| Literature DB >> 26938060 |
Samuel Fuhrimann1,2, Mirko S Winkler1,2, Narcis B Kabatereine3, Edridah M Tukahebwa4, Abdulla A Halage5, Elizeus Rutebemberwa5, Kate Medlicott6, Christian Schindler1,2, Jürg Utzinger1,2, Guéladio Cissé1,2.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: There are health risks associated with wastewater and fecal sludge management and use, but little is known about the magnitude, particularly in rapidly growing urban settings of low- and middle-income countries. We assessed the point-prevalence and risk factors of intestinal parasite infections in people with different exposures to wastewater and fecal sludge in Kampala, Uganda.Entities:
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2016 PMID: 26938060 PMCID: PMC4777287 DOI: 10.1371/journal.pntd.0004469
Source DB: PubMed Journal: PLoS Negl Trop Dis ISSN: 1935-2727
Fig 1Map of Kampala showing the study area in the Nakivubo area.
The exact geographic locations of all participants in the five exposure groups are indicated as follow: (i) red dots: “com ”, slum dwellers at risk of flooding along the Nakivubo wetland between altitudes 1,140 m and 1,160 m above mean sea level (AMSL); (ii) grey dots: “com ”, slum dwellers without risk of flooding at least 2 km away from the Nakivubo wetland and located between 1,160 and 1,201 m AMSL; (iii) green dots: “farmer”, urban farmers using wastewater within the Nakivubo wetland; (vi) dark blue dots: “worker ”, workers maintaining drainage channels and operating the Bugolobi Sewage Treatment Works; and (v) light blue: “worker ”, workers collecting fecal sludge at household level by means of vacuum trucks.
Demographic and socioeconomic characteristics of the participants enrolled in a cross-sectional survey conducted in late 2013 in Kampala, stratified by exposure group.
| Demographic and socio-economic characteristics | ||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| n = 331 | n = 229 | n = 245 | n = 67 | n = 43 | ||||||
| n | % | n | % | n | % | n | % | n | % | |
| Female | 233 | 70.4 | 171 | 74.7 | 110 | 44.9 | 0 | 0 | 4 | 9.3 |
| Male | 98 | 29.6 | 58 | 25.3 | 135 | 55.1 | 67 | 100 | 39 | 90.7 |
| 18–24 | 94 | 28.4 | 63 | 27.5 | 32 | 13.1 | 13 | 19.4 | 5 | 11.6 |
| 25–39 | 176 | 53.2 | 131 | 57.2 | 126 | 51.4 | 32 | 47.8 | 18 | 41.9 |
| ≥40 | 61 | 18.4 | 35 | 15.3 | 87 | 35.5 | 22 | 32.8 | 20 | 46.5 |
| Never went to school | 33 | 10.0 | 37 | 16.2 | 45 | 18.4 | 5 | 7.5 | 0 | 0 |
| Primary school | 103 | 31.1 | 102 | 44.5 | 144 | 58.8 | 15 | 22.4 | 4 | 9.3 |
| 'O' level | 143 | 43.2 | 62 | 27.1 | 49 | 20.0 | 32 | 47.8 | 11 | 25.6 |
| 'A' level | 29 | 8.8 | 21 | 9.2 | 4 | 1.6 | 11 | 16.4 | 7 | 16.3 |
| Tertiary | 20 | 6.0 | 7 | 3.1 | 2 | 0.8 | 4 | 6.0 | 13 | 30.2 |
| University degree | 3 | 0.9 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0.4 | 0 | 0 | 8 | 18.6 |
| Most poor | 99 | 29.9 | 87 | 38.0 | 112 | 45.7 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 2.3 |
| Poor | 127 | 38.4 | 73 | 31.9 | 88 | 35.9 | 17 | 25.4 | 6 | 14.0 |
| Less poor | 105 | 31.7 | 69 | 30.1 | 45 | 18.4 | 50 | 74.6 | 36 | 83.7 |
| Central | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0.4 | 1 | 1.5 | 4 | 9.3 |
| Nakawa | 140 | 42.3 | 79 | 34.5 | 112 | 45.7 | 9 | 13.4 | 11 | 25.6 |
| Kawempe | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 9 | 13.4 | 4 | 9.3 |
| Rubaga | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 6 | 9.0 | 2 | 4.7 |
| Makindye | 191 | 57.7 | 150 | 65.5 | 132 | 53.9 | 16 | 23.9 | 13 | 30.2 |
| of Kampala | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 26 | 38.8 | 9 | 20.9 |
1Principal component analysis (PCA) based on the possession of the following 11 items: radio, TV, mobile phone, fridge, computer, bicycle, motorbike, car, electricity, running water, and latrine. Categories of socioeconomic status were obtained by dividing the first principal component into tertiles.
