Table 3.
Univariable logistic regression analysis of positive serological result to Rickettsia spp. exposure among Australian wildlife rehabilitators participating in a survey at the Australian Wildlife Rehabilitation Conference in Sydney in July 2018. (p < 0.3).
| Variable Name and Description | Total Number | Seropositive | Seronegative | Odds Ratio | 95% Confidence Intervals | p-Value |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| State of residence | 122 | 0.365 | ||||
| South West (WA + SA) | 3 | 17 | 1 | |||
| Southeast (VIC + TAS) | 8 | 14 | 3.24 | 0.77–16.99 | 0.125 | |
| Northeast (QLD + NT) | 3 | 11 | 1.55 | 0.25–9.74 | 0.63 | |
| East (NSW + ACT) | 13 | 53 | 1.39 | 0.39–6.58 | 0.637 | |
| Age | 120 | 0.184 * | ||||
| ≤50 | 6 | 33 | 1 | |||
| >50 | 21 | 60 | 1.93 | 0.74–5.67 | ||
| Number of people in household rehabilitating wildlife | 121 | 0.145 * | ||||
| 1 | 13 | 60 | 1 | |||
| >1 | 14 | 34 | 1.90 | 0.80–4.56 | ||
| Total number of animals per year cared for per year | 119 | 0.226 * | ||||
| 0–100 | 18 | 75 | 1 | |||
| >100 | 8 | 18 | 1.85 | 0.67–4.85 | ||
| Occupational animal contact | 122 | 0.140 * | ||||
| No | 8 | 43 | 1 | |||
| Yes | 19 | 52 | 1.96 | 0.81–5.17 | ||
| Tick Bite | 122 | 0.577 | ||||
| No | 14 | 55 | 1 | |||
| Yes | 13 | 40 | 1.27 | 0.56–3.43 | ||
| Association with reptiles | 122 | 0.443 | ||||
| No | 23 | 86 | 1 | |||
| Yes | 4 | 9 | 1.66 | 0.42–5.62 | ||
| Biosecurity practices when handling animals | 120 | 0.220 * | ||||
| None/handwash only | 21 | 61 | 1 | |||
| Handwash and other | 6 | 32 | 0.55 | 0.18–1.42 | ||
| Biosecurity practices when cleaning enclosures | 120 | 0.973 | ||||
| None/handwash only | 15 | 52 | 1 | |||
| Handwash and other | 12 | 41 | 1.02 | 0.42–2.40 |
* p < 0.3, VIC—Victoria, NSW—New South Wales, ACT—Australian Capital Territory, QLD—Queensland, NT—Northern Territory WA—Western Australia, SA—South Australia, TAS—Tasmania.