Skip to main content
. 2009 Jul 31;4(7):e6466. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0006466

Table 3. Changes in poultry contact in Kampong Cham and Prey Veng provinces, Cambodia from January 2006 to December 2007.

Reported Practice All Subjects n (%)
2006 n = 450 2007 n = 800 p-value
Contact with domestic poultry
Touch sick or dead poultry with bare hands 339 (75.3) 337 (42.1) <0.001
Allow children in the household play (touch and catch) with poultry 92 (20.4) 205 (25.6) 0.06
Use dead domestic poultry from yard for household consumption 203 (45.1) 108 (13.5) <0.001
Care or help care for poultry 319 (70.6) 588 (73.5) 0.03
Slaughter poultry 173 (38.3) 286 (35.8) <0.001
Contact with poultry at live bird markets
Ever bought poultry from the market for food during the study period 43 (9.4) 62 (7.8) 0.48
Contact with wild birds
Eat wild birds 149 (33.1) 277 (34.7) <0.001
Collect dead wild birds from the field for household consumption 37 (8.2) 36 (4.5) 0.002
Ever prepared wild birds for food 114 (31.2) 217 (27.1) <0.001
Potential environmental contamination
Prepare poultry near a pond, river, or water well 84 (23.0) 220 (27.5) <0.001
Wash poultry products directly in the water source (pond/river) 6 (1.6) 99 (12.7) <0.001
Use poultry feces for manure 347 (76.8) 494 (61.8) <0.001

X 2 or Fishers exact test p-value adjusted for gender.