*“com ”, slum dwellers at risk of flooding along the Nakivubo wetland; “com ”, slum dwellers without risk of flooding at least 2 km away from the Nakivubo wetland; “farmer”, urban farmers reusing wastewater within the Nakivubo wetland; “worker ”, workers maintaining drainage channels and operate the Bugolobi Sewage Treatment Works; “worker ”, workers managing fecal sludge (e.g., collection at households by means of vacuum trucks).
Fig 2CONSORT flowchart showing study participation and compliance of the five specific exposure groups from October-November 2013.
Flowchart shows the number of people who were invited, those who participated, and those with complete data records included in the final statistical analyses.
Fig 3Prevalence rates and adjusted odds ratio (OR) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs).
Values are indicated for “com ”, “com ”, “farmer”, “worker ”, and “worker ”for intestinal parasitic infections, intestinal helminth infections, soil-transmitted helminth infections, and intestinal protozoa infection. *p-value based on χ2 test. #p-value based on multivariate regression using likelihood ratio test.
Fig 4Prevalence rates and adjusted odds ratio (OR) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs).
Values are indicated for “com ”, “com ”, “farmer”, “worker ”, and “worker ”for Schistosoma mansoni, hookworm, Trichuris trichiura, self-reported diarrhea, skin problems, and eye problems. *p-value based on χ2 test. #p-value based on multivariate regression using likelihood ratio test.
Prevalence and intensity of parasitic infections of the participants enrolled in a cross-sectional survey conducted in late 2013 in Kampala, stratified by exposure groups.
| Prevalence of infection | Difference (χ2) | ||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| n = 331 | n = 229 | n = 245 | n = 67 | n = 43 | |||||||
| n | % | n | % | n | % | n | % | n | % | p-value | |
| 148 | 44.7 | 122 | 53.3 | 186 | 75.9 | 24 | 35.8 | 18 | 41.9 | <0.001 | |
| 52 | 15.7 | 44 | 19.2 | 134 | 54.7 | 8 | 12.0 | 8 | 18.6 | <0.001 | |
| 39 | 11.8 | 21 | 9.2 | 115 | 46.9 | 5 | 7.5 | 7 | 16.3 | <0.001 | |
| 117 | 35.4 | 99 | 43.2 | 118 | 48.2 | 18 | 26.9 | 13 | 30.2 | <0.001 | |
| 28 | 8.5 | 9 | 3.9 | 68 | 27.8 | 3 | 4.5 | 7 | 16.3 | <0.001 | |
| Light infection | 28 | 8.5 | 8 | 3.5 | 64 | 26.1 | 2 | 3.0 | 7 | 16.3 | |
| Moderate infection | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0.4 | 4 | 1.6 | 1 | 1.5 | 0 | 0 | <0.001 |
| 6 | 1.8 | 8 | 3.5 | 64 | 26.1 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 2.3 | <0.001 | |
| Light infection | 6 | 1.8 | 8 | 3.5 | 61 | 24.9 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 2.3 | |
| Moderate infection | 0 | 0 | 2 | 0.9 | 10 | 4.1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | <0.001 |
| 0 | 0 | 7 | 3.1 | 45 | 18.4 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 2.3 | <0.001 | |
