Skip to main content
. 2020 Jan;26(1):70–80. doi: 10.3201/eid2601.190220

Table 4. Comparison of respondent attitudes between CCHF-endemic villages and non–CCHF-endemic villages in survey of Crimean-Congo hemorrhagic fever, Kazakhstan* .

Attitudes
CCHF-endemic, n = 442
Non–CCHF-endemic, n = 506
p value
No. respondents†
% Respondents (95% CI)

No. respondents†
% Respondents (95% CI)
Among all persons
Ticks are a problem in the community 0.05
Major problem 410 95.3 (89.9–97.9) 408 86.6 (67.8–95.2)
Minor problem 4 0.7 (0.2–3.0) 13 2.1 (0.8–5.6)
Not a problem 3 0.6 (0.1–3.1) 52 5.0 (1.0–21.9)
Don’t know 23 3.4 (1.2–9.0) 33 6.4 (2.7–14.4)
People in my community frequently get bitten by ticks 0.74
Often 245 49.0 (19.4–79.3) 187 33.5 (12.2–64.7)
Occasionally 24 7.4 (1.3–32.2) 94 13.3 (5.4–29.4)
Rarely 149 40.4 (17.7–68.1) 202 50.2 (20.7–79.5)
Don’t know
22
3.2 (1.4–7.2)

23
3.0 (0.7–12.1)

Among persons who have heard of CCHF
n = 420

n = 371

CCHF is a problem in the community 0.12
Major problem 401 96.2 (90.0–98.6) 326 93.7 (82.7–97.9)
Minor problem 3 0.7 (0.2–3.1) 9 1.9 (0.5–6.6)
Not a problem 1 0.1 (0–0.5) 26 2.7 (0.5–13.5)
Don’t know 15 3.0 (1.1–8.4) 10 1.7 (0.5–6.1)
CCHF is something I should be worried about 0.01
Very worried 371 86.1 (72.5–93.5) 317 93.6 (83.5–97.7)
Somewhat worried 40 11.5 (4.2–27.8) 19 2.6 (0.9–7.4)
Not worried 1 0.02 (0–0.2) 25 2.5 (0.4–13.9)
Don’t know 8 2.4 (0.4–12.4) 10 1.2 (0.2–7.1)
I can protect myself from CCHF <0.01
Yes 380 90.5 (82.5–95.0) 191 52.5 (33.6–70.6)
No 4 0.7 (0.2–3.2) 100 22.7 (8.3–48.8)
Don’t know 36 8.9 (4.2–17.9) 80 24.8 (12.6–43.0)
I would welcome a CCHF survivor into my community 379 89.2 (79.7–94.5) 348 94.2 (87.9–97.4) 0.17

*CCHF, Crimean Congo hemorrhagic fever.
†Percentage weighted by calculating the inverse probability of selection and applying a poststratification adjustment to each stratum to account for nonresponses.