Table 2.
Univariable logistic analysis results for antibiotic use in 129 semi-intensive broiler farms in Kenya
| Variable | Levels | Antibiotic use | Coefficient | OR(95% CI) | P-value | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Yes (N = 93) n (%) or median (IQR) | No (N = 36) n (%) or median (IQR) | |||||
| Internal biosecurity | ||||||
| Disease management | ||||||
| Day old chicks vaccinated | No | 19(20) | 4(11) | 1.56 | Ref | |
| Yes | 74(80) | 32(89) | -0.72 | 0.5 (0.2,1.6) | 0.22* | |
| Vaccination during the production cycle | No | 48 (52) | 18 (50) | 0.98 | Ref | 0.87 |
| Yes | 45 (48) | 18 (50) | -0.39 | 0.9 (0.4.2.0) | ||
| Farms have separate area for sick chicken | No | 59 (63) | 24 (67) | 0.89 | Ref | |
| Yes | 34 (37) | 12 (33) | 0.14 | 1.2(0.5,2.6) | 0.73 | |
| Flock size | Median (IQR) | 400 (300, 600) | 350 (300, 425) | 0.001 | 1(1,1) | 0.22* |
| Average number of chicken per flock | Median (IQR) | 400 (300, 500) | 400 (300, 550) | 0.001 | 1(1,1) | 0.92 |
| Cleaning and disinfection | ||||||
| Farms have footbath per chicken room | No | 74 (80) | 28 (78) | 0.97 | Ref | |
| Yes | 19 (20) | 8 (22) | -0.11 | 0.9(0.4,2.3) | 0.82 | |
| Farms have drinkers cleaning protocol | No | 20(22) | 12(33) | 0.51 | Ref | |
| Yes | 73(78) | 24(67) | 0.6 | 1.8(0.8,4.3) | 0.17* | |
| Farms have feeders cleaning protocol | No | 27 (29) | 12 (33) | 0.81 | Ref | |
| Yes | 66 (71) | 24 (67) | 0.2 | 1.2(0.5,2.8) | 0.63 | |
| Resting period between batches | < 7 days | 32 (34) | 8 (22) | 1.39 | Ref | |
| 8–14 days | 46 (49) | 20 (56) | -0.76 | 0.5(0.2,1.5) | 0.20* | |
| 15–30 days | 15 (16) | 8 (22) | -0.55 | 0.6(0.2,1.5) | 0.25* | |
| Farmers check disinfection outcome | Never | 47 (51) | 17 (47) | 1.02 | Ref | |
| Sometimes | 13 (14) | 2 (5.6) | 0.85 | 2.4(0.5,11.5 | 0.39 | |
| Always | 33 (35) | 17 (47) | -0.35 | 0.7(0.3,1.6) | 0.29 | |
| Chicken feed store cleaning procedure | None | 19 (20) | 6 (17) | 1.15 | Ref | |
| Sweep | 40 (43) | 12 (33) | 0.05 | 1.1(0.3,3.2) | 0.93 | |
| Clean and disinfect | 22 (24) | 14 (39) | -0.7 | 0.5(0.2,1.6) | 0.23* | |
| Sweep & clean with water | 12 (13) | 4 (11) | -0.05 | 1.0(0.2,4.1) | 0.94 | |
| Farm divided(clean-restricted area/dirty area) | No | 72 (77) | 25 (69) | 1.06 | Ref | |
| Yes | 21 (23) | 11 (31) | -0.41 | 0.7(0.3,1.6) | 0.35 | |
| Materials and measures between compartments | ||||||
| No. of locks per farm | Median(IQR) | 2 (1, 2) | 2(1, 3) | -0.06 | 0.9(0.6,1.4) | 0.75 |
| External biosecurity | ||||||
| Feed and water | ||||||
| Farms have chicken automated drinkers | No | 82 (88) | 29 (81) | 1.04 | Ref | |
| Yes | 11 (12) | 7 (19) | -0.59 | 0.6(0.2,1.6) | 0.27 | |
| Farms’ water source | Dam | 4 (4.3) | 3 (8.3) | 0.29 | Ref | |
| Borehole | 45 (48) | 21 (58) | 0.47 | 1.6(0.3,7.8) | 0.56 | |
| Municipal | 39 (42) | 10 (28) | 1.07 | 2.9(0.6,15.2) | 0.20* | |
