| Literature DB >> 20126396 |
Luciene Maura Mascarini-Serra1, Carlos A Telles, Matildes S Prado, Sheila Alvim Mattos, Agostino Strina, Neuza M Alcantara-Neves, Mauricio L Barreto.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: In the city of Salvador, a large urban centre in Northeast Brazil, a city-wide sanitation intervention started in 1997, aimed at improving the sewerage coverage of households from 26% to 80%. Our aim was to study the impact of the intervention on the prevalence and incidence of geohelminths in the school-aged population.Entities:
Mesh:
Year: 2010 PMID: 20126396 PMCID: PMC2814850 DOI: 10.1371/journal.pntd.0000588
Source DB: PubMed Journal: PLoS Negl Trop Dis ISSN: 1935-2727
Figure 1Conceptual model to investigate the effect of the city-wide sanitation intervention (Bahia Azul program) in prevalence and incidence of geohelminths.
The frequency distribution of intervention and confounding related variables used in the hierarchical multivariate models, before and after the city-wide sanitation intervention.
| Variables | Categories | Before Intervention (N = 729) | After Intervention (N = 890) | ||||
| n | % | 95% CI | n | % | 95% CI | ||
|
| |||||||
|
| 1° tercile (≤0.05) | 276 | 37.9 | 34.3–41.5 | 239 | 26.8 | 23.9–29.8 |
| 2° tercile (>0.05 and ≤0.21) | 211 | 30.3 | 27.0–33.8 | 319 | 35.8 | 32.6–39.0 | |
| 3° tercile (>0.21) | 232 | 31.8 | 28.4–35.3 | 332 | 37.3 | 34.1–40.5 | |
|
| 1° tercile (≤0.80) | 211 | 28.9 | 25.7–32.4 | 226 | 25.4 | 22.5–28.3 |
| 2° tercile (>0.80 and ≤0.89) | 273 | 37.4 | 33.9–41.0 | 327 | 36.7 | 33.5–40.0 | |
| 3° tercile (>0.89) | 245 | 33.6 | 30.1–37.1 | 337 | 37.8 | 34.7–41.1 | |
|
| 1° tercile (≤0.44) | 380 | 52.1 | 48.4–55.8 | 144 | 16.2 | 13.8–18.7 |
| 2° tercile (>0.44 and ≤0.60) | 156 | 21.4 | 18.5–24.5 | 360 | 40.4 | 37.2–43.7 | |
| 3° tercile (>0.60) | 193 | 26.5 | 23.3–29.8 | 386 | 43.5 | 40.1–46.7 | |
|
| ≤25% of houses in area | 729 | 100 | — | 100 | 11.2 | 9.2–13.5 |
| >25%, ≤50% of houses | 0 | 0 | — | 160 | 18.0 | 15.5–20.6 | |
| >50%, ≤75% of houses | 0 | 0 | — | 322 | 36.2 | 33.0–39.4 | |
| >75% of houses | 0 | 0 | — | 308 | 34.6 | 31-4–37.8 | |
|
| |||||||
|
| 7–10 years | 337 | 46.2 | 42.5–50.0 | 520 | 58.4 | 55.1–61.7 |
| 11–14 years | 392 | 53.7 | 50.1–57.4 | 370 | 41.6 | 38.3–44.9 | |
|
| Female | 354 | 48.6 | 44.9–52.2 | 408 | 45.8 | 42.5–49.2 |
| Male | 375 | 51.4 | 47.7–55.1 | 482 | 54.2 | 50.8–57.5 | |
|
| ≤4 years | 208 | 28.9 | 25.3–32.9 | 202 | 22.7 | 20.0–25.6 |
| >5 and ≤11 years | 361 | 50.1 | 45.8–53.2 | 517 | 58.9 | 54.8–61.3 | |
| >12 years | 151 | 20.9 | 17.8–23.8 | 171 | 19.2 | 16.7–21.9 | |
|
| Paved | 314 | 43.1 | 39.4–46.7 | 302 | 33.9 | 30.8–37.1 |
| Unpaved | 415 | 56.9 | 53.2–60.5 | 588 | 66.1 | 62.8–69.2 | |
|
| <2 | 342 | 46.9 | 43.2–50.6 | 742 | 83.4 | 80.7–85.7 |
| >2 | 387 | 53.9 | 49.4–57.0 | 148 | 16.6 | 14.2–19.2 | |
|
| 1° tercile (≤0.37) | 247 | 33.9 | 30.4–37.4 | 340 | 38.2 | 35.0–41.5 |
| 2° tercile (>0.37 and ≤0.66 | 253 | 34.7 | 31.2–38.3 | 278 | 31.2 | 28.0–34.4 | |
| 3° tercile ( >0.66) | 229 | 31.4 | 28.0–35.0 | 272 | 30.6 | 27.5–33.7 | |
* CI = exact binomial 95%.
Prevalence and incidence of geohelminths in the studied population, before and after the city-wide sanitation intervention.
| Geohelminths | Prevalence | Incidence | ||||||||||
| 1997 (n = 729) | 2003 (n = 890) | p | 1997–1998 | 2003–2004 | p | |||||||
| pos | % | pos | % | n | pos | % | n | pos | % | |||
|
| 241 | 33.1 | 227 | 25.5 | 0.001 | 488 | 100 | 20.5 | 663 | 101 | 15.2 | 0.02 |
|
| 313 | 42.9 | 256 | 28.8 | 0.001 | 416 | 46 | 11.1 | 634 | 56 | 8.8 | 0.23 |
|
| 72 | 9.9 | 15 | 1.7 | 0.001 | 657 | 15 | 2.3 | 875 | 12 | 1.4 | 0.18 |
|
| 390 | 53.5 | 356 | 40.0 | 0.001 | 400 | 144 | 36.0 | 584 | 150 | 25.7 | 0.001 |
* Difference between periods = test χ2.