| Light infection | 0 | 0 | 5 | 2.2 | 35 | 14.3 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 2.3 | |
| Moderate infection | 0 | 0 | 2 | 0.9 | 10 | 4.1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | <0.001 |
| 20 | 6.0 | 28 | 12.2 | 56 | 22.9 | 4 | 6.0 | 2 | 4.7 | <0.001 | |
| Light infection | 11 | 3.3 | 21 | 9.2 | 37 | 15.1 | 2 | 3.0 | 1 | 2.3 | |
| Moderate infection | 7 | 2.1 | 3 | 1.3 | 15 | 6.1 | 1 | 1.5 | 1 | 2.3 | |
| Heavy infection | 2 | 0.6 | 4 | 1.8 | 4 | 1.6 | 1 | 1.5 | 0 | 0 | <0.001 |
| 2 | 0.6 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0.472 | |
| 2 | 0.6 | 0 | 0 | 6 | 2.5 | 1 | 1.5 | 0 | 0 | 0.067 | |
| 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1.5 | 0 | 0 | 0.013 | |
| 20 | 6.0 | 9 | 3.9 | 37 | 15.1 | 5 | 7.5 | 5 | 11.6 | <0.001 | |
| 92 | 27.8 | 83 | 36.2 | 94 | 38.4 | 13 | 19.4 | 8 | 18.6 | <0.001 | |
| 5 | 1.5 | 1 | 0.4 | 2 | 0.8 | 1 | 1.5 | 0 | 0 | 0.677 | |
| 1 | 0.3 | 0 | 1 | 0.4 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0.869 | ||
| 1 | 0.3 | 1 | 0.4 | 1 | 0.4 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 2.3 | 0.411 | |
| 12 | 3.6 | 16 | 7.0 | 1 | 0.4 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | <0.001 | |
| 13 | 3.9 | 10 | 4.4 | 11 | 4.5 | 1 | 1.5 | 0 | 0 | 0.527 | |
*“com ”, slum dwellers at risk of flooding along the Nakivubo wetland; “com ”, slum dwellers without risk of flooding at least 2 km away from the Nakivubo wetland; “farmer”, urban farmers reusing wastewater within the Nakivubo wetland; “worker ”, workers maintaining drainage channels and operating the Bugolobi Sewage Treatment Works; “worker ”, workers managing fecal sludge (e.g., collection at households by means of vacuum trucks).
#Prevalence is calculated out of the results of the examination of a single stool sample by means of duplicate Kato-Katz thick smears and the formalin-ether concentration method. Infection intensity is based on the examination of duplicate Kato-Katz thick smears.
Self-reported health outcomes experienced in the last 2 weeks before the interview among participants enrolled in a cross-sectional survey carried out in late 2013 in Kampala, stratified by exposure groups.
| Self-reported health problems over the past 2 weeks | Difference (χ2) | ||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| n = 331 | n = 229 | n = 245 | n = 67 | n = 43 | |||||||
| n | % | n | % | n | % | n | % | n | % | p-value | |
| 14-day prevalence | 70 | 21.2 | 58 | 25.3 | 62 | 25.3 | 22 | 32.8 | 10 | 23.3 | 0.323 |
| Blood in stool | 8 | 2.4 | 5 | 2.2 | 8 | 3.3 | 3 | 4.5 | 1 | 2.3 | 0.837 |
| Number of episodes | |||||||||||
| 1 | 50 | 15.1 | 49 | 21.4 | 40 | 16.3 | 10 | 14.9 | 4 | 9.3 | |
| 2 | 15 | 4.5 | 4 | 1.8 | 14 | 5.7 | 9 | 13.4 | 3 | 7.0 | |
| 3 | 2 | 0.6 | 4 | 1.8 | 5 | 2.0 | 2 | 3.0 | 0 | 0 | |
| 4 | 3 | 0.9 | 0 | 0 | 2 | 0.8 | 0 | 0 | 3 | 7.0 | <0.001 |
