Skip to main content
. 2022 Mar 30;69(5):e1839–e1853. doi: 10.1111/tbed.14518

TABLE 3.

Predictors of public health risks in live bird markets in Busia county, Kenya, 2018 (n = 114)

Variable Total Risk status Bivariate analysis Multivariable analysis
n High, n (%) Low, n (%) POR 95% CI p aPOR 95% CI p
Sex
Male 98 61 (62.2) 37 (37.8) 0.55 0.12–2 .481a 0.6 0.15–3.19 .642
Female 16 12 (75) 4 (25) Ref
LPT category
Seller 76 53 (69.7) 23 (30.3) 2.07 0.93–4.63 .073 0.71 0.22–2.26 .557
Middlemen 38 20 (52.6) 18 (47.4) Ref
LBM frequency
Weekly market day 89 54 (60.7) 35 (39.3) 0.47 0.14–1.44 .237a 0.36 0.11–1.21 .09
Daily 25 19 (76) 6 (24.0) Ref
Kept records
Yes 40 25 (62.5) 15 (32.5) 0.9 0.41–2.01 .802 0.68 0.26–1.80 .441
No 74 48 (64.9) 26 (35.1) Ref
Provided water
Yes 97 62 (63.9) 35 (36.1) 0.97 0.27–3.15 1a
No 17 11 (64.7) 6 (35.3)
Provided feeding
Yes 99 65 (65.7) 34 (34.3) 1.67 0.47–5.77 .394 1.38 0.22–8.81 .735
No 15 8 (53.3) 7 (46.7) Ref
Member of association (n = 105)
No 19 14 (73.7) 5 (26.3) 1.5 0.45–5.82 .595 6.2 0.93–41.16 .055
Yes 86 56 (65.1) 30 (34.9) Ref
Health inspection
No 76 52 (71.2) 24 (31.6) 1.75 0.79–3.91 .167
Yes 38 21 (55.1) 17 (44.8) Ref
Species separation
Yes 70 45 (64.3) 25 (35.7) 1.02 0.47–2.26 .944 0.6 0.2–1.62 .315
No 44 28 (63.6) 16 (36.4) Ref
Accumulation of litter (n = 107)
Yes 72 50 (69.4) 22 (30.6) 1.52 0.65–3.52 .332 19.7 3.01–128.52 .002
No 35 21 (60) 14 (40) Ref
Onsite slaughter
Yes 48 32 (66.7) 16 (33.3) 1.22 0.56–2.66 .618 1.7 0.53–5.41 .371
No 66 41 (62.1) 25 (37.9) Ref
Handwashing access
Yes 39 20 (51.3) 19 (48.7) 0.44 0.20–0.97 .041 0.32 0.13–0.78 .001
No 75 53 (70.6) 22 (29.3) Ref
Campylobacter status (n = 70)
Positive 36 22 (61.1) 14 (38.9) 0.97 0.37–2.55 .955 0.52 0.16–1.64 .264
Negative 34 21 (61.8) 13 (38.2) Ref
Fate of sick birds
Quick sale 38 20 (52.6) 18 (47.4) 0.74 0.26–2.06 .564
Self‐medicate 22 16 (72.7) 6 (27.3) 1.78 0.44–7.47 .542a
Slaughter for self 24 15 (62.5) 9 (37.5) 1.11 0.35–3.51 .857
Kill for disposal 14 12 (85.7) 2 (14.3) 4.67 0.76–49.43 .191a 1.74 0.12–24.73 .684
Segregate 25 15 (60) 10 (40) Ref
Fate of dead birds
Consume oneself 7 3 (42.9) 4 (57.1) 0.53 0.06–3.7 .721a 1.09 0.06–18.8 .95
Throw to municipal waste 15 10 (66.7) 5 (33.3) 1.4 0.34–6.38 .841a
Thrown into open pit 58 39 (67.2) 19 (32.8) 1.44 0.6–3.45 .416
Bury 34 20 (58.8) 14 (41.2) Ref
Information sources
Livestock professionals 35 17 (46.6) 18 (51.4) 0.37 0.12–1.2 .163 0.24 0.09–0.61 .004
Radio 21 12 (51.1) 9 (42.9) 0.53 0.15–1.92 .519 0.66 0.16–2.58 .551
Fellow traders 52 34 (65.4) 18 (34.6) 0.76 0.25–2.28 .824 0.73 0.22–2.34 .59
School curriculum 5 4 (80) 1 (20) 1.6 0.12–91.7 1a
Workshop/seminars 26 13 (50) 13 (50) 0.4 0.11–1.35 .234 0.75 0.18–3.13 .698
Friends and family 21 15 (71.4) 6 (28.6) Ref

Note: Final – 2* likelihood = 127.93, Cases included = 114, Likelihood ratio = 49.49, p < .001.

Abbreviations: aPOR, adjusted prevalence odds ratio; CI, confidence interval; LBM, live bird markets; LPT, live poultry traders; POR, prevalence odds ratio; Ref, reference group.

aFisher's exact values.