** n = negative in first exam.
# pos = positive in the second exam.
Prevalence rate ratio (PR) of geohelminths before and after the city-wide sanitation intervention, adjusted for confounding and intervention variables.
| Prevalence Ratio (PR) | Any Geohelminth (95% CI) | AF |
| AF |
| AF | Hookworms (95% CI) | AF |
| PR (crude) | 0.74 (0.57–0.89) | — | 0.77 (0.64–0.92) | — | 0.67 (0.56–0.79) | — | 0.17 (0.09–0.29) | — |
| PR adjusted | 0.73 (0.66–0.81) | — | 0.75 (0.63–0.87) | — | 0.67 (0.58–0.79) | — | 0.18 (0.09–0.33) | — |
| PR adjusted | 0.74 (0.66–0.83) | 3.7 | 0.76 (0.63–0.91) | 4.0 | 0.68 (0.58–0.75) | 3.0 | 0.17 (0.09–0.29) | −1.2 |
| PR adjusted | 0.72 (0.65–0.80) | −3.7 | 0.74 (0.62–0.87) | −4.0 | 0.66 (0.58–0.75) | −3.0 | 0.17 (0.09–0.31) | −1.2 |
| PR adjusted | 0.77 (0.68–0.88) | 14.8 | 0.81 (0.66–0.98) | 24.0 | 0.71 (0.59–0.86) | 12.1 | 0.20 (0.11–0.37) | 2.4 |
| PR adjusted | 0.96 (0.89–1.04) | 85.2 | 1.14 (0.97–1.36) | 100 | 0.83 (0.74–0.91) | 48.5 | 0.23 (0.09–0.56) | 6.1 |
| PR adjusted | 1.24 (0.98–1.58) | 100 | 1.72 (1.26–2.34) | 100 | 1.06 (0.72–1.58) | 100 | 0.37 (0.12–1.09) | 23.2 |
*: AF = Proportion of reduction attributable fraction of intervention variable.
Ratio adjusted for confounding: age and sex of child, paving of street, number of children <5 years in household, mother's education and presence of sewage in 1997.
Ratio adjusted for variable of intervention = presence of drainage system of rainwater and for confounding A.
Ratio adjusted for variable of intervention = absence of open refuse collection points and for confounding A.
Ratio adjusted for variable of intervention = frequency of water supply and for confounding A.
Ratio adjusted for variable of intervention = proportion of households connected to the Bahia Azul sewage system and confounding A.
Ratio adjusted for all variables of intervention B+C+D+E and for confounding A.
Incidence rate ratio (IR) of geohelminths before and after the city-wide sanitation intervention, adjusted for confounding and intervention variables.
| Incidence Ratio (IR) | Any Geohelminths (95% CI) | AF |
| AF |
| AF | Hookworms (95% CI) | AF |
| IR (crude) | 0.71 (0.57–0.89) | — | 0.74 (0.56–0.98) | — | 0.80 (0.54–1.17) | — | 0.60 (0.28–1.28) | — |
| IR adjusted | 0.66 (0.55–0.79) | — | 0.68 (0.51–0.90) | — | 0.74 (0.54–1.02) | — | 0.58 (0.35–0.93) | — |
| IR adjusted | 0.68 (0.55–0.82) | 5.9 | 0.70 (0.51–0.94) | 6.2 | 0.73 (0.52–1.02) | −3.8 | 0.59 (0.34–1.0) | 2.4 |
| IR adjusted | 0.64 (0.54–0.76) | −5.9 | 0.67 (0.50–0.88) | −3.1 | 0.75 (0.56–1.0) | 3.8 | 0.51 (0.30–0.88) | −16.6 |
| IR adjusted | 0.71 (0.56–0.89) | 14.7 | 0.71 (0.49–1.03) | 9.4 | 0.82 (0.58–1.15) | 30.8 | 0.64 (0.34–1.18) | 14.3 |
| IR adjusted | 0.79 (0.66–0.94) | 38.2 | 0.82 (0.60–1.10) | 44.0 | 0.85 (0.19–1.57) | 42.3 | 1.31 (0.84–2.04) | 100 |
| IR adjusted | 1.00 (0.59–1.66) | 100 | 1.09 (0.65–1.81) | 100 | 0.95 (0.19–2.16) | 80.8 | — | — |
*: AF = Proportion of reduction attributable fraction of intervention variable.
Ratio adjusted for confounding: age and sex of child, paving of street, number of children <5 years in household, mother's education and presence of sewage in 1997.
Ratio adjusted for variable of intervention = presence of drainage system of rainwater and for confounding A.
Ratio adjusted for variable of intervention = absence of open refuse collection points and for confounding A.
Ratio adjusted for variable of intervention = frequency of water supply and for confounding A.
Ratio adjusted for variable of intervention = proportion of households connected to the Bahia Azul sewage system and for confounding A.
Ratio adjusted for all variables of intervention B+C+D+E and for confounding A.