Table 1.
All participants (n = 48) | Participants with toenail samples (n = 40) | Participants with hair samples (n = 33) | |||
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Characteristics | n (%) | n (%) | p-valuea | n (%) | p-valuea |
Ageb | 0.98 | 0.42 | |||
18–29 | 21 (43.8) | 17 (42.5) | 11 (33.3) | ||
30–49 | 13 (27.1) | 11 (27.5) | 10 (30.3) | ||
≥ 50 | 14 (29.1) | 12 (30.0) | 12 (36.4) | ||
Sex | 1.00 | 1.00 | |||
Female | 2 (4.2) | 2 (5.0) | 2 (6.1) | ||
Male | 46 (95.8) | 38 (95.0) | 31 (93.9) | ||
Education level | 1.00 | 0.90 | |||
≤ 6th grade | 31 (64.6) | 25 (62.5) | 20 (60.6) | ||
7–11th grade | 17 (35.4) | 15 (37.5) | 13 (39.4) | ||
Country of birth | 0.84 | 0.23 | |||
Costa Rica | 34 (70.8) | 30 (75.0) | 28 (84.8) | ||
Nicaragua | 14 (29.2) | 10 (25.0) | 5 (15.2) | ||
Poverty status | 1.00 | 0.98 | |||
< Poverty line | 13 (27.1) | 11 (27.5) | 8 (24.2) | ||
> Poverty line | 35 (72.9) | 29 (72.5) | 25 (75.8) | ||
Handedness | 0.65 | 0.68 | |||
Right | 45 (93.7) | 38 (95.0) | 32 (97.0) | ||
Left | 2 (4.2) | 2 (5.0) | 1 (3.0) | ||
Unknown | 1 (2.1) | 0 (0) | 0 (0) | ||
Computer literacyc | 0.54 | 0.87 | |||
Yes | 27 (56.2) | 26 (65.0) | 20 (60.6) | ||
No | 21 (43.8) | 14 (35.0) | 11 (39.4) | ||
Years worked in agricultureb | 0.91 | 0.90 | |||
≤14 | 19 (39.6) | 16 (40.0) | 11 (33.3) | ||
15–29 | 14 (29.2) | 12 (30.0) | 10 (30.3) | ||
≥30 | 15 (31.2) | 12 (30.0) | 12 (36.4) | ||
Type of farm | 0.74 | 0.94 | |||
Conventional | 22 (45.8) | 16 (40.0) | 14 (42.4) | ||
Organic | 26 (54.2) | 24 (60.0) | 19 (57.6) | ||
Drinking water source | 0.98 | 0.68 | |||
Aqueduct | 46 (95.8) | 38 (95.0) | 32 (97.0) | ||
Spring | 1 (2.1) | 1 (2.5) | 1 (3.0) | ||
Other | 1 (2.1) | 1 (2.5) | 0 (0) |
Groups were compared using Wilcoxon rank-sum tests for continuous variables and Chi-squared tests for categorical variables.
Modeled as continuous variable when testing for group differences.
Defined as ever used a computer of played video games.