Table 4.
Test of association and multivariable logistic regression analyses of perceived likelihood of brucellosis exposure risk with respect to the various procedures encountered during the veterinary practice in the study on comparative exposure risk to brucellosis amongst veterinary personnel in Punjab, India during 2015.
| Number of participants | Likely n (%) | Univariable analysis/ test of association |
Multivariable analyses |
Model adjustment⁎ | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| OR (95%CI) | P value | Adjusted OR (95%CI) | P value | ||||
| Q. What do you think is your likelihood of exposure to brucellosis from contact with animal faeces/urine? | Adjusted for age, gender and rurality | ||||||
| Animal Handler | 90 | 54(60.0) | 1.0 (0.5–1.9) | 0.5 | 1.0 (0.5–2.1) | 0.4 | |
| Para-veterinarians | 131 | 70(53.4) | 0.8 (0.4–1.4) | 0.7 (0.3–1.4) | |||
| Veterinarian | 65 | 39(60.0) | Ref | Ref | |||
| Q. What do you think is your likelihood of exposure to brucellosis from contact with animal blood? | Adjusted for gender and tehsil | ||||||
| Animal Handler | 91 | 67 (73.6) | 0.9 (0.5–1.9) | 0.7 | 0.9 (0.3–1.7) | 0.7 | |
| Para-veterinarians | 134 | 93 (69.4) | 0.8 (0.4–1.5) | 0.7(0.3–1.5) | |||
| Veterinarian | 67 | 50 (74.6) | Ref | Ref | |||
| Q. What do you think is your likelihood of exposure to brucellosis from contact with animal saliva? | |||||||
| Animal Handler | 90 | 63 (70.0) | 2.3 (1.2–4.4) | 0.04 | 2.6 (1.3–5.2) | 0.02⁎ | Adjusted for tehsil and rurality |
| Para-veterinarians | 134 | 78 (58.2) | 1.3 (0.7–2.4) | 1.5 (0.8–2.8) | |||
| Veterinarian | 67 | 34 (50.7) | Ref | Ref | |||
| Q. What do you think is your likelihood of exposure to brucellosis from contact with animal bodily fluids? | Adjusted for age and experience | ||||||
| Animal Handler | 92 | 76 (82.6) | 0.8 (0.4–2.0) | 0.3 | 0.9 (0.4–2.3) | 0.5 | |
| Para-veterinarians | 133 | 119 (89.5) | 1.5 (0.6–3.6) | 1.5 (0.6–3.7) | |||
| Veterinarian | 66 | 56 (84.9) | Ref | Ref | |||
| Q. What do you think is your likelihood of exposure to brucellosis while performing post-mortems? | Adjusted for gender, age and experience | ||||||
| Animal Handler | 91 | 77 (84.6) | 0.9 (0.3–2.1) | 0.3 | 0.9 (0.3–2.3) | 0.5 | |
| Para-veterinarians | 132 | 120 (90.9) | 1.6 (0.6–4.0) | 1.4 (0.5–4.1) | |||
| Veterinarian | 66 | 57(86.4) | Ref | Ref | |||
| Q. What do you think is your likelihood of exposure to brucellosis while assisting conception/parturition? | |||||||
| Animal Handler | 91 | 71 (78.0) | 0.3 (0.1–0.8) | 0.008 | 0.3 (0.1–0.8) | 0.01 | Adjusted for gender and tehsil |
| Para-veterinarians | 134 | 122 (91.0) | 0.8 (0.3–2.5) | 0.7 (0.2–2.4) | |||
| Veterinarian | 66 | 61 (92.4) | Ref | Ref | |||
| Q. What do you think is your likelihood of exposure to brucellosis on contact with healthy animals? | |||||||
| Animal Handler | 87 | 32 (36.8) | 0.6 (0.3–1.2) | 0.2 | 0.7 (0.3–1.3) | 0.2 | Adjusted for age and rurality |
| Para-veterinarians | 131 | 46 (35.1) | 0.6 (0.3–1.1) | 0.6 (0.3–1.1) | |||
| Veterinarian | 65 | 31(47.7) | Ref | Ref | |||
| Q. What do you think is your likelihood of exposure to brucellosis on contact with sick animals? | |||||||
| Animal Handler | 90 | 67 (74.4) | 0.5 (0.2–1.2) | 0.6 | 0.5 (0.2–1.2) | 0.4 | Adjusted for experience |
| Para-veterinarians | 134 | 117 (87.3) | 1.2 (0.5–2.8) | 1.5 (0.6–3.6) | |||
| Veterinarian | 90 | 57 (85.1) | Ref | Ref | |||
⁎
The association was individually tested for each demographic predictor and only the factors that yielded p value of ≤ 0.25 were adjusted in the final model for association of the occupation with the response variable.