Skip to main content

Table 4 Factors associated with high Lyme disease protective practices score (PS ≥ 5) (n = 1,741)

From: Knowledge, protective behaviours, and perception of Lyme disease in an area of emerging risk: results from a cross-sectional survey of adults in Ottawa, Ontario

Factors

Univariable

Multivariable

OR

95% CI

P

OR

95% CI

P

Region (ref: Suburban east)

South

1.06

(0.70, 1.61)

0.8

1.01

(0.66, 1.57)

0.9

West

1.02

(0.66, 1.57)

0.9

1.00

(0.64, 1.57)

0.9

Rural

0.89

(0.58, 1.38)

0.6

0.85

(0.53, 1.36)

0.5

Urban

0.66

(0.42, 1.02)

0.06

0.73

(0.45, 1.18)

0.2

Age (ref: 18 to 34)

35 to 54

1.09

(0.74, 1.62)

0.7

1.13

(0.74, 1.75)

0.6

55 and older

0.84

(0.58, 1.24)

0.4

1.04

(0.67, 1.62)

0.9

Gender (ref: women)

Men

1.05

(0.79, 1.38)

0.7

0.98

(0.73, 1.32)

0.9

Other

0.94

(0.05, 5.36)

0.9

0.66

(0.03, 4.62)

0.7

Family income level (ref: $40k to $80k)

< $40,000

0.98

(0.60, 1.57)

0.9

   

$80,000 +

1.03

(0.75, 1.42)

0.9

   

Education level (ref: High school or less)

College

0.81

(0.52, 1.27)

0.4

0.75

(0.47, 1.21)

0.2

University and higher

0.83

(0.57, 1.23)

0.3

0.72

(0.48, 1.11)

0.1

Population group (ref: White)

Indigenous persons

2.36

(1.16, 4.48)

0.01

1.59

(0.71, 3.31)

0.2

Other racialized persons

1.78

(1.28, 2.47)

< 0.001

1.92

(1.31, 2.79)

< 0.001

Perceived risk level (ref: high)

Medium

0.58

(0.39, 0.87)

0.01

0.62

(0.40, 0.95)

0.03

Low

0.33

(0.22, 0.50)

< 0.001

0.38

(0.25, 0.60)

< 0.001

None

0.50

(0.27, 0.89)

0.02

0.59

(0.30, 1.11)

0.1

Don’t know

0.21

(0.09, 0.44)

< 0.001

0.25

(0.11, 0.53)

< 0.001

Outdoor yard (ref: none)

Have yard, not responsible for maintenance

2.49

(1.41, 4.67)

0.003

2.59

(1.42, 4.98)

0.003

Have yard, responsible for maintenance

2.46

(1.47, 4.44)

0.001

2.53

(1.43, 4.78)

0.003

Exposure index (ref: negligible)

Low

0.91

(0.63, 1.29)

0.6

0.72

(0.49, 1.07)

0.1

Medium

1.02

(0.67, 1.52)

0.9

0.71

(0.45, 1.12)

0.1

High

0.83

(0.53, 1.25)

0.4

0.50

(0.30, 0.80)

0.005

Distance traveled to wooded areas (ref: <1 km)

1 to 5 km

0.94

(0.59, 1.52)

0.8

   

6 to 10 km

1.06

(0.65, 1.75)

0.8

   

11 to 20 km

1.04

(0.61, 1.79)

0.9

   

21 + km

0.71

(0.42, 1.22)

0.2

   

No travel to wooded areas

0.57

(0.34, 0.97)

0.04

   

Duration of woodlands activities (ref: <1 h)

1 to 3 h

0.83

(0.59, 1.17)

0.3

   

4 to 8 h

1.12

(0.68, 1.80)

0.7

   

9 to 24 h

0.76

(0.18, 2.28)

0.7

   

> 1 day

0.59

(0.20, 1.41)

0.3

   

No travel to wooded areas

0.54

(0.34, 0.84)

0.007

   

Use cleared paths/trails in woodland areas (ref: always)

Frequently

0.76

(0.54, 1.07)

0.1

   

Rarely

1.12

(0.63, 1.91)

0.7

   

Sometimes (not because of Lyme disease)

0.77

(0.42, 1.34)

0.4

   

Never

0.62

(0.10, 2.26)

0.5

   

No travel to wooded areas

0.48

(0.30, 0.74)

0.001

   

Currently own a dog

1.25

(0.92, 1.68)

0.1

   

Ever had Lyme disease (ref: no)

Yes

3.02

(1.71, 5.13)

< 0.001

2.22

(1.19, 4.00)

0.009

Don’t know

1.51

(0.71, 2.91)

0.3

1.31

(0.60, 2.64)

0.5

Know someone who has had Lyme disease

1.33

(0.98, 1.79)

0.06

   

Ever bitten by a tick

1.84

(1.27, 2.62)

0.001

1.62

(1.07, 2.43)

0.02

High Lyme disease knowledge score

0.91

(0.69, 1.20)

0.5

   

Primary reason in wooded areas: work

3.49

(1.80, 6.52)

< 0.001

2.78

(1.31, 5.67)

0.006

Primary reason in wooded areas: fitness/recreation

1.38

(1.04, 1.84)

0.03

1.58

(1.14, 2.19)

0.006

Primary reason in wooded areas: birdwatching

1.51

(0.93, 2.37)

0.08

   

Primary reason in wooded areas: dog walking

1.05

(0.73, 1.50)

0.8

   

Primary reason in wooded areas: camping

1.47

(0.87, 2.39)

0.1

   

Primary reason in wooded areas: hunting

1.38

(0.32, 4.28)

0.6

   

Primary reason in wooded areas: cottage

1.47

(0.92, 2.27)

0.09

1.80

(1.10, 2.88)

0.02

  1. Respondents who answered “I prefer not to answer” to any of the explanatory variables were excluded from multivariable analysis
  2. Gender, age, education level, and region were forced into the model as potential confounding variables