| Rainwater | 5 (5.4) | 2 (5.6) | 0.63 | 1.9(0.2,17.3) | 0.58 | |
| Location of chicken feed store | Within the chicken house | 49 (53) | 20 (56) | 0.89 | Ref | |
| Separate house | 44 (47) | 16 (44) | 0.12 | 1.1(0.5,2.4) | 0.77 | |
| Storage of chicken feed | On the floor | 31 (34) | 16 (44) | 0.66 | Ref | |
| Elevated | 61 (66) | 20 (56) | 0.45 | 1.6(0.7,3.5) | 0.26 | |
| Chicken store sealed | No | 46 (50) | 22 (61) | 0.74 | Ref | |
| Yes | 46 (50) | 14 (39) | 0.45 | 1.6(0.7,3.4) | 0.26 | |
| Infrastructure and biological factors | ||||||
| Farm fenced | No | 23 (25) | 10 (28) | 0.83 | Ref | |
| Yes | 70 (75) | 26 (72) | 0.16 | 1.2(0.5,2.8) | 0.72 | |
| Wild animal entry into the farms | Yes | 32 (34) | 13 (36) | 0.9 | Ref | |
| No | 61 (66) | 23 (64) | 0.07 | 1.1(0.5,2.4) | 0.86 | |
| Frequency of vermin problem | Often | 42 (45) | 18 (50) | 0.85 | Ref | |
| Sometimes | 37 (40) | 11 (31) | 0.37 | 1.4(0.6,3.4) | 0.41 | |
| Never | 14 (15) | 7 (19) | -0.15 | 0.9(0.3,2.5) | 0.78 | |
| Farms keep backyard chicken | Yes | 48 (52) | 15 (42) | 1.16 | Ref | |
| No | 45 (48) | 21 (58) | -0.4 | 0.7(0.3,1.5) | 0.31 | |
| Farms keep pets | None | 22 (24) | 6 (17) | 1.3 | Ref | |
| Cats | 19 (20) | 10 (28) | -0.66 | 0.5(0.2,1.7) | 0.28 | |
| Dogs | 8 (8.6) | 5 (14) | -0.83 | 0.4(0.1,1.8) | 0.26 | |
| Dogs & cats | 44 (47) | 15 (42) | -0.22 | 0.8 (0.3,2.4) | 0.68 | |
| Visitors and farmworkers | ||||||
| Farms allow visitor entry | Yes | 68 (73) | 27 (75) | 0.92 | Ref | |
| No | 25 (27) | 9 (25) | 0.1 | 1.1(0.5,2.7) | 0.83 | |
| Farms have visitor entry protocol | No | 19 (20) | 7 (19) | 0.99 | Ref | |
| Yes | 74 (80) | 29 (81) | -0.06 | 0.9(0.4,2.5) | 0.9 | |
| Location of the farm | ||||||
| Distance to neighbouring farms | Less than 500 | 40 (43) | 21 (58) | 0.64 | Ref | |
| Between 500–1 km | 34 (37) | 7 (19) | 0.94 | 2.6(1.0,6.7) | 0.05* | |
| More than 1 km | 19 (20) | 8 (22) | 0.22 | 1.3(0.5,3.3) | 0.66 | |
| Demographic factors | ||||||
| Age | Median (IQR) | 52 (43, 59) | 47 (43, 56) | 0.03 | 1.0(0.9,1.1) | 0.09* |
| Farmers’ level of education | Primary | 19 (20) | 9 (25) | 0.75 | Ref | |
| Secondary | 48 (52) | 17 (47) | 0.29 | 1.3(0.5,3.5) | 0.56 | |
| Tertiary | 26 (28) | 10 (28) | 0.21 | 1.2(0.4,3.6) | 0.7 | |
| Farmers broiler farming experience | Median (IQR) | 6 (3, 10) | 5.5 (3, 10) | 0.002 | 1(1.0,1–1) | 0.93 |
| County | Machakos | 4 (4) | 1 (3) | 1.39 | Ref | |
| Kajiado | 12 (13) | 7 (19) | -0.85 | 0.4 (0,4.6) | 0.49 | |
| Kiambu | 77 (83) | 28 (78) | -0.37 | 0.7 (0.1,6.4) | 0.74 | |
Summary of farms with internal and external biosecurity measures and demographic factors, in relation to antibiotic use. The associations between biosecurity measures and antibiotic use are presented, displaying the model coefficients, odds ratio (OR), 95% confidence interval (CI), and p-values. Values marked with an asterisk (*) had P < 0.25 and were included in multivariable model