| Literature DB >> 27822259 |
Nasser Mostafavi1, Roya Kelishadi1, Elham Kazemi2, Behrooz Ataei3, Majid Yaran4, Mohammad Esmaeil Motlagh5, Mostafa Qorbani6, Ramin Heshmat7, Mohamad Hasan Tajadini8, Shervin Ghaffari Hoseini2.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Hepatitis A is a common health concern both in developing and developed countries. Hygienic and socioeconomic parameters deeply impact the prevalence and transmission of this disease. Evaluating the epidemiological distribution and risk factors for Hepatitis A virus (HAV) is necessary for policy makers to improve local and national preventive measures.Entities:
Keywords: Hepatitis A; Iran; Prevalence; Risk Factors; Socioeconomic Status
Year: 2016 PMID: 27822259 PMCID: PMC5091029 DOI: 10.5812/hepatmon.36437
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Hepat Mon ISSN: 1735-143X Impact factor: 0.660
Hepatitis A Prevalence in 10 to 18-Year-Old Adolescents in 16 Provinces of Iran: the CASPIAN-III Study
| Province | Number | Corrected Prevalence (%) | 95% CI[ |
|---|---|---|---|
|
| 205 | 67.63 | 61.10-74.09 |
|
| 142 | 67.267.29 | 59.48-75.10 |
|
| 100 | 50.43 | 40.46-60.40 |
|
| 133 | 64.96 | 56.75-73.18 |
|
| 147 | 67.43 | 59.77-75.10 |
|
| 231 | 61.59 | 55.27-67.91 |
|
| 120 | 64.29 | 55.59-72.99 |
|
| 167 | 52.83 | 45.18-60.48 |
|
| 125 | 61.35 | 52.69-70.00 |
|
| 195 | 59.46 | 52.51-66.41 |
|
| 145 | 52.80 | 44.57-61.02 |
|
| 146 | 73.74 | 66.52-80.97 |
|
| 93 | 78.81 | 70.35-87.27 |
|
| 250 | 57.90 | 51.74-64.06 |
|
| 145 | 67.66 | 59.96-75.37 |
|
| 92 | 60.28 | 50.09-70.46 |
a95% confidence interval.
Figure 1.Hepatitis A prevalence in Iran provinces (10 to 18-year-old adolescents): The CASPIAN III study. Green: HAV prevalence < 60%, Yellow: 60% ≤ HAV prevalence < 70%, Red: HAV Prevalence ≥ 70%.
Household- and Province-Level Risk Factors for Hepatitis A Infection in 10 to 18-year-old Iranian Adolescents by Multilevel Analysis: the CASPIAN III Study
| Risk Factors | N Positive/Total (Percent) | OR | 95% CI | P Value | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
| |||||
| Male | 788/1250 (63.00) | 1 | |||
| Female | 808/1241 (65.10) | 0.82 | 0.99 - 1.20 | 0.949 | |
|
| |||||
| Urban | 1045/1649 (63.40) | 1 | |||
| Rural | 550/843 (65.2) | 1.13 | 0.80 - 1.59 | 0.462 | |
|
| |||||
| 10 - 12 | 360/790 (45.60) | 1 | |||
| 13 - 15 | 421/585 (72.00) | 3.03 | 2.33 - 3.93 | 0.000 | |
| 16 - 18 | 816/1119 (72.9) | 3.27 | 2.60 - 4.11 | 0.000 | |
|
| |||||
|
| |||||
| ≥ 7 | 236/352 (67.04) | 1 | |||
| 5 - 6 | 617/958 (64.40) | 0.90 | 0.67 - 1.21 | 0.501 | |
| ≤ 4 | 574/903 (63.56) | 1.03 | 0.75 - 1.42 | 0.828 | |
|
| |||||
| Illiterate | 163/260 (62.69) | 1 | |||
| Primary | 472/709 (66.57) | 1.28 | 0.89 - 1.84 | 0.181 | |
| Secondary | 379/595 (63.70) | 1.17 | 0.78 - 1.75 | 0.436 | |
| Tertiary | 391/613 (63.78) | 1.23 | 0.78 - 1.92 | 0.362 | |
| University | 141/241 (58.51) | 0.89 | 0.50 - 1.58 | 0.713 | |
|
| |||||
| Illiterate | 304/459 (66.20) | 1 | |||
| Primary | 517/792 (65.27) | 1.08 | 0.79 - 1.48 | 0.614 | |
| Secondary | 338/530 (63.77) | 1.04 | 0.72 - 1.51 | 0.817 | |
| Tertiary | 324/526 (61.60) | 1.02 | 0.68 - 1.54 | 0.892 | |
| University | 79/139 (56.83) | 0.63 | 0.33 - 1.19 | 0.161 | |
|
| |||||
| Unemployed | 98/154 (63.63) | 1 | |||
| Hand-worker | 344/534 (64.41) | 1.09 | 0.70 - 1.71 | 0.680 | |
| Government-employee | 373/577 (64.64) | 1.20 | 0.73 - 1.97 | 0.464 | |
| Farmer | 183/275 (66.54) | 1.09 | 0.67 - 1.79 | 0.706 | |
| Self-employed | 530/849 (62.42) | 1.07 | 0.68 - 1.66 | 0.763 | |
|
| |||||
| Homemaker | 1383/2182 (63.38) | 1 | |||
| Employed | 174/256 (67.96) | 1.73 | 1.14 - 2.62 | 0.009 | |
|
|
| ||||
|
| 7.21 | 7.24 | 0.97 | 0.92 - 1.04 | 0.494 |
|
| |||||
| Healthy drinking water (%) | 93.09% | 93.08% | 1.01 | 0.98 - 1.02 | 0.659 |
| Budget (ratio) | 0.95 | 0.97 | 0.49 | 0.16 - 1.49 | 0.214 |
| Population density (N/m2) | 140.89 | 146.38 | 0.99 | 0.99 - 1.00 | 0.900 |
Abbreviation: ICC (intracluster correlation coefficient ) = 0.012
aMissing values were present, and complete case analysis strategy was used for dealing with missing values.