Table 3.
Distribution of potential risk factors for exposure to sheeppox and goatpox in households in selected states in Northern Nigeria following analysis with univariable poisson regression models with number of positive animals as outcome variable and number of animals sampled in the household as offset.
| Predictor variables | All animals sero-negative (%) | At least one animal sero-positive (%) | Prevalence ratio (95 % CI) | P value |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| State where the household is located | ||||
| • Kaduna | 86 (86) | 14 (14) | Ref | |
| • Bauchi | 96 (96) | 4 (4) | 2.7 (1.2–6.9) | 0.02 |
| • Plateau | 99 (99) | 1 (1) | 0.4 (0.1–1.5) | 0.22 |
| Herd size (small ruminants only) | ||||
| • Up to 14 small ruminants | 146 (94.2) | 9 (5.8) | Ref | |
| • More than 14 small ruminants | 135 (93.1) | 10 (6.9) | 1.0 (0.5–2.1) | 0.99 |
| Management system | ||||
| • Intensive | 9 (90) | 1 (10) | Ref | |
| • Semi Intensive & extensive | 272 (93.8) | 18 (6.2) | 0.3 (0.1–1.3) | 0.05 |
| Small ruminants graze in communal area | ||||
| • No | 17 (89.5) | 2 (10.5) | Ref | |
| • Yes | 264 (94.0) | 17 (6.0) | 0.4 (0.2–1.4) | 0.11 |
| Small ruminants drink water from communal source | ||||
| • No | 18 (90) | 2 (10) | Ref | |
| • Yes | 263 (93.9) | 17 (6.1) | 0.4 (0.2–1.5) | 0.13 |
| Small ruminants share shed with cattle | ||||
| • No | 249 (93.3) | 18 (6.7) | Ref | |
| • Yes | 32 (97.0) | 1 (3.0) | 0.3 (0.02–1.3) | 0.22 |
| Share rams | ||||
| • No | 184 (94.8) | 10 (5.2) | Ref | |
| • Yes | 97 (91.5) | 9 (8.5) | 1.1 (0.5–2.3) | 0.77 |
| Share bucks | ||||
| • No | 68 (89.5) | 8 (10.5) | Ref | |
| • Yes | 213 (95.1) | 11 (4.9) | 0.4 (0.2 – 0.8) | 0.006 |
| Share reproductive males (rams and/or bucks) | ||||
| • No | 55 (88.7) | 7 (11.3) | Ref | |
| • Yes | 226 (95.0) | 12 (5.0) | 0.3 (0.2 – 0.7) | 0.002 |
| Brought new sheep or goats into the household | ||||
| • No | 56 (90.3) | 6 (9.7) | Ref | |
| • Yes | 225 (94.5) | 13 (5.5) | 0.6 (0.3–1.3) | 0.17 |
| Last time new sheep or goats were bought into the household | ||||
| • Never | 56 (90.3) | 6 (9.7) | Ref | |
| • Within a year | 131 (97.8) | 3 (2.2) | 1.1 (0.5–2.5) | 0.008 |
| • More than a year | 94 (90.4) | 10 (9.6) | 0.2 (0.06 – 0.6) | 0.89 |
| Common practice to de-worm | ||||
| • No | 110 (96.7) | 5 (4.3) | Ref | |
| • Yes | 171 (92.4) | 14 (7.6) | 2.4 (1.0–6.5) | 0.06 |
| Common practice of tick control | ||||
| • No | 193 (95.5) | 9 (4.5) | Ref | |
| • Yes | 88 (89.8) | 10 (10.2) | 1.3 (0.6–2.6) | 0.55 |
| Spray sheds to control vectors | ||||
| • No | 253 (93.7) | 17 (6.3) | Ref | |
| • Yes | 28 (93.3) | 2 (6.7) | 0.7 (0.1–2.2) | 0.58 |
| Flock affected by SGP in the past | ||||
| • No | 230 (96.2) | 9 (3.8) | Ref | |
| • Yes | 51 (83.6) | 10 (16.4) | 7.44 (3.5–16.7) | <0.001 |
| Last time the flock was affected in the past | ||||
| • Never | 230 (96.2) | 9 (3.8) | Ref | |
| • Within a year | 27 (81.8) | 6 (18.2) | 6.8 (2.6–17.3) | <0.001 |
| • More than a year | 24 (85.7) | 4 (14.3) | 8.0 (3.4–19.1) | <0.001 |