - | ||
| Sausage (n = 131) | Yes (n = 853) | 248 (29.1%) | 0.210 | 1.22 (0.90-1.66) |
| No (n = 278) | 70 (25.2%) | - | ||
| Bacon/Ham (n = 131) | Yes (n = 707) | 220 (31.1%) | 0.004 | 1.50 (1.14-1.98) |
| No (n = 424) | 98 (23.1%) | - | ||
| Fish (n = 131) | Yes (n = 1055) | 299 (28.3%) | 0.532 | 1.19 (0.69-2.03) |
| No (n = 76) | 19 (25.0%) | |||
| Shellfish (n = 131) | Yes (n = 548) | 163 (29.7%) | 0.238 | 1.17 (0.90-1.52) |
| No (n = 583) | 155 (26.6%) | - | ||
| Type of dwelling (n = 161) | Formal Dwelling (n = 1050) | 296 (28.2%) | 0.642 | - |
| Shack in Yard (n = 88) | 21 (24.0%) | 0.80 (0.48-1.40) | ||
| Shack not in Yard (n = 19) | 5 (26.3%) | 0.91 (0.33-2.55) | ||
| Other (n = 4) | 2 (50.0%) | 2.55 (0.36-18.17) | ||
| Water access (n = 1161) | Piped dwelling (n = 1041) | 292 (28.0%) | 0.516 | - |
| Piped yard (n = 68) | 17 (25.0%) | 0.855 (0.49-1.51) | ||
| Community tap (n = 44) | 11 (25.0%) | 0.855 (0.43-1.71) | ||
| No water access (n = 8) | 4 (50.0%) | 2.565 (0.64-10.32) | ||
| Proximity to coast (n = 1160) | Coastal (n = 114) | 32 (28.0%) | 0.935 | - |
| Under 5 km (n = 209) | 62 (29.7%) | 1.081 (0.65-1.79) | ||
| 5-10 km (n = 313) | 85 (27.2%) | 0.955 (0.59-1.54) | ||
| Over 10 km (n = 524) | 145 (27.7%) | 0.980 (0.62-1.54) | ||
| Refuse disposal (n = 1160) | Local authority (n = 1124) | 315 (28.0%) | 0.725 | - |
| Communal dump (n = 20) | 5 (25.0%) | 0.856 (0.31-2.40) | ||
| Own dump (n = 8) | 3 (37.5%) | 1.541 (0.37-6.50) | ||
| No rubbish disposal (n = 8) | 1 (12.5%) | 0.367 (0.05-3.00) | ||
| HIV status (n = 891) | Positive (n = 60) | 14 (23.3%) | 0.340 | 1.35 (0.73-2.50) |
| Negative (n = 831) | 242 (29.1%) | - | ||
| Age group (n = 1156) | < 30 yr (n = 496) | 44 (8.9%) | < 0.001 | - |
| ≥ 30 yr (n = 660) | 280 (42.4%) | 7.569 (5.36-10.70) | ||
| Multivariate analysis (n = 1126) | ||||
| Pork | Yes (n = 686) | 228 (33.2%) | < 0.001 | 7.679 (5.38-10.96) |
| Age group | ≥ 30 yr (n = 660) | 276 (42.3%) | < 0.001 | 2.021 (1.50-2.73) |
- Citation: Madden RG, Wallace S, Sonderup M, Korsman S, Chivese T, Gavine B, Edem A, Govender R, English N, Kaiyamo C, Lutchman O, van der Eijk AA, Pas SD, Webb GW, Palmer J, Goddard E, Wasserman S, Dalton HR, Spearman CW. Hepatitis E virus: Western Cape, South Africa. World J Gastroenterol 2016; 22(44): 9853-9859
- URL: https://www.wjgnet.com/1007-9327/full/v22/i44/9853.htm
- DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3748/wjg.v22.i44.9853