Skip to main content

Table 3 Associations between attribution and types of exposure and background characteristics in exposed firefighters with long-term physical complaints

From: Attribution of physical complaints to the air disaster in Amsterdam by exposed rescue workers: an epidemiological study using historic cohorts

 

Prevalence (column %)

Odds ratio (95% confidence interval)

 

Attribution† (n = 107)

No attribution† (n = 125)

Univariate analysis‡

Multivariate analysis§

Type of exposure:

    

Rescuing people

62

40

2.5 (1.5–4.2)**

2.0 (1.2–3.5)*

Identification and recovery of or search for victims and human remains

13

18

0.69 (0.33–1.4)

-

Firefighting

71

54

2.1 (1.2–3.6)§

-

Clean-up of disaster site

55

59

0.83 (0.49–1.4)

-

Security and surveillance of disaster area

5

2

3.0 (0.57–15.8)

-

Supporting injured victims and workers

16

7

2.7 (1.1–6.6)*

2.4 (0.95–5.9)

Witnessed immediate disaster scene

82

67

2.3 (1.2–4.2)*

1.9 (0.97–3.6)

Close one affected by disaster

3

6

0.49 (0.12–1.9)

-

Perceived severity disaster:

    

- not bad

7

12

0.38 (0.12–1.2)

-

- quite bad

11

10

0.75 (0.26–2.2)

-

- terrible

67

67

0.70 (0.31–1.5)

-

- worst thing ever

15

10

Reference

-

Background characteristics:

    

Age (young)

47

53

0.78 (0.47–1.3)

-

Education

    

- high

10

5

Reference

-

- intermediate

26

26

0.46 (0.15–1.4)

-

- low

58

60

0.45 (0.16–1.3)

-

  1. †Attribution (a weak through very strong relationship) versus no attribution (no relationship between physical complaints and the air disaster in Amsterdam and its aftermath). ‡Number of firefighters included in the univariate analyses ranged from 226 to 232 due to occasional missing values. §The final multivariate model was based on 228 firefighters and includes only those independent variables with P ≤ 0.10. *P < 0.05; ** P < 0.01.