| Literature DB >> 20735831 |
Ytje Jj van der Veen1, Hélène Acm Voeten, Onno de Zwart, Jan Hendrik Richardus.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Hepatitis B virus infection is an important health problem in the Turkish community in the Netherlands. To prevent transmission and progression of the disease in this community, increased screening is necessary. This study aimed to determine 1) the levels of awareness and knowledge regarding hepatitis B, comparing these in tested and non-tested Turkish-Dutch in Rotterdam; 2) the self-reported hepatitis B test status in this population, and how this is related to demographic characteristics, knowledge and awareness.Entities:
Mesh:
Year: 2010 PMID: 20735831 PMCID: PMC2940913 DOI: 10.1186/1471-2458-10-512
Source DB: PubMed Journal: BMC Public Health ISSN: 1471-2458 Impact factor: 3.295
Level of awareness regarding Hepatitis B in the Turkish-Dutch population in Rotterdam (weighted analysis)
| total | tested | non-tested | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| n = 355 | n = 52 | n = 303 | ||
| % | % | % | p-value | |
| Persons who in the past 12 months have at least sometimes thought about | ||||
| the disease Hepatitis B | 20 | 32 | 18 | 0.01 |
| the personal risk in contracting Hepatitis B | 17 | 29 | 15 | < 0.01 |
| the risk of a family member contracting Hepatitis B | 9 | 10 | 9 | 0.8 |
| having a test for Hepatitis B | 13 | 24 | 11 | 0.02 |
| Overall (% of respondents who have thought about at least one of the four items) | 27 | 42 | 24 | < 0.01 |
Proportion of people with correct knowledge about Hepatitis B among the tested and non-tested Turkish-Dutch population in Rotterdam (weighted analysis)
| total | tested | non-tested | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| n = 355 | n = 52 | n = 303 | ||
| % | % | % | p-value | |
| Transmission | ||||
| Hepatitis B cannot be spread by someone that looks and feels healthy. | 54 | 68 | 51 | 0.03 |
| Hepatitis B can be spread during childbirth. | 54 | 62 | 53 | 0.22 |
| Hepatitis B can be spread during sexual intercourse. | 53 | 67 | 50 | 0.02 |
| Average proportion for transmission | 54 | 66 | 51 | 0.02 |
| Consequences of HBV | ||||
| People with Hepatitis B can be infected for life. | 44 | 69 | 39 | < 0.001 |
| Hepatitis B can cause liver cancer. | 25 | 43 | 22 | < 0.001 |
| People can die from Hepatitis B. | 36 | 53 | 34 | < 0.01 |
| Average proportion for consequences | 35 | 55 | 32 | < 0.001 |
| Prevention | ||||
| Infection with Hepatitis B can not be prevented. | 52 | 75 | 48 | < 0.001 |
| By being tested for Hepatitis B, one can find out whether one is infected. | 84 | 84 | 84 | 0.8 |
| Average proportion for prevention | 68 | 79 | 66 | 0.001 |
| Difference Hepatitis A (HAV) and HBV | ||||
| Hepatitis A and B are transferred from one person to the other in the same way. | 13 | 20 | 12 | 0.15 |
| Vaccination for both Hepatitis A and B are available. | 54 | 64 | 52 | 0.14 |
| Average proportion for difference HAV and HBV | 33 | 41 | 32 | 0.16 |
| Percentage of respondents with a high score (i.e. 6 or more correct answers) | 42 | 71 | 37 | < 0.001 |
Hepatitis B test-rates related to demographic factors in the Turkish-Dutch population in Rotterdam, the Netherlands (n = 355)
| total | Testedc | crude OR (univariate) | p-value | adjusted OR (multivariate)e | p-value | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| n = 355 | n = 52 | |||||||
| 100% | 14.7% | |||||||
| female | 54% | 15% | 1.1 (0.6-1.8) | 0.8 | 1.1 (0.6-2.0) | 0.7 | ||
| male | 46% | 14% | ref | |||||
| 0.13 | 0.1 (overall) | |||||||
| 16-20 | 19% | 11% | ref | |||||
| 21-25 | 16% | 12% | 1.2 (0.4-3.7) | 0.7 | 1.5 (0.5-5.0) | 0.5 | ||
| 26-30 | 20% | 21% | 1.9 (0.7-5.1) | 0.2 | 2.3 (0.8-6.7) | 0.1 | ||
| 31-35 | 21% | 11% | 1.6 (0.6-4.4) | 0.3 | 1.7 (0.6-4.8) | 0.36 | ||
| 36-40 | 25% | 21% | 2.9 (1.2-7.3) | 0.02 | 3.4 (1.3-7.4) | 0.02 | ||
| 1st generation | 49% | 16% | ref | |||||
| 2nd generation | 51% | 13% | 1.2 (0.7-2.1) | 0.5 | 1.4 (0.8-2.5) | 0.3 | ||
| married/living with partner | 59% | 19% | 1.8 (0.9-3.8)d | 0.10 | ||||
| previously/never married | 41% | 9% | ref | |||||
| not/low endemic | 29% | 19% | 1.3 (0.6-2.7)d | 0.6 | ||||
| high endemic | 71% | 17% | ref | |||||
| yes | 15% | 36% | ||||||
| no | 85% | 11% | ref | |||||
| 0.23 | ||||||||
| low | 32% | 14% | 1.1 (0.5-2.4)d | 0.8 | ||||
| medium | 42% | 13% | ref | |||||
| high | 26% | 16% | 1.9 (0.9-3.8)d | 0.08 | ||||
| low SES suburb | 63% | 15% | 1.3 (0.7-2.3)d | 0.4 | ||||
| medium/high SES suburb | 37% | 15% | ref | |||||
| 0.3 | ||||||||
| paid job | 66% | 13% | ref | |||||
| social security | 8% | 19% | 1.0 (0.4-3.1)d | 0.9 | ||||
| fulltime housework | 13% | 26% | 2.4 (1.0-6.0)d | 0.05 | ||||
| student | 14% | 10% | 0.9 (0.2-3.2)d | 0.9 | ||||
| basic health insurance | 40% | 13% | ref | |||||
| basic + supplementary | 60% | 16% | 1.4 (0.7-2.7)d | 0.3 | ||||
| low level | 47% | 17% | ref | |||||
| high level | 53% | 13% | 1.3 (0.7-2.5)d | 0.5 | ||||
a 1st generation migrant i.e. person born in Turkey. 2nd generation migrant i.e. person born in the Netherlands, with at least one parent born abroad.
b n = 233
c weighted analysis to correct for the stratification variables sex, age group and migrant generation
d adjusted for the stratification variables sex, age group and migrant generation
e the stratification variables sex, age group and migrant generation were retained in the final model