Table 5.
Multiple logistic regression analysis of factors that associate with personal hygiene practice
| Characteristics | aPersonal hygiene practice | cCOR (95 % CI) | dAOR (95 % CI) | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Inactive N (%) | Active N (%) | |||
| Gender | ||||
| Male | 402(87.2) | 59(12.8) | 1 | 1 |
| Female | 426(76.2) | 133(32.8) | 2.13(1.52, 2.98) | 2.17(1.48, 3.18) |
| Age | ||||
| 15-24 | 131(91.6) | 12(8.4) | 1 | 1 |
| 25-49 | 281(80.8) | 67(19.3) | 2.60(1.36, 4.98) | 4.81(1.37, 16.89) |
| 50-64 | 293(80.7) | 70(19.3) | 2.61(1.37, 4.98) | 4.46(1.25, 15.95) |
| ≧65 | 123(74.1) | 43(25.9) | 3.82(1.92, 7.58) | 6.19(1.60, 23.99) |
| Marital status | ||||
| Single | 305(85.9) | 50(14.1) | 1 | |
| Married | 521(78.6) | 142(21.4) | 1.66(1.17, 2.36) | |
| Occupation | ||||
| White collar | 332(80.8) | 79(19.2) | 1 | 1 |
| Blue collar | 90(93.8) | 6(6.3) | 0.28(0.12, 0.66) | 0.27(0.11, 0.68) |
| Housewife, retired or Unemployed | 300(76.3) | 93(23.7) | 1.30(0.93, 1.83) | 0.82(0.52, 1.29) |
| Student | 95(89.6) | 11(10.4) | 0.49(0.25, 0.95) | 1.97(0.53, 7.29) |
| Religion | ||||
| No | 547(83.6) | 107(16.4) | 1 | |
| Yes | 280(76.7) | 85(23.3) | 1.55(1.13, 2.14) | |
| Chronic disease | ||||
| No | 679(83.5) | 134(16.5) | 1 | 1 |
| Yes | 148(71.8) | 58(28.2) | 1.99(1.39, 2.83) | 1.84(1.20, 2.82) |
| Household type | ||||
| Public housing | 322(83.2) | 65(16.8) | 1 | |
| Subsidized home ownership housing | 139(86.9) | 21(13.1 | 0.75(0.44, 1.27) | |
| Private permanent housing | 351(77.1) | 104(22.9) | 1.47(1.04, 2.07) | |
| Vulnerable members | ||||
| No | 330(84.4) | 61(15.6) | 1 | |
| Yes | 497(79.1) | 131(20.9) | 1.43(1.02, 1.99) | |
| Area of residence | ||||
| Suburb Districts | 448(85.0) | 79(15.0) | 1 | 1 |
| Densely Populated Districts | 247(80.2) | 61(19.8) | 1.40(0.97, 2.02) | 1.59(1.06, 2.37) |
| Wealthy Districts | 133(71.9) | 52(28.1) | 2.22(1.49, 3.31) | 2.58(1.65, 4.05) |
| bAttitude towards hygiene practice | ||||
| Inactive | 177(90.8) | 18(9.2) | 1 | 1 |
| Active | 651(78.9) | 174(21.1) | 2.63(1.57, 4.39) | 2.83(1.60, 5.01) |
| Anxiety score | ||||
| Very low (STAI < 1.50) | 234(84.5) | 43(15.5) | 1 | 1 |
| Low (STAI 1.50-1.99 | 243(85.3) | 42(14.7) | 0.94(0.59, 1.49) | 0.82(0.49, 1.34) |
| Medium (STAI 2.00-2.49) | 216(80.0) | 55(20.0) | 1.39(0.89, 2.15) | 1.19(0.73, 1.94) |
| High (STAI >2.49) | 131(72.4) | 50(27.6) | 2.08(1.31, 3.29) | 1.73(1.03, 2.92) |
| Believed Hong Kong is susceptible to infectious diseases outbreaks | ||||
| No | 415(84.5) | 76(15.5) | 1 | |
| Yes | 412(78.2) | 115(21.8) | 1.52(1.11, 2.10) | |
| Believed H7N9 will be capable of human-to-human transmission this year | ||||
| Not likely | 730(83.3) | 146(16.7) | 1 | 1 |
| Likely | 96(68.1) | 45(31.9) | 2.34(1.58, 3.48) | 1.85(1.17, 2.93) |
| Have very high chance to be infected by H7N9 | ||||
| Not likely | 777(82.0) | 171(18.0) | 1 | |
| Likely | 51(71.8) | 20(28.2) | 1.78(1.04, 3.07) | |
| Impact of H7N9 affecting your health | ||||
| Low impact | 620(83.4) | 120(16.6) | 1 | |
| High impact | 220(75.3) | 72(24.7) | 1.64(1.18, 2.28) | |
| Impact of H7N9 to Hong Kong | ||||
| Low impact | 540(84.9) | 96(15.1) | 1 | 1 |
| High impact | 287(74.9) | 96(25.1) | 1.88(1.37, 2.58) | 1.67(1.16, 2.41) |
| Perceived knowledge to combat H7N9 outbreak | ||||
| Not enough | 602(84.0) | 115(16.0) | 1 | 1 |
| Enough | 225(74.8) | 76(25.3) | 1.77(1.27, 2.45) | 1.68(1.17, 2.43) |
aActive personal hygiene practice was defined by practicing 6 or more of the following 9 personal hygiene measures, including wash more hands, wash hands with soap, do not share utensils, wear mask when sick, bring own utensils during meals, avoid going to public places and avoid using public transport, avoid contacting with live poultry, avoid eating poultry and avoid going to places that had H7N9 confirmed cases
bActive personal hygiene attitude was defined by regarding 6 or more of the above 9 personal hygiene measures above as useful for prevention H7N9
cCOR, crude odd ratio in the univariate analysis
dAOR, Adjusted odd ratio in the multivariable analysis