Table 2.
Univariate analysis of sociodemographic and socioeconomic data of donor candidates and blood donors screened in the study
| Variables | Anti-HEV (IgG) positive (%) | Anti-HEV (IgG) negative (%) | ORa (95% CIb) | p-value |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sexc | 0.0163 | |||
| Male | 9/9 (100) | 612/987 (62.01) | 11.65 (0.6755 to 200.9) | - |
| Female | 0/9 (0) | 375/987 (37.99) | - | - |
| Aged | 0.651 | |||
| < 30 | 4/9 (44.45) | 440/987 (44.58) | - | − |
| 30–40 | 2/9 (22.22) | 290/987 (29.38) | - | - |
| 41–50 | 1/9 (11.11) | 159/987 (16.11) | - | - |
| > 50 | 2/9 (22.22) | 98/987 (9.93) | - | - |
| Ethnicityd,e | 0.251 | |||
| Black | 5/9 (55.56) | 512/987 (51.87) | - | - |
| White | 1/9 (11.11) | 313/987 (31.71) | - | - |
| Brown | 3/9 (33.33) | 162/987 (16.41) | - | − |
| Marital statusc | 1.000 | |||
| Single | 5/9 (55.56) | 587/987 (59.47) | 0.851 (0.2564 to 2.793) | − |
| Married | 4/9 (44.44) | 400/987 (40.53) | - | - |
| Educationd | ||||
| Illiterate | 0/9 (0) | 6/987 (0.61) | - | 0.2142 |
| Elementary school | 3/9 (33.33) | 110/987 (11.14) | - | - |
| High school | 4/9 (44.45) | 630/987 (63.83) | - | − |
| Higher education | 2/9 (22.22) | 241/987 (24.42) | - | - |
| Income/month (BRL, R$)d | ||||
| 0–2200 | 7/9 (77.78) | 678/987 (68.69) | - | - |
| 2201–4400 | 1/9 (11.11) | 190/987 (19.25) | - | - |
| 4401–10,000 | 0/9 (0) | 98/987 (9.93) | - | - |
| 10,001–20,000 | 0/9 (0) | 17/987 (1.72) | - | - |
| > 20,000 | 1/9 (11.11) | 4/987 (0.41) | - | 0.0002 |
| Piped waterc | 1.00 | |||
| Yes | 9/9 (100) | 946/987 (95.84) | 0.833 (0.04764 to 14.57) | − |
| No | 0/9 (0) | 41/987 (4.16) | - | − |
| Use of well waterc | 1.00 | |||
| Yes | 6/9 (66.67) | 642/987 (65.05) | 1.075 (0.2535 to 3.944) | - |
| No | 3/9 (33.33) | 345/987 (34.95) | - | − |
aOR: odds ratio
bCI: confidence interval
cCalculated by the Fisher’s exact test
dCalculated by the χ2 test
eEthnic classification was based on self-identification
In bold: p-value considered significant