Table 3.

Univariate logistic regression analysis of association between LF-related hydrocoele and individual/household risk factors; weighted and adjusted for survey design (n = 269)

Risk factor	Total		Proportion with hydrocoele (%)a	Hydrocoele present
				aORa	95% CIb	P
Individual risk factors
Age (by year)		268	–	1.05	1.03–1.08	< 0.001
Occupation		265
None/home duties		32	10.45	1.85	0.17–2.82	0.603
Student		2	0	–
Manual labour		213	3.32	0.54	0.04–6.89	0.625
Other (ref)		18	5.93	1.00
Work environment		258
Outdoor		145	0.85	0.20c	0.05–0.72	0.014
Indoor or mixed		113	7.29
Moved to current village of residence		268
Yes		42	7.68	2.14	0.45–10.24	0.327
No		226	3.75
CFAd positive		269
Yes		19	12.25	3.65	0.81–16.38	0.088
No		250	3.69
Microfilariae positivee		266
Yes		7	18.18	5.39	0.83–35.04	0.076
No		259	3.96
Never taken MDA medication		269
Yes		56	4.66	1.15	0.22–5.98	0.859
No		213	4.07
Household risk factors
Township		269
Amarapura		59	13.92	11.12	1.85–66.89	0.011
Patheingyi		27	8.02	5.98	0.40–89.48	0.184
Tada-U		64	1.73	1.21	0.08–17.21	0.884
Wundwin (ref)		119	1.44	1.00
Log household monthly income				1.43	0.77–2.64	0.241
Highest HH education		268
None/primary		81	2.74	0.26	0.03–2.78	0.253
Secondary		150	3.29	0.32	0.04–2.41	0.253
Tertiary (ref)		37	9.72	1.00
Drinking water type (by WHO classification)		268	–	1.01	0.41–2.47	0.981
Sanitation type (by WHO classification)		269	–	0.26	0.04–1.63	0.143
Elevation (by metre)		269	–	0.98	0.96–1.01	0.148
Distance to nearest water body (per km)		267	–	0.95	0.89–1.01	0.075
No. of people per HH room (ratio)		259	–	1.35	0.92–1.98	0.116

^aAdjusted for survey design

^b95% confidence interval

^cUnadjusted values given due to study stratum with single sampling unit

^dCirculating filarial antigen

^eAll CFA negative individuals assumed to be microfilariae negative

Italics values indicate P < 0.05