| Eye problems | 67 | 20.2 | 63 | 27.5 | 93 | 38.0 | 22 | 32.8 | 14 | 32.6 | <0.001 |
| Eye irritation | 29 | 8.8 | 38 | 16.6 | 42 | 17.1 | 12 | 17.9 | 11 | 25.6 | <0.001 |
| Sensitivity to light | 35 | 10.6 | 24 | 10.5 | 54 | 22.0 | 10 | 14.9 | 8 | 18.6 | 0.001 |
| Other eye problems | 7 | 2.1 | 6 | 2.6 | 13 | 5.3 | 6 | 9.0 | 0 | 0.0 | 0.016 |
| Skin problems | 95 | 28.7 | 64 | 28.0 | 81 | 33.1 | 26 | 38.8 | 13 | 30.2 | 0.393 |
| Skin irritation | 14 | 4.2 | 29 | 12.7 | 29 | 11.8 | 13 | 19.4 | 7 | 16.3 | <0.001 |
| Itching | 65 | 19.6 | 46 | 20.1 | 52 | 21.2 | 16 | 23.9 | 11 | 25.6 | 0.853 |
| Sores on skin | 0 | 0.0 | 2 | 0.9 | 14 | 5.7 | 4 | 6.0 | 3 | 7.0 | 0.020 |
| Ulcer on skin | 4 | 1.2 | 3 | 1.3 | 5 | 2.0 | 4 | 6.0 | 0 | 0.0 | 0.070 |
| Other skin problems | 9 | 2.7 | 4 | 1.8 | 8 | 3.3 | 1 | 1.5 | 0 | 0.0 | 0.621 |
*“com ”, slum dwellers at risk of flooding along the Nakivubo wetland; “com ”, slum dwellers without risk of flooding at least 2 km away from the Nakivubo wetland; “farmer”, urban farmers reusing wastewater within the Nakivubo wetland; “worker ”, workers maintaining drainage channels and operating the Bugolobi Sewage Treatment Works; “worker ”, workers managing fecal sludge (e.g., collection at households by means of vacuum trucks).
Results of univariate and the multivariate logistic regression analysis for parasitic infection in a cross-sectional survey done in late 2013 in Kampala.
| Intestinal parasitic infection | Univariate logistic regression | Multivariate logistic regression | ||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| N = 915 / N(cases) = 530 | OR | 95% CI | p-value | aOR | 95% CI | p-value | ||||
| Exposure group | 1.00 | |||||||||
| 1.39 | 0.99 | 1.96 | 0.061 | 1.33 | 0.88 | 2.01 | 0.173 | |||
| 3.88 | 2.69 | 5.62 | <0.001 | 3.61 | 2.22 | 5.88 | <0.001 | |||
| 0.68 | 0.39 | 1.16 | 0.163 | 0.61 | 0.32 | 1.16 | 0.131 | |||
| 0.87 | 0.46 | 1.66 | 0.672 | 0.82 | 0.38 | 1.79 | 0.624 | |||
| Sex | Male | 1.00 | ||||||||
| Female | 0.79 | 0.61 | 1.03 | 0.75 | 0.53 | 1.06 | 0.101 | |||
| Age | 1.01 | 1.00 | 1.02 | 1.00 | 0.98 | 1.01 | 0.741 | |||
| Education | Never went to school | 1.00 | ||||||||
| Primary | 0.19 | 1.33 | 0.576 | 0.76 | 0.48 | 1.22 | 0.262 | |||
| Higher education | 0.64 | 0.42 | 0.96 | 0.031 | 0.87 | 0.54 | 1.41 | 0.587 | ||
| Socioeconomic status | Most poor | 1.00 | ||||||||
| Poor | 0.61 | 0.44 | 0.84 | <0.001 | 0.76 | 0.53 | 1.09 | 0.139 | ||
| Less poor | 0.59 | 0.43 | 0.82 | <0.001 | 0.95 | 0.63 | 1.43 | 0.813 | ||
| Number of people per household | Single | 1.00 | ||||||||
| 2–4 | 1.28 | 0.85 | 1.93 | 0.245 | 1.33 | 0.83 | 2.05 | 0.252 | ||
| > 4 | 1.55 | 1.01 | 2.39 | 0.051 | 1.43 | 0.87 | 2.35 | 0.161 | ||
| Toilet facility | Flush toilet | 1.00 | ||||||||
| Pit latrine | 1.61 | 0.91 | 2.85 | 0.112 | 1.79 | 0.93 | 3.43 | 0.082 | ||
