Table 1.
Baseline characteristics of villages and their residents randomised to the intervention and control groups
| Intervention group |
Control group | |
|---|---|---|
| All analytical samples | ||
|
| ||
| Number of villages by province | ||
| Boulkiemdé | 15 | 15 |
| Nayala | 5 | 5 |
| Sanguié* | 9 | 9 |
| Total | 29 | 29 |
| Prevalence of active cysticercosis at baseline among all eligible participants (ie, no confirmed epilepsy or severe chronic headaches) | ||
| Boulkiemdé | 44/891 (4·9%) | 32/888 (3·6%) |
| Nayala | 11/300 (3·7%) | 7/294 (2·4%) |
| Sanguié | 10/538 (1·9%) | 8/537 (1·5%) |
| Total | 65/1729 (3·8%) | 47/1719 (2·7%) |
|
| ||
| Analytical sample 1: baseline characteristics of eligible participants with serum samples at all visits | ||
|
| ||
| Number of participants per group | 522 | 513 |
| Mean age (SD) | 31·4 (19·1) | 31·5 (18·4) |
| Sex | ||
| Men (%) | 240 (46·0%) | 233 (45·4%) |
| Women (%) | 282 (54·0%) | 280 (54·6%) |
| Mean number of days between baseline and pre-randomisation serum collection (SD) | 583·8 (87·3) | 589·6 (60·9) |
| Mean number of days between pre- and post-randomisation serum collection (SD) | 469·5 (46·5) | 467·7 (54·5) |
| Mean number of days between baseline and post-randomisation serum collection (SD) | 1056 (30·9) | 2068 (33·5) |
| Attended some years of school? | ||
| Yes (%) | 170 (32·9%) | 171 (33·6%) |
| No (%) | 347 (67·1%) | 338 (66·4%) |
| Data missing | 5 | 4 |
| Reported using toilet to defecate? | ||
| Yes (%) | 70 (13·5%) | 79 (15·5%) |
| Data missing | 5 | 4 |
| Pork eating behaviour | ||
| Never eats pork | 117 (22·6%) | 90 (17·7%) |
| Eats at home only | 201 (38·9%) | 211 (41·5%) |
| Eats at other households | 50 (9·7%) | 68 (13·4%) |
| Eats at village market | 83 (16·1%) | 84 (16·5%) |
| Eats at other village market | 26 (5·0%) | 26 (5·1%) |
| Ate pork before, not anymore | 40 (7·7%) | 30 (5·9%) |
| Data missing | 5 | 4 |
| Knowledge about tapeworm | ||
| Never heard of tapeworm infection | 200 (38·7%) | 187 (36·7%) |
| Has heard of tapeworm infection, was never infected | 265 (51·3%) | 265 (52·1%) |
| Had a tapeworm infection | 52 (10·1%) | 57 (11·2%) |
| Data missing | 5 | 4 |
| Ever seen or heard of nodules in pigs? | ||
| Yes (%) | 339 (65·6%) | 338 (66·4%) |
| Data missing | 5 | 4 |
| Primary source of drinking water† | ||
| Open well or river | 135 (25·9%) | 170 (33·1%) |
| Laid stone dug or covered well | 126 (24·1%) | 142 (27·7%) |
| Drilled well or tap | 261 (50·0%) | 201 (39·2%) |
| Wealth quintile | ||
| 1–3 | 294 (56·3%) | 302 (58·9%) |
| 4–5 | 228 (43·7%) | 211 (41·1%) |
| Do household members have access to a latrine? | ||
| Yes (%) | 73 (14·0%) | 62 (12·1%) |
| Data missing | 3 | 4 |
| Type of concession sampled | ||
| Sow | 87 (16·7%) | 70 (13·7%) |
| Piglet | 208 (39·9%) | 214 (41·7%) |
| Any | 227 (43·5%) | 229 (44·6%) |
| Does the household own pigs? | ||
| Yes (%) | 388 (74·3%) | 400 (78·0%) |
| Pork cooking by mother of the household | ||
| Does not cook pork | 175 (33·7%) | 141 (27·6%) |
| Well cooked | 318 (61·3%) | 344 (67·3%) |
| Medium or rare | 26 (5·1%) | 26 (5·1%) |
| Data missing | 3 | 2 |
|
| ||
| Analytical sample 2: demographic and baseline household characteristics of eligible participants with at least one serum sample | ||
|
| ||
| Number of participants per group | 2394 | 2402 |
| Mean age (SD) | 31·6 (19·8) | 32·7 (19·9) |
| Data missing (participant age) | 12 | 22 |
| Sex | ||
| Men (%) | 1119 (46·9%) | 1072 (44·8%) |
| Women (%) | 1267 (53·1%) | 1321 (55·2%) |
| Data missing | 8 | 9 |
| Primary source of drinking water† | ||
