| Literature DB >> 24340109 |
Yordanos B Molla1, Jennifer S Le Blond, Nicola Wardrop, Peter Baxter, Peter M Atkinson, Melanie J Newport, Gail Davey.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Podoconiosis is a non-filarial form of elephantiasis resulting in lymphedema of the lower legs. Previous studies have suggested that podoconiosis arises from the interplay of individual and environmental factors. Here, our aim was to understand the individual-level correlates of podoconiosis by comparing 460 podoconiosis-affected individuals and 707 unaffected controls. METHODS/PRINCIPALEntities:
Mesh:
Year: 2013 PMID: 24340109 PMCID: PMC3854961 DOI: 10.1371/journal.pntd.0002554
Source DB: PubMed Journal: PLoS Negl Trop Dis ISSN: 1935-2727
Figure 1Conceptual framework describing the potential relationships between individual-level correlates and podoconiosis.
Figure 2Study areas in east Gojam province in Ethiopia, and spatial patterns of village-level podoconiosis prevalence.
Socio-demographic characteristics of cases and controls.
| Characteristics | Category | Cases | Controls | ||||
| Men (n = 217) | Women (n = 243) | Total (n = 460) | Men (n = 437) | Women (n = 270) | Total (n = 707) | ||
| Endemicity of area (n = 1167) | ‘High’ | 111 (51.2) | 144 (59.3) | 255 (55.4) | 127 (29.1) | 131 (48.5) | 258 (36.5) |
| ‘Medium‘ | 97 (44.7) | 96 (39.5) | 193 (42.0) | 141 (32.3) | 54 (20) | 195 (27.6) | |
| ‘Low’ | 9 (4.1) | 3 (1.2) | 12 (2.6) | 169 (38.7) | 85 (31.5) | 254 (35.9) | |
| Age distribution (n = 1167) | Mean (±SD) | 52.29 (±16.5) | 50.76 (±15.8) | 51.48 (±16.1) | 43.79 (±14.2) | 37.56 (±13.6) | 41.41 (±14.3) |
| Median (Min-Max) | 55 (14–80) | 50 (11–85) | 52 (11–85) | 42 (14–80) | 35 (15–90) | 40 (14–90) | |
| Age group distribution (n = 1167) | <15 years | 1 (0.5) | 2 (0.8) | 3 (0.7) | 1 (0.2) | 0 | 1 (0.1) |
| 15–64 years | 152 (70.0) | 188 (77.4) | 340 (73.9) | 391 (89.5) | 260 (96.3) | 651 (92.2) | |
| >64 years | 64 (29.5) | 53 (21.8) | 117 (25.4) | 45 (10.3) | 10 (3.7) | 55 (7.8) | |
| Have ever gone to school (n = 1161) | Yes | 96 (44.2) | 32 (13.2) | 128 (27.9) | 236 (54.1) | 45 (16.9) | 281 (40) |
| No | 121 (55.8) | 210 (86.8) | 331 (72.1) | 200 (45.8) | 221 (83.1) | 421 (60) | |
| Level of education (n = 408) | Informal | 80 (36.9) | 20 (62.5) | 100 (77.5) | 190 (80.9) | 12 (27.3) | 202 (72.4) |
| Primary | 14 (14.4) | 10 (31.3) | 24 (18.6) | 32 (13.6) | 21 (47.7) | 53 (19) | |
| Secondary | 3 (3.1) | 2 (6.3) | 5 (3.9) | 13 (5.5) | 8 (18.2) | 21 (7.5) | |
| College/diploma | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2 (4.5) | 2 (0.7) | |
| University | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 (2.3) | 1 (0.4) | |
| Occupation (n = 1164) | Farmer | 193 (88.9) | 125 (51.4) | 318 (69.1) | 414 (94.7) | 171 (63.3) | 585 (82.7) |
| Housewife | 0 | 64 (26.3) | 64 (13.9) | 0 | 64 (23.7) | 64 (9.1) | |
| Retired | 5 (2.3) | 17 (7.0) | 22 (4.8) | 5 (1.1) | 7 (2.6) | 12 (1.7) | |
| Unemployed | 6 (2.8) | 13 (5.3) | 19 (4.1) | 5 (1.1) | 4 (1.5) | 9 (1.3) | |
| Merchant | 1 (0.5) | 11 (4.5) | 12 (2.6) | 2 (0.5) | 5 (1.9) | 7 (1) | |
| Student | 5 (2.3) | 2 (0.8) | 7 (1.5) | 5 (1.1) | 4 (1.5) | 9 (1.3) | |
| Others | 5 (2.3) | 11 (4.5) | 16 (3.5) | 6 (1.4) | 14 (5.2) | 20 (2.8) | |
| Marital status (n = 1167) | Single | 25 (11.5) | 11 (4.5) | 36 (7.8) | 18 (4.1) | 17 (6.3) | 35 (5.0) |
| Married | 173 (79.7) | 126 (51.9) | 299 (65) | 410 (93.8) | 201 (74.4) | 611 (86.4) | |
| Divorced | 3 (1.4) | 26 (10.7) | 29 (6.3) | 4 (0.9) | 20 (7.4) | 24 (3.4) | |
| Separated | 3 (1.4) | 10 (4.1) | 13 (2.8) | 2 (0.5) | 11 (4.1) | 13 (1.8) | |
| Widowed/er | 13 (6.0) | 70 (28.8) | 83 (18) | 3 (0.7) | 21 (7.8) | 24 (3.4) | |
| Income distribution | Mean (±SD) | 323.17 (±213.3) | 255.32 (±198.2) | 288.79 (±208.3) | 351.29 (±238.6) | 349 (±212.1) | 350 (±229.5) |
| Median(Min-Max) | 300 (0–1000) | 200 (0–1000) | 250 (0–1000) | 300(0–1500) | 300 (0–1100) | 300 (0–1500) | |
Data are number (%) or mean (SD) or median (Minimum - Maximum).
