Table 2.
Seroprevalence of HSV-2 by demographic characteristics of the total population
| HSV-2 | |||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Variable group | Total | Positive | Crude | Adjusted | |||||
| N | N | (%) | OR | 95% CI | P value1 | OR2 | 95% CI | Pvalue | |
| All women | 389 | 205 | (53) | 47.7–57.6 | |||||
| Age | |||||||||
| < 26 | 98 | 36 | (37) | 1.0 | (Ref) | ||||
| 26–34 | 104 | 57 | (55) | 2.1 | 1.2–3.6 | 0.01 | |||
| 35–45 | 98 | 64 | (65) | 3.2 | 1.8–5.8 | 0.0001 | |||
| > 45 | 89 | 48 | (54) | 2.0 | 1.1–3.6 | 0.019 | |||
| Occupation | |||||||||
| Professional or student | 51 | 21 | (41) | 1.0 | (Ref) | 1.0 | (Ref) | ||
| Self employed3 | 136 | 65 | (48) | 1.3 | 0.7–2.5 | 0.40 | 0.9 | 0.5–1.9 | 0.90 |
| Housewife | 202 | 119 | (59) | 2.0 | 1.1–3.9 | 0.02 | 1.6 | 0.8–3.1 | 0.10 |
| Number of children | |||||||||
| 0 | 41 | 11 | (27) | 1.0 | (Ref) | 1.0 | (Ref) | ||
| 1–3 | 225 | 114 | (51) | 2.8 | 1.3–5.9 | 0.006 | 2.7 | 1.2–5.8 | 0.01 |
| 4–10 | 123 | 80 | (65) | 5.0 | 2.3–11 | 0.0001 | 4.6 | 1.8–11 | 0.001 |
| Current family planning method | |||||||||
| Condom | 14 | 4 | (29) | 1.0 | (Ref) | 1.0 | (Ref) | ||
| Hormonal contraception | 128 | 74 | (58) | 3.4 | 1.0–11 | 0.04 | 2.6 | 0.8–8.9 | 0.40 |
| Others4 | 41 | 25 | (61) | 3.9 | 1.0–14 | 0.04 | 2.5 | 0.6–8.9 | 0.10 |
| None | 206 | 102 | (49) | 2.4 | 0.7–8.1 | 0.14 | 1.7 | 0.5–5.9 | 0.20 |
| Residence | |||||||||
| Large size town | 239 | 112 | (47) | 1.0 | (Ref) | 1.0 | (Ref) | ||
| Small size town | 73 | 41 | (56) | 1.4 | 0.8–2.4 | 0.16 | 1.5 | 0.8–2.5 | 0.15 |
| Villages | 77 | 52 | (67) | 2.4 | 1.4–3.9 | 0.0016 | 2.4 | 1.4–4.1 | 0.02 |
1P value was calculated between the subgroups or variables compared to the reference variable
2Odds ratio adjusted for age
3Self-employed: Merchant, artisan, cook and farmer
4Others: Intra uterine devise (IUD), tubal ligation and calendar
Abbreviations: OR: odds ratio, CI Confidence interval, Ref Reference