Skip to main content
. 2022 Sep 14;53(4):1995–2001. doi: 10.1007/s42770-022-00816-z

Table 3.

Univariate analysis of behavioral 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
Pig consumptionc 0.3735
  Yes 9/9 (100) 812/987 (82.27) 4.104 (0.2376 to 70.89) -
  No 0/9 (0) 175/987 (17.73) - -
Direct contact with pigc 0.0538
  Yes 5/9 (55.56) 251/987 (25.43) 3.665 (1.098 to 12.01) -
  No 4/9 (44.44) 736/987 (74.57) - -
Seafood consumptionc 0.7207
  Yes 6/9 (66.67) 705/987 (71.43) 0.800 (0.1885 to 2.938) -
  No 3/9 (33.33) 282/987 (28.57) - -
Chicken consumptionc 1.00
  Yes 9/9 (100) 972/987 (98.48) 0.3028 (0.01686 to 5.440) -
  No 0/9 (0) 15/987 (1.52) - -
Sexual orientationd 0.815
  Heterosexual 9/9 (100) 944/987 (95.64) - -
  Homosexual 0/9 (0) 24/987 (2.43) - -
  Bisexual 0/9 (0) 19/987 (1.93) - -
International tripc 1.00
  Yes 1/9 (11.11) 138/987 (13.98) 0.7690 (0.0687 to 4.994) -
  No 8/9 (88.89) 849/987 (86.02) - -
Lake bathc 0.0258
  Yes 5/9 (55.56) 209/987 (21.18) 4.553 (1.391 to 15.25) -
  No 4/9 (44.44) 778/987 (78.82) - -
Weir bathc 1.00
  Yes 2/9 (22.22) 275/987 (27.86) 0.7397 (0.1544 to 3.308) -
  No 7/9 (77.78) 712/987 (72.14) - -

aOR: odds ratio

bCI: confidence interval

cCalculated by the Fisher’s exact test

dCalculated by the χ2 test

In bold: p-value considered significant