Univariate and multivariate analyses of covariates for cases and controls.
| Univariate analysis | Multivariate analysis | ||||
| Variable | Category | Case | Control | Crude Odds ratio (95%CI), | Adjusted OR (95%CI), |
| Sex | Men | 217 (47.2) | 437 (61.8) | 1 | 1 |
| Women | 243 (52.8) | 270 (38.2) | 1.81(1.43 to 2.29), | 3.01 (1.73 to 5.25), p<0.0001* | |
| Marital status | Married | 299 (65.0) | 611 (86.4) | 1 | 1 |
| Unmarried | 161 (35.0) | 96 (13.6) | 3.43 (2.57 to 4.57), | 5.31 (2.59 to 10.87), p<0.0001* | |
| ‘Ever’ went to school | Yes | 128 (27.9) | 281 (40) | 1 | |
| No | 331 (72.1) | 421 (60) | 1.73 (1.34 to2.23), | NA | |
| ‘Ever’ owned shoes | Yes | 245 (53.4) | 364 (51.5) | 1 | |
| No | 214 (46.6) | 343 (48.5) | 0.93 (0.73 to 1.17), | NA | |
| Currently owns shoes (of ‘ever’ owned shoes) | Yes | 223 (90.3) | 354 (97.5) | 1 | 1 |
| No | 24 (9.7) | 9 (2.5) | 4.23 (1.93 to 9.27), | 3.32 (1.07 to 10.33), p = 0.039* | |
| Wearing protective shoes during interview | Yes | 88 (19.3) | 110 (16.2) | 1 | 1 |
| No | 367 (80.7) | 568 (83.8) | 0.81 (0.59 to 1.10), | 0.39 (0.24 to 0.65), p<0.0001* | |
| State of feet at interview | Clean and intact | 176 (38.5) | 454 (64.2) | 1 | 1 |
| Dirty | 103 (22.5) | 144 (20.4) | 1.85 (1.36 to 2.51), | 1.44 (0.73 to 2.83), p = 0.295 | |
| Cracked | 68 (14.9) | 42 (5.9) | 4.18 (2.74 to 6.37), | 6.04 (2.74 to 13.32), p<0.0001* | |
| Dirty and Cracked | 110 (24.1) | 67 (9.5) | 4.24 (2.98 to 6.01), | 1.65 (0.85 to 3.21), p = 0.140 | |
| Wore shoes before age 30 | Yes | 88 (36.1) | 231 (64.2) | 1 | 1 |
| No | 156 (63.9) | 129 (35.8) | 3.17 (2.26 to 4.45), p<0.0001* | 3.53 (2.22 to 5.62), p<0.0001* |
Note: all variables were adjusted for: sex, marital status, ‘ever’ went to school, ‘ever’ owned shoes, currently owns shoes, wearing protective shoes, foot cleanliness, income, had shoes before age 30, months spent on farming, time spent walking to and frequency of traveling to the regular market.
¥unmarried included: single, divorced, separated, and widowed; NA = variable was not included in the final regression model; Data are number (%) or mean (SD) or median (Minimum - Maximum).
Figure 3Duration of shoe wearing (up to the date of interview) among cases and controls who owned shoes.
Figure 4Average age of first wearing of shoes compared with income and age of onset of podoconiosis among cases.
Figure 5Scatter matrix showing cases that were treated for podoconiosis§.
§Note: First noticed swelling and first treatment r = 0.9, age at first wearing shoes and income r = −0.04, age at first wearing shoes and first noticed r = 0.2, age at first wearing shoes and first treatment r = 0.2, first noticed swelling and income r = −0.1, income and first treatment r = 0.01.