| Open well or river | 672 (28·2%) | 753 (31·5%) |
| Laid stone dug or covered well | 631 (26·5%) | 661 (27·6%) |
| Drilled well or tap | 1082 (45·4%) | 980 (40·9%) |
| Data missing | 9 | 8 |
| Did household members have access to a latrine at baseline?† | ||
| Yes (%) | 320 (13·6%) | 255 (10·7%) |
| Data missing | 34 | 24 |
| Wealth quintile | ||
| 1–3 | 1376 (57·5%) | 1442 (60·1%) |
| 4–5 | 1017 (42·5%) | 958 (39·9%) |
| Data missing | 2 | 2 |
| Type of concession sampled | ||
| Sow | 307 (12·8%) | 312 (13·0%) |
| Piglet | 860 (35·9%) | 904 (37·6%) |
| Any | 1228 (51·3%) | 1186 (49·4%) |
| Did the household own pigs at baseline?† | ||
| Yes (%) | 1627 (68·1%) | 1794 (74·8%) |
| Data missing | 5 | 5 |
| Pork cooking by mother of the household at baseline† | ||
| Does not cook pork | 906 (38·2%) | 661 (27·7%) |
| Well cooked | 1347 (56·8%) | 1597 (67·0%) |
| Medium or rare | 117 (4·9%) | 125 (5·3%) |
| Data missing | 21 | 20 |
|
| ||
| Analytical sample 3: baseline characteristics of eligible participants with serum samples at baseline and after randomisation | ||
|
| ||
| Number of participants per group | 660 | 679 |
| Mean age (SD) | 30·4 (18·3) | 31·0 (18·2) |
| Sex | ||
| Men (%) | 297 (45·0%) | 307 (45·2%) |
| Women (%) | 363 (55·0%) | 372 (54·8%) |
| Mean number of days between baseline and post-randomisation serum collection (SD) | 1056 (29·9) | 1055 |
| Attended some years of school? | ||
| Yes | 204 (31·2%) | 223 (33·0%) |
| Data missing | 6 | 4 |
| Reported using toilet to defecate | ||
| Yes | 91 (13·9%) | 97 (14·4%) |
| Data missing | 6 | 4 |
| Pork eating behaviour | ||
| Never eats pork | 166 (25·4%) | 132 (19·6%) |
| Eats at home only | 239 (36·5%) | 272 (40·3%) |
| Eats at other households | 69 (10·6%) | 85 (12·6%) |
| Eats at village market | 100 (15·3%) | 107 (15·8%) |
| Eats at other village market | 35 (5·4%) | 34 (5·0%) |
| Ate pork before, not anymore | 45 (6·9%) | 45 (6·7%) |
| Data missing | 6 | 4 |
| Knowledge about tapeworm | ||
| Never heard of tapeworm infection | 256 (39·1%) | 255 (37·8%) |
| Has heard of tapeworm infection, was never infected | 338 (51·7%) | 341 (50·5%) |
| Had a tapeworm infection | 60 (9·2%) | 79 (11·7%) |
| Data missing | 6 | 4 |
| Ever seen or heard of nodules in pigs? | ||
| Yes (%) | 414 (63·3%) | 438 (64·9%) |
| Data missing | 6 | 4 |
| Primary source of drinking water† | ||
| Open well or river | 193 (29·3%) | 214 (31·6%) |
| Laid stone dug or covered well | 152 (23·1%) | 193 (28·5%) |
| Drilled well or tap | 313 (47·6%) | 271 (40·0%) |
| Data missing | 2 | 1 |
| Wealth quintile | ||
| 1–3 | 379 (57·5%) | 392 (57·7%) |
| 4–5 | 280 (42·5%) | 287 (42·3%) |
| Data missing | 1 | 0 |
| Do household members have access to a latrine? | ||
| Yes (%) | 93 (14·2%) | 83 (12·3%) |
| Data missing | 5 | 4 |
| Type of concession sampled | ||
| Sow | 95 (14·4%) | 90 (13·3%) |
| Piglet | 262 (39·7%) | 265 (39·0%) |
| Any | 303 (45·9%) | 324 (47·7%) |
| Does the household own pigs? | ||
| Yes (%) | 481 (73·1%) | 512 (75·5%) |
| Data missing | 2 | 1 |
| Pork cooking by mother of the household† | ||
| Does not cook pork | 231 (35·2%) | 195 (28·8%) |
| Well cooked | 396 (60·4%) | 447 (66·0%) |
| Medium or rare | 29 (4·4%) | 35 (5·2%) |
| Data missing | 4 | 2 |
Data are n (%) unless otherwise stated. The displayed percentages do not include missing values.
*
One village from Sanguié randomly assigned to the intervention refused to be sampled at the last follow-up. The village in the same department was excluded.
†
Significant difference between the intervention and control group (assessed by χ² tests).