Skip to main content

Table 5 Association of factors with parasitic infections in univariate and multivariate logistic regression

From: Association of nutrition, water, sanitation and hygiene practices with children’s nutritional status, intestinal parasitic infections and diarrhoea in rural Nepal: a cross-sectional study

Overall parasitic infection [N (total) =962/ N (cases)=492]

Univariate logistic regressiona

Multivariate logistic regressionb

OR

95% CI

P-value

aOR

95% CI

P-value

Age of the child

< 5 years

1.00

  

1.00

  

> 5 years

0.86

0.66-1.13

0.29

0.86

0.65-1.15

0.31

Sex of the child

Male

1.00

  

1.00

  

Female

0.90

0.69-1.17

0.43

0.88

0.66-1.16

0.37

Number of children in the household

< 5

1.00

     

> 5

2.01

0.49-8.11

0.34

   

Caregivers can read/write

Can neither read or write

1.09

0.74-1.61

 

1.18

0.78-1.80

 

Can read only

3.15

0.83-12.0

0.18

4.19

1.03-17.0

0.08

Can both read and write

1.00

  

1.00

  

Involvement in the water supply system in the community

"no" vs. "yes"

1.89

1.05-3.42

0.03

1.60

0.84-3.05

0.15

Socioeconomic status

Poor

1.00

  

1.00

  

Middle

0.88

0.60-1.30

0.27

0.87

0.58-1.31

0.45

Better

1.16

0.75-1.78

 

1.09

0.68-1.75

 

Main drinking water source

Piped water in the house

1.00

     

Piped water in the village

1.39

0.87-2.21

    

Open source

1.33

0.47-3.73

0.29

   

Protected source

1.18

0.40-3.49

    

River, stream or canal

6.79

0.72-64.33

    

Time to fetch drinking water

< 5 minutes

1.00

     

5-15 minutes

1.53

0.66-3.55

0.40

   

16-60 minutes

1.23

0.53-2.78

    

> 60 minutes

1.07

0.38-3.01

    

Main drinking water source functioning now

Functioning well

1.00

     

Functioning irregularly

1.24

0.61-1.96

0.76

   

Interruption of main drinking water source for more than a week

"no" vs. "yes"

1.76

0.91-3.41

0.09

1.30

0.64-2.64

0.47

Knowledge on factors that make water unsafe for drinking

Open unprotected source

1.09

0.77-1.54

0.62

   

Open defecation

1.09

0.83-1.45

0.53

   

Deforestation

1.97

0.97-3.99

0.06

1.84

0.87-3.89

0.11

Method of drinking water treatment used

Boiling

0.96

0.50-1.86

0.91

   

Filtration with cloth

0.77

0.33-1.85

0.57

   

Use of filter ("yes" vs. "no")

1.55

1.00-2.41

0.05

1.27

0.78-2.09

0.34

Clean drinking water storage container

"no" vs. "yes"

1.88

1.04-3.41

0.04

1.65

0.87-3.17

0.13

Handwashing with soap

<5 times

1.00

     

5-10 times

1.08

0.79-1.47

0.32

   

>10 times

0.25

0.03-2.23

    

Times of handwashing

When they look dirty

0.10

0.76-1.31

0.99

   

After going to toilet

0.58

0.23-1.49

0.26

   

After cleaning baby’s bottom

1.00

0.77-1.31

0.98

   

Before eating

1.07

0.79-1.46

0.65

   

Before cooking

1.14

0.87-1.48

0.35

   

Animals inside home overnight

"yes" vs. "no"

1.13

0.84-1.51

0.41

   

Information received on WASHc

"no" vs. "yes"

1.90

1.21-3.00

0.01

1.10

0.44-2.72

0.84

Handwashing station installed

"no" vs. "yes"

2.66

1.05-6.73

0.04

1.66

0.54-5.17

0.38

Use soap always to wash hands

"yes" vs. "no"

1.69

0.96-2.99

0.07

1.22

0.48-3.10

0.67

Wash hands during critical times

"yes" vs. "no"

1.98

0.97-3.67

0.06

0.73

0.27-1.95

0.53

Sometimes treating water

"no" vs. "yes"

3.68

1.39-9.71

0.01

2.29

0.72-7.23

0.16

Attended hygiene literacy class

"no" vs. "yes"

1.47

1.08-1.99

0.01

1.36

0.96-1.92

0.08

Caregivers heard about intestinal parasites

"no" vs. "yes"

1.36

0.98-1.88

0.06

0.98

0.67-1.43

0.92

Type of toilet in the household

Water pit latrine

1.00

  

1.00

  

Pit latrine

2.25

1.12-4.49

0.07

7.47

1.91-29.3

0.006

No latrine

1.67

0.96-2.91

 

4.79

1.32-17.4

 

Cleanliness of the toilet

"yes" vs. "no"

0.89

0.69-1.16

0.40

   

Materials available in toilet

Sandals/slippers

0.86

0.45-1.65

0.66

   

Drum with water

1.36

0.96-1.91

0.08

0.37

0.12-1.21

0.10

Brush

1.14

0.84-1.54

0.41

   

None of these

0.72

0.47-1.09

0.12

0.25

0.07-0.86

0.03

Soap available at handwashing facility

"yes" vs. "no"

0.87

0.55-1.37

0.55

   

Trash outside the house

"yes" vs. "no"

0.72

0.54-0.97

0.03

0.80

0.55-1.16

0.24

Trash spread inside the house

"yes" vs. "no"

1.09

0.82-1.45

0.57

   

Entirety of food covered

"yes" vs. "no"

1.06

0.78-1.43

0.72

   

Flies in the kitchen

"yes" vs. "no"

1.05

0.76-1.44

0.78

   

Caregiver's hands clean

"yes" vs. "no"

0.75

0.54-1.04

0.09

0.61

0.42-0.89

0.01

Caregiver is wearing shoes

"yes" vs. "no"

1.21

0.90-1.62

0.21

   

Child's hand clean

"yes" vs. "no"

0.88

0.67-1.15

0.33

   

Piles of dirty clothes in the house

"yes" vs. "no"

0.71

0.53-0.95

0.02

0.78

0.54-1.13

0.19

E. coli at point of use drinking water

"yes" vs. "no"

1.34

0.71-2.47

0.37

   

E. coli at point of collection drinking water

"yes" vs. "no"

1.05

0.55-2.00

0.88

   

Total coliforms at POCd drinking water

"yes" vs. "no"

1.33

0.22-8.24

0.76

   

Total coliforms at POUe drinking water

"yes" vs. "no"

1.63

0.53-4.99

0.39

   

Presence of undernutrition

"yes" vs. "no"

1.02

0.77-1.34

0.92

   

Presence of nutritional deficiencies

"yes" vs. "no"

1.14

0.85-1.51

0.38

   

Presence of diarrhoea

"yes" vs. "no"

1.16

0.81-1.65

0.41

   
  1. aOdds ratios were obtained from univariate mixed logistic regression models with random area intercepts, and P-values were obtained from Wald- and likelihood ratio tests. P-values <0.2 in the univariate analyses are marked in bold
  2. bAdjusted odds ratios were obtained from a multivariable mixed logistic regression model with random area intercepts including all variables with P-values <0.2 in the univariate models along with gender and age group of the child and socio-economic category of the household. P-values were obtained from Wald- and likelihood ratio tests and values <0.05 are marked in bold
  3. cWater, sanitation and hygiene
  4. dPoint of collection
  5. ePoint of use
Back to article page

BMC Public Health

ISSN: 1471-2458

Contact us