Skip to main content
. Author manuscript; available in PMC: 2013 Jan 1.
Published in final edited form as: Epidemiology. 2012 Jan;23(1):95–106. doi: 10.1097/EDE.0b013e31823b504c

TABLE 8.

Relationship Between a Presence-Absence Index of All Six Fecal Indicators in Sand and Enteric Illness by Sand Contact Type.

GI Illness
Diarrhea
No. (%)a aOR (95% CI)b No. (%)a aOR (95% CI)b
Digging in sand (n= 4672) (n = 4706)
 Not digging d 182 (5) 1.00 115 (3) 1.00
 Digging
 fecal index
  tertile 1 38 (9) 1.32 (0.83–2.10) 27 (6) 1.48 (0.89–2.47)
  tertile 2 41 (9) 1.59 (1.01–2.50) 28 (6) 1.76 (1.07–2.90)
  tertile 3 33 (8) 1.33 (0.82–2.13) 26 (7) 1.69 (0.98–2.93)
   Test for trende P=0.06 P=0.01
Buried in sand (n= 4675) (n = 4709)
 Not buried d 274 (6) 1.00 181 (4) 1.00
 Buried
 fecal index
  tertile 1 4 (5) 0.59 (0.21–1.65) 2 (2) 0.44 (0.11–1.74)
  tertile 2 7 (11) 1.89 (0.81–4.41) 5 (8) 2.14 (0.72–6.34)
  tertile 3 9 (16) 2.16 (0.75–6.19) 8 (14) 2.92 (0.91–9.37)
   Test for trende P=0.12 P=0.07
a

The numbers are participants reporting new symptoms, among those without baseline symptoms.

b

Robust variance estimates clustering on household.

c

The numbers are participants with complete information on age, sex, race/ethnicity, beach, and any contact swimming, among those without baseline symptoms.

d

Reference category.

e

P value from a linear trend test across the non-sand-exposed to the highest sand-exposed category.

aOR estimated from logistic regression model adjusted for age, sex, race/ethnicity, beach, and any contact swimming.