| No facility | 2.61 | 1.32 | 5.18 | <0.001 | 1.43 | 0.63 | 3.23 | 0.394 | ||
| Toilet sharing | Private toilet | 1.00 | ||||||||
| 2 and 3 households | 0.77 | 0.55 | 1.07 | 0.121 | 0.87 | 0.64 | 1.27 | 0.481 | ||
| ≥ 4 households | 1.19 | 0.85 | 1.67 | 0.314 | 1.14 | 0.75 | 1.74 | 0.542 | ||
| Flooding of living area | No | 1.00 | ||||||||
| Yes | 1.99 | 1.49 | 2.66 | 1.02 | 0.68 | 1.53 | 0.911 | |||
| Source of drinking water | Bottle, tap, rain water | 1.00 | ||||||||
| Spring | 1.33 | 1.00 | 1.76 | 0.055 | 0.25 | 0.12 | 1.61 | 0.611 | ||
| Other | 1.30 | 0.77 | 2.23 | 0.322 | 0.95 | 0.48 | 1.86 | 0.884 | ||
| Source of bath water | Tap, rain water | 1.00 | ||||||||
| Spring | 1.35 | 1.02 | 1.82 | 0.041 | 1.06 | 0.65 | 1.73 | 0.817 | ||
| Unprotected | 1.44 | 0.91 | 2.29 | 0.121 | 1.16 | 0.64 | 2.09 | 0.632 | ||
| Bathing per week | 1.00 | |||||||||
| 7–13 | 0.86 | 0.48 | 1.56 | 0.626 | 1.22 | 0.62 | 2.31 | 0.613 | ||
| ≥ 14 | 0.65 | 0.36 | 1.16 | 0.151 | 1.05 | 0.53 | 2.09 | 0.892 | ||
| Hand washing | After defecation | No | 1.00 | |||||||
| Yes | 0.92 | 0.69 | 1.22 | |||||||
| After work | No | 1.00 | ||||||||
| Yes | 1.22 | 0.94 | 1.59 | 1.02 | 0.75 | 1.38 | 0.921 | |||
| Before eating | No | 1.00 | ||||||||
| Yes | 1.29 | 0.92 | 1.83 | 1.25 | 0.86 | 1.82 | 0.253 | |||
| Hand washing per week | < 4 | 1.00 | ||||||||
| 4–7 | 0.87 | 0.63 | 1.19 | 0.383 | 0.91 | 0.64 | 1.28 | 0.582 | ||
| ≥ 8 | 0.62 | 0.42 | 0.93 | 0.010 | 0.75 | 0.49 | 1.16 | 0.212 | ||
| Use soap to wash your hand | No | 1.00 | ||||||||
| Yes | 0.96 | 0.70 | 1.31 | 0.91 | 0.65 | 1.33 | 0.711 | |||
| Deworming (month) | < 6 | 1.00 | ||||||||
| 6–12 | 1.05 | 0.70 | 1.59 | 0.832 | ||||||
| > 12 | 1.00 | 0.74 | 1.34 | 0.982 | ||||||
Parasitic infection include: Ascaris lumbricoides, Trichuris trichiura, hookworm, Schistosoma mansoni, and any intestinal protozoa.
*p-value and odds ratio (OR) based on likelihood ratio test of univariate logistic regression, overall p-value of the models are indicated in bold letters.
** p-value and adjusted
(a) OR based on likelihood ratio test of the multivariate regression model. The multivariate model was defined including exposure groups, sex, age, educational attainment, socioeconomic status, and number of people per household. In addition, all risk factors that had a p-value lower than 0.2 in the univariate analyses were included into the multivariate regression analysis (as indicated in the table).
*** exposure groups: com , slum dwellers at risk of flooding along the Nakivubo wetland; com , slum dwellers without risk of flooding at least 2 km away from the Nakivubo wetland; farmer, urban farmers reusing wastewater within the Nakivubo wetland; worker , workers maintaining drainage channels and operating the Bugolobi Sewage Treatment Works; worker , workers managing fecal sludge (e.g., collection at households by means of vacuum trucks).