Skip to main content
. 2022 Jul 19;8(8):e09939. doi: 10.1016/j.heliyon.2022.e09939

Table 3.

The full model for the risk factor analysis of EZL in the four towns (n = 528).

Risk factor Total
Sampled
Number of Positive Prevalence (%) POR (95% CI) P-value
Species
 Horse 396 61 15.40 1.00
 Mule 132 5 3.79 0.10 (0.00, 2.38) 0.156
Educational status of owners
 Illiterate 120 14 11.67 1.00
 Primary school 292 39 13.36 2.52 (0.37, 17.31) 0.349
 High school/above 116 13 11.21 4.79 (0.61, 37.61) 0.136
Age of animal
 ≤6Yrs 141 23 16.31 1.00
 >6Yrs 387 43 11.11 0.77 (0.18, 3.32) 0.724
Body condition
 Poor 190 25 13.16 1.00
 Medium 250 33 13.20 0.29 (0.06, 1.30) 0.106
 Good 88 8 9.09 0.88 (0.14, 5.42) 0.889
Housing
 Separate 469 22 4.69 1.00
 Shared 59 44 74.58 34.16 (2.47, 473.36) 0.008
Preexisting wound
 No 394 17 4.31 1.00
 Yes 134 49 36.57 7.88 (2.08, 29.77) 0.002
Sharing of Harness
 No 461 17 3.69 1.00
 Yes 67 49 73.13 226.44 (14.04,3651.77) 0.000
Feeding/Watering
 Separate 487 39 8.01 1.00
 Shared 41 27 65.85 0.09 (0.01, 1.33) 0.080
Grooming practice
 No 176 9 5.11 1.00
 Yes 352 57 16.19 37.09 (2.38, 578.16) 0.010
Mingling with other cart animals
 No 423 5 1.18 1.00
 Yes 105 61 58.10 175.18 (22.95,1337.27) 0.000