| Literature DB >> 30011282 |
Kinnaly Xaydalasouk1,2, Michel Strobel1, Yves Buisson1, Antony P Black2, Claude P Muller2,3.
Abstract
The prevalence of hepatitis B and C virus infections may be higher in vulnerable populations or in individuals likely to be exposed through risk behaviors such as female garment factory workers in Lao People's Democratic Republic. A cross-sectional study was performed on 400 female garment workers in Vientiane Capital. Women were tested for hepatitis B virus surface antigen and antibodies against hepatitis B core, surface antigen and hepatitis C virus using commercial Enzyme-linked immuno-absorbent assays. Participants completed a standardized questionnaire about potential risk factors for both infections. Sixteen women (4±1.9%) were HBsAg carriers, 187 (47%) had anti-HBc, 116 (29%) anti-HBs and 7 (1.8±1.3%) anti-HCV antibodies. Three factors were significantly associated with the presence of anti-HBc (indicating previous exposure to HBV): (i) residence in dormitories, (ii) more than one sexual partner, (iii) history of abortion. Despite a high risk of exposure, the prevalence of anti HBV and anti HCV infection markers in this sample of female workers was not higher than in the Lao general population. Our data suggest that exposure to HBV happens later during life and was significantly associated with sexual risk behavior. Thus, this study highlights the vulnerability of these women who were mostly young, uneducated, unvaccinated, of rural origin and were not aware of the risk of infections. An occupational health program targeting the female factory workers should be implemented in Lao PDR.Entities:
Mesh:
Year: 2018 PMID: 30011282 PMCID: PMC6047780 DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0199919
Source DB: PubMed Journal: PLoS One ISSN: 1932-6203 Impact factor: 3.240
Serological markers of hepatitis B and C.
| Serological profile | n | % | 95% CI | Interpretation |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Anti-HBs negative/anti-HBc negative | 200 | 50.13 | 45.0–55.0 | No HBV infection, no vaccination |
| Anti-HBs positive/anti-HBc negative | 13 | 3.26 | 2.0–5.0 | HBV vaccination |
| Anti-HBs positive/anti-HBc positive | 103 | 25.81 | 22.0–30.0 | Previous HBV infection |
| Anti-HBs negative/anti-HBc positive/HBsAg negative | 67 | 16.79 | 13.0–20.0 | Previous HBV infection |
| Anti-HBs negative/anti-HBc positive/HBsAg positive | 16 | 4.01 | 2.1–5.9 | Acute or chronic HBV infection |
| Anti-HCV positive | 7 | 1.75 | 0.5–3.0 | Current or previous HCV infection |
*1 out of the 7 HCV positive participants had current co-infection with HBV
Association between socio-demographic characteristics, knowledge and risk factors with Anti-HBc.
Ref = reference.
| Variable | Anti-HBc Positive/Total (%) | Bivariate analysis | Multivariate analysis | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| OR | 95% CI | P-value | OR | 95% CI | P-value | |||
| Illiterate/Primary | 80/158 (50.63) | Ref | Ref | Ref | Ref | |||
| Secondary study | 100/216 (46.29) | 0.84 | [0.55–1.26] | 0.4 | 0.81 | [0.52–1.26] | 0.3 | |
