Table 4.

Odds ratio for setting hepatitis C virus or outdoor air pollution first priority over unsafe water in the main study (n = 2,603)

	Unadjusted odds ratio (95%CI)			Adjusted odds ratio (95%CI)
	Hepatitis C virus	Outdoor air pollution	p-value	Hepatitis C virus	Outdoor air pollution	p-value
Characteristics of household heads
Gender, female vs. male	0.92 (0.72 to 1.19)	0.85 (0.65 to 1.11)	.48
Age (yr), older (> 55) vs. younger (< 44)	0.93 (0.70 to 1.23)	0.97 (0.80 to 1.87)	.97
Age (yr), median (45 to 54) vs. younger (< 44)	0.95 (0.73 to 1.23)	1.02 (0.82 to 1.28)
Education, university vs. primary school	1.85 (1.26 to 2.71)	1.56 (1.16 to 2.10)	< .0001	1.91 (1.30 to 2.81)	1.57 (1.17 to 2.10)	< .0001
Education, secondary school vs. primary school	1.51 (1.17 to 1.95)	1.04 (0.78 to 1.37)		1.45 (1.13 to 1.87)	1.04 (0.80 to 1.38)
Private sector employee vs. Public sector employee	0.89 (0.69 to 1.16)	1.02 (0.79 to 1.33)	.69
Own business vs. Public sector employee	0.70 (0.47 to 1.05)	0.86 (0.63 to 1.17)
Retired/housewife vs. Public sector employee	0.83 (0.61 to 1.14)	0.88 (0.67 to 1.15)
Health status (VAS), high (> 85) vs. low (<= 70)	1.33 (0.94 to 1.89)	1.01 (0.74 to 1.38)	.02
Health status (VAS), median (71 to 85) vs. low (<= 70)	0.93 (0.69 to 1.24)	0.67 (0.50 yo 0.91)
Characteristics of households
Number of adults, more than two vs. less	0.85 (0.69 to 1.04)	0.88 (0.74 to 1.06)	.19
Number of children, at least one child vs. none	0.82 (0.64 to 1.05)	0.98 (0.82 to 1.17)	.27
Monthly income (EGP), high (> 494) vs. low (< 354)	1.49 (1.04 to 2.14)	1.15 (0.83 to 1.58)	.14
Monthly income (EGP), median (355 to 494) vs. low (< 354)	1.07 (0.80 to 1.42)	1.13 (0.89 to 1.42)
New rental, no vs. yes	1.18 (0.85 to 1.63)	0.99 (0.72 to 1.35)	.54
Bimonthly water bill (EGP), high (> 10) vs. low (< 10)	1.36 (1.01 to 1.83)	1.09 (0.86 to 1.37)	.13
Perception of hepatitis C virus hazard
Diseases related to health hazard in household, yes vs. no	1.92 (1.34 to 2.74)	0.99 (0.70 to 1.41)	< .001	1.78 (1.23 to 2.58)	0.96 (0.66 to 1.38)	< .01
Severe risk in the long term, yes vs. no	0.99 (0.66 to 1.47)	0.88 (0.65 to 1.19)	.68
Severe risk in the short term, yes vs. no	2.16 (1.64 to 2.84)	1.31 (0.97 to 1.77)	< .0001	2.22 (1.69 to 2.91)	1.04 (0.76 to 1.43)	< .0001
Uncontrollable risk, yes vs. no	0.90 (0.69 to 1.18)	0.68 (0.52 to 0.89)	.02
Perception of outdoor air pollution hazard
Diseases related to health hazard in household, yes vs. no	1.43 (1.08 to 1.89)	2.02 (1.59 to 2.57)	< .0001	1.40 (1.06 to 1.84)	1.99 (1.57 to 2.54)	< .0001
Severe risk in the long term, yes vs. no	0.83 (0.58 to 1.19)	0.97 (0.72 to 1.30)	.56
Severe risk in the short term, yes vs. no	1.16 (0.89 to 1.52)	1.53 (1.15 to 2.03)	.02	0.81 (0.62 to 1.06)	1.44 (1.05 to 1.95)	< .01
Uncontrollable risk, yes vs. no	0.58 (0.43 to 0.76)	0.50 (0.36 to 0.70)	< .0001	0.71 (0.54 to 0.95)	0.56 (0.41 to 0.77)	< .01
Perception of unsafe water hazard
Diseases related to health hazard in household, yes vs. no	1.27 (0.89 to 1.81)	1.26 (1.00 to 1.58)	.12
Severe risk in the long term, yes vs. no	1.03 (0.72 to 1.47)	1.05 (0.80 to 1.38)	.94
Severe risk in the short term, yes vs. no	1.14 (0.80 to 1.64)	1.34 (1.00 to 1.77)	.13
Uncontrollable risk, yes vs. no	0.71 (0.54 to 0.91)	0.66 (0.52 to 0.85)	< .01	0.79 (0.61 to 1.03)	0.78 (0.63 to 0.97)	.05

Note: All generalized logistic models were adjusted for interviewer and stratified for geographic area with finite population correction included in the variance estimation.

Note: We estimated multivariate odds ratios after backward stepwise selection, with P < .05 used as the cutoff for retention in the model. Standardized scores of principal components were dichotomized (Yes for score above 0, No otherwise).

Abbreviations: HCV, hepatitis C virus; VAS, Visual Analogue Scale; EGP, Egyptian Pound; 95%CI, 95% confidence interval