Table 4.
Comparison of Malaria infection with risk factors, BennaTsemay District, Southern Ethiopia, 2012
| Independent variables | Frequency | Cases | Crude odds ratio (95 % CI) | Adjusted odds ratio (95 % CI) | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| No. | % | ||||
| Pregnancy status (n = 461) | |||||
| Other than pregnancy | 444 | 25 | 5.63 | 1.00 | 1.00 |
| Pregnancy | 17 | 3 | 17.7 | 3.6 (0 .96, 13.32) | 12.6 (1.7, 94.7) * |
| Saving MN for later use (n = 419) | |||||
| No | 273 | 2 | 0.7 | 1.00 | 1.00 |
| Yes | 146 | 22 | 15.4 | 24.6(5.7,106.4) * | 9.6 (2.2, 42.8) * |
| ‘Boronge’ performed | |||||
| No | 170 | 3 | 1.8 | 1.00 | 1.00 |
| Yes | 291 | 25 | 8.6 | 5.2 (1.6, 17.6) * | |
| HH status | |||||
| Model | 189 | 4 | 2.1 | 1.00 | 1.00 |
| Non-model | 272 | 24 | 8.8 | 4.2 (1.4, 12.3) * | |
| House type | |||||
| Thatched roof with wall | 158 | 3 | 1.9 | 1.00 | 1.00 |
| Thatched roof without wall | 303 | 25 | 8.3 | 4.6 (1.4, 15.6) * | |
| Use of MN for other purpose | |||||
| No | 250 | 3 | 1.2 | 1.00 | 1.00 |
| Yes | 169 | 21 | 12.4 | 11.7 (3.4, 39.8) * | 0.4 (0.02, 6.1) |
| ‘Rhae/Rhanto’ performed | |||||
| No | 252 | 8 | 3.2 | 1.00 | 1.00 |
| Yes | 209 | 20 | 9.6 | 3.2 (1.4, 7.5) * | 0 .8(0.2, 2.9) |
| ‘Dugo’ house use | |||||
| No | 183 | 6 | 3.3 | 1.00 | 1.00 |
| Yes | 278 | 22 | 7.9 | 2.5 (1.0, 6.0) * | 1.4(0.1, 16.5) |
| Modern technology access | |||||
| Yes | 246 | 5 | 2 | 1.00 | 1.00 |
| No | 215 | 23 | 10.7 | 5.8 (2.2, 15.5) * | 1.n0.4, 5.6) |
*Statistically significant at p < 0.05
Foot note: CI confidence interval, HH household, MN mosquito net