| Higher education | 7/25 (28) | 0.37 | [0.15–0.95] | 0.04 | 0.64 | [0.21–1.91] | 0.4 | |
| Vientiane Capital | 26/90 (28.88) | Ref | Ref | Ref | Ref | |||
| Provincial | 161/309 (52.10) | 2.67 | [1.61–4.44] | <0.001 | 1.50 | [0.81–2.78] | 0.1 | |
| Single | 117/233 (50.21) | Ref | Ref | Ref | Ref | |||
| Married | 60/146 (41.09) | 0.69 | [0.45–1.05] | 0.08 | 0.67 | [0.27–1.65] | 0.3 | |
| Divorced | 10/20 (50.00) | 0.99 | [0.39–2.47] | 0.9 | 0.47 | [0.14–1.53] | 0.2 | |
| No | 72/147 (48.97) | Ref | Ref | |||||
| Yes | 115/252 (45.63) | 0.87 | [0.58–1.31] | 0.5 | ||||
| House | 50/150 (33.33) | Ref | Ref | <0.001 | Ref | Ref | ||
| Dormitory | 118/205 (57.56) | 2.71 | [1.75–4.20] | <0.001 | 3.02 | [1.53–5.95] | 0.001 | |
| Rent a room | 19/44 (43.18) | 1.52 | [0.76–3.01] | 0.2 | 1.29 | [0.62–2.68] | 0.4 | |
| No child, no abortion | 118/254 (46.45) | Ref | Ref | Ref | Ref | |||
| Child, No abortion | 24/54 (44.44) | 092 | [0.51–1.66] | 0.7 | 2.34 | [0.95–5.74] | 0.06 | |
| Abortion | 45/91 (49.45) | 1.12 | [0.69–1.82] | 0.6 | 2.55 | [1.15–5.68] | 0.02 | |
| No | 129/273 (47.25) | Ref | Ref | |||||
| Yes | 58/126 (46.03) | 0.95 | [0.62–1.45] | 0.8 | ||||
| Do not know/poor knowledge | 176/373 (47.18) | Ref | Ref | |||||
| At least one | 11/26 (42.30) | 0.82 | [0.36–1.83] | 0.6 | ||||
| No | 178/378 (47.08) | Ref | Ref | |||||
| Yes | 9/21 (42.85) | 0.84 | [0.34–2.04] | 0.7 | ||||
| No | 178/376 (47.34) | Ref | Ref | |||||
| Yes | 9/23 (39.13) | 0.71 | [0.30–1.69] | 0.4 | ||||
| No | 153/329 (46.50) | Ref | Ref | |||||
| Yes | 34/70 (48.57) | 1.08 | [0.64–1.82] | 0.7 | ||||
| No | 151/325 (46.46) | Ref | Ref | |||||
| Yes | 36/74 (48.64) | 1.09 | [0.65–1.80] | 0.7 | ||||
| No | 57/131 (43.51) | Ref | Ref | |||||
| Yes | 130/268 (48.50) | 1.22 | [0.80–1.86] | 0.3 | ||||
| No sex | 57/131 (43.51) | Ref | Ref | Ref | Ref | |||
| One | 96/211 (45.49) | 1.08 | [0.69–1.68] | 0.7 | 1.39 | [0.78–2.50] | 0.2 | |
| More than one | 34/57 (59.64) | 1.91 | [1.02–3.61] | 0.04 | 2.12 | [1.02–4.40] | 0.04 | |
| No sex | 57/131 (43.51) | Ref | Ref | |||||
| Always | 25/38 (65.78) | 2.49 | [1.17–5.30] | 0.01 | ||||
| Sometime | 35/84 (41.66) | 0.92 | [0.53–1.61] | 0.7 | ||||
| Never | 70/146 (47.94) | 1.19 | [0.74–1.92] | 0.4 | ||||
| No | 176/373 (47.18) | Ref | Ref | |||||
| Yes | 11/26 (42.30) | 0.82 | [0.36–1.83] | 0.6 | ||||
| <1,700,000 | 167/342(48.83) | Ref | Ref | Ref | Ref | |||
| >1,700,000 | 20/57 (35.08) | 0.56 | [0.31–1.01] | 0.05 | 0.69 | [0.35–1.33] | 0.2 | |
| 15–29 | 128/265 (48.30) | 1.18 | [0.78–1.80] | 0.4 | ||||
| 30–44 | 50/115 (43.47) | 0.82 | [0.53–1.27] | 0.3 | ||||
| >45 | 9/19 (47.36) | 0.96 | [0.37–2.44] | 0.9 | ||||
*Those variables with p≤0.2 were considered for inclusion into the multivariate analyses. “History of pregnancy” was considered an important variable and therefore was included in multivariate analyses despite not reaching p≤0.2 in bivariate analysis. “Using a condom” was correlated with “Number of partners” and therefore was excluded from the multivariate analysis