Skip to main content
. 2019 Apr 3;188(7):1319–1327. doi: 10.1093/aje/kwz090

Table 2.

Results of Regression Analysis to Evaluate Associations With Number of Secondary Cases Generated, Ebola Epidemic, Guinea, 2014–2016

Variable Secondary Cases IRR 95% CI P Value
Intercepta 0.69 0.38, 1.28 0.239
Sex
 Female 1.00 Referent
 Male 0.71 0.55, 0.93 0.012
Outcome
 Alive, ETU+ 0.31 0.19, 0.51 <10−3
 Dead, ETU+, safe burial 0.62 0.38, 0.99 0.046
 Dead, ETU−, safe burial 1.00 Referent
 Dead, ETU−, unsafe burial 1.82 1.10, 3.02 0.018
Location
 Urban 1.00 Referent
 Rural 1.18 0.90, 1.54 0.224
Age group, years
 0–14 0.35 0.21, 0.57 <10−3
 15–34 0.68 0.49, 0.93 0.015
 35–54 1.00 Referent
 55–74 0.94 0.63, 1.40 0.757
 75–99 1.47 0.55, 3.91 0.438
Generation
 First 1.76 1.27, 2.44 0.001
 Subsequent 1.00 Referent

Abbreviations: CI, confidence interval; ETU+, attended an Ebola treatment unit; ETU−, did not attend an Ebola treatment unit; IRR, incidence rate ratio.

a Defined as the mean number of secondary cases for women, aged 35–54 years, who did not survive, did not go to an ETU, and had a safe burial, in an urban area, and who were not the first generation of a chain.