Table 3.
Seroprevalence of anti-HBVc and HBAg by demographic characteristics of the total population
| Anti-HBVc | |||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Variable group | Total | Positive | Crude | Adjusted | |||||
| N | N | (%) | OR | 95% CI | Pvalue1 | OR2 | 95% CI | Pvalue | |
| All women | 389 | 38 | (9.7) | 7.1–13 | |||||
| HBAg | 8 | 6 | (15.8) | 7.1–30 | |||||
| Age | |||||||||
| < 26 | 98 | 6 | (6) | 1.0 | (Ref) | ||||
| 26–34 | 104 | 10 | (9.6) | 1.6 | 0.6–4.6 | 0.36 | |||
| 35–45 | 98 | 12 | (12) | 2.1 | 0.8–5.9 | 0.14 | |||
| > 45 | 89 | 10 | (11) | 1.9 | 0.7–5.6 | 0.21 | |||
| Occupation | |||||||||
| Professional or student | 51 | 3 | (4) | 1.0 | (Ref) | 1.0 | (Ref) | ||
| Self employed3 | 136 | 17 | (12) | 3.5 | 0.8–16 | 0.10 | 3.0 | 0.6–14 | 0.17 |
| Housewife | 202 | 19 | (9.4) | 2.5 | 0.5–11 | 0.22 | 2.2 | 0.5–10 | 0.30 |
| Number of children | |||||||||
| 0 | 41 | 1 | (2) | 1.0 | (Ref) | 1.0 | (Ref) | ||
| 1–3 | 225 | 22 | (10) | 4.3 | 0.6–33 | 0.16 | 4.0 | 0.5–31 | 0.19 |
| 4–10 | 123 | 15 | (12) | 5.5 | 0.7–43 | 0.10 | 4.5 | 0.5–40 | 0.17 |
| Current family planning method | |||||||||
| Condom | 14 | 1 | (7) | 1.0 | (Ref) | 1.0 | (Ref) | ||
| Hormonal contraception | 128 | 13 | (10) | 1.5 | 0.2–12 | 0.72 | 1.1 | 0.1–9.6 | 0.72 |
| Others4 | 41 | 3 | (7) | 1.0 | 0.1–11 | 0.98 | 0.7 | 0.1–7.5 | 0.74 |
| None | 206 | 21 | (10) | 1.5 | 0.2–11 | 0.71 | 1.0 | 0.1–11 | 0.98 |
| Residence | |||||||||
| Large size town | 239 | 29 | (12) | 1.0 | (Ref) | 1.0 | (Ref) | ||
| Small size town | 73 | 5 | (7) | 0.5 | 0.2–1.4 | 0.20 | 0.5 | 0.2–1.4 | 0.20 |
| Villages | 77 | 4 | (5) | 0.4 | 0.1–1.1 | 0.09 | 0.4 | 0.1–1.1 | 0.09 |
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