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

Table 5 Associations between attribution and types of exposure and background characteristics in exposed hangar workers with long-term physical complaints

	Prevalence (column %)		Odds ratio (95% confidence interval)
	Attribution† (n = 87)	No attribution† (n = 91)	Univariate analysis‡	Multivariate analysis§
Type of exposure:
Sort the wreckage in hangar	62	70	0.69 (0.37–1.3)	-
Witnessed immediate disaster scene	8	11	0.71 (0.26–2.0)	-
Close one affected by the disaster	5	7	0.68 (0.19–2.5)	-
Perceived severity disaster
- not bad	9	16	0.35 (0.12–1.1)	-
- quite bad	15	18	0.50 (0.18–1.4)	-
- terrible	51	52	0.58 (0.26–1.3)	-
- worst thing ever	25	15	Reference	-
Background characteristics:
Age (young)	44	58	0.56 (0.31–1.0)	-
Education
- high	9	6	Reference	Reference
- intermediate	32	53	0.37 (0.11–1.2)	0.37 (0.11–1.2)
- low	53	37	0.85 (0.25–2.8)	0.85 (0.25–2.8)

†Attribution (little through a very strong relationship) versus no attribution (no relationship between physical complaints and the air disaster in Amsterdam and its aftermath). ‡Number of hangar workers included in the univariate analyses ranged from 174 to 178 due to occasional missing values. §The final multivariate model was based on 169 hangar workers and includes only those independent variables with P ≤ 0.10.

ISSN: 1471-2458