| Literature DB >> 31308860 |
Hezekiah Kehinde Adesokan1, Fiyinfoluwa Adedolapo Adeoye1.
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: porcine cysticercosis is under-reported particularly in Nigeria, despite the reportedly high prevalence of epilepsy and associated life-threatening health implications. This study was aimed at determining the prevalence of porcine cysticercosis and factors related to Taenia solium transmission to humans.Entities:
Keywords: Cysticercosis; Nigeria; human health; pigs; surveillance; transmission
Mesh:
Year: 2019 PMID: 31308860 PMCID: PMC6610151 DOI: 10.11604/pamj.2019.32.145.10695
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Pan Afr Med J
distribution of slaughtered pigs examined and infection status with respect to age, sex, breed and body conditions (N=250)
| Variables | Categories | Number inspected | Number infected (%) | p-value |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Age | Adult | 210 | 8 (3.8) | 0.39 |
| Young | 40 | 3 (7.5) | ||
| Sex | Female | 152 | 5 (3.3) | 0.34 |
| Male | 98 | 6 (6.1) | ||
| Breed | Large white | 164 | 7 (4.3) | 0.62 |
| Hampshire | 57 | 3 (5.3) | ||
| Duroc | 11 | 1 (9.1) | ||
| Cross breed | 18 | 0 (0.0) | ||
| Body condition | Poor | 91 | 6 (6.6) | 0.22 |
| Good | 159 | 5 (3.1) | ||
| Total | 250 | 11 (4.4) |
knowledge levels of respondents (n =200) in relation to Taenia solium cysticercosis and their socio-demographic characteristics as well as behavioural practices
| Variables | Good N (%) | Poor N (%) | Total N (%) | Bivariate p-value | Logistic regression OR; 95% CI; |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| < 20 | 1 (16.7) | 5 (83.3) | 6 (3.0) | REFERENCE | |
| 20 – 30 | 2 (5.4) | 35 (94.6) | 37 (18.5) | 0.056 | 0.29; 0.02-3.76; 0.341 |
| 31 – 40 | 9 (20.5) | 35 (79.5) | 44 (22.0) | 1.29; 0.13-12.43; 0.828 | |
| ≥41 | 8 (7.1) | 105 (92.9) | 113 (56.5) | 0.38; 0.04-3.67; 0.403 | |
| Male | 2 (1.3) | 155 (98.7) | 157 (78.5) | 0.000 | REFERENCE |
| Female | 18 (41.9) | 25 (58.1) | 43 (21.5) | 55.8; 12.20-255.31; 0.000 | |
| No formal education | 4 (4.8) | 79 (95.2) | 83 (41.5) | ||
| Primary | 10 (13.3) | 65 (86.7) | 75 (37.5) | 0.119 | NA |
| Post-primary | 6 (14.3) | 36 (85.7) | 42 (21.0) | ||
| ≤3 | 3 (8.8) | 31 (91.2) | 34 (17.0) | 1.000 | NA |
| > 3 | 17 (10.2) | 149 (89.8) | 166 (83.0) | ||
| Yes | 14 (8.1) | 160 (91.9) | 174 (87.0) | 0.029 | 0.29; 0.10-0.85; 0.023 |
| No | 6 (23.1) | 20 (76.9) | 26 (13.0) | REFERENCE | |
| Abattoir | 8 (17.0) | 39 (83.0) | 47 (27.0) | REFERENCE | |
| Home slaughter | 6 (4.7) | 121 (95.3) | 127 (73.0) | 0.008 | 0.24; 0.08-0.74; 0.013 |
| Toilet facility | 17 (14.0) | 104 (86.0) | 121 (60.5) | 0.018 | REFERENCE |
| Open field/farmlands | 3 (3.8) | 76 (96.2) | 79 (39.5) | 0.24; 0.07-0.86; 0.027 | |
| Total | 20 (10.0) | 180 (90.0) | 200 (100.0) |
NA: not applicable as p-value at bivariate analysis is more than 10%
The respondents (n=26) who were not pork consumers were excluded from the analysis
practice levels of respondents (n =200) in relation to Taenia solium transmission and their socio-demographic characteristics as well as behavioural practices
| Variables | Good N (%) | Poor N (%) | Total N (%) | Bivariate | Logistic regression OR; 95% CI; |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| < 20 | 4 (66.7) | 2 (33.3) | 6 (3.0) | REFERENCE | |
| 20 – 30 | 14 (37.8) | 23 (62.2) | 37 (18.5) | 0.005 | 0.30; 0.05-1.88; 0.201 |
| 31 – 40 | 6 (13.6) | 38 (86.4) | 44 (22.0) | 0.08; 0.01-0.53; 0.009 | |
| ≥41 | 24 (21.2) | 89 (78.8) | 113 (56.5) | 0.13; 0.02-0.78; 0.025 | |
|
| |||||
| Male | 17 (10.8) | 140 (89.1) | 157 (78.5) | 0.000 | REFERENCE |
| Female | 31 (72.1) | 12 (27.9) | 43 (21.5) | 21.27; 9.23-49.04; 0.000 | |
|
| |||||
| No formal education | 17 (20.5) | 66 (79.5) | 83 (41.5) | ||
| Primary | 21 (28.0) | 54 (72.0) | 75 (37.5) | 0.543 | NA |
| Post-primary | 10 (23.8) | 32 (76.2) | 42 (21.0) | ||
|
| |||||
| ≤3 | 16 (47.1) | 18 (52.9) | 34 (17.0) | 0.001 | REFERENCE |
| > 3 | 32 (19.3) | 134 (80.7) | 166 (83.0) | 0.27; 0.12-0.58; 0.001 | |
|
| |||||
| Yes | 42 (24.1) | 132 (75.9) | 174 (87.0) | 0.906 | NA |
| No | 6 (23.1) | 20 (76.9) | 26 (13.0) | ||
|
| |||||
| Abattoir | 27 (57.4) | 20 (42.6) | 47 (27.0) | REFERENCE | |
| Home slaughter | 15 (11.8) | 112 (87.2) | 127 (73.0) | 0.000 | 0.10; 0.05-0.22; 0.000 |
|
| |||||
| Toilet facility | 41 (33.9) | 80 (66.1) | 121 (60.5) | 0.000 | REFERENCE |
| Open field/farmlands | 7 (8.9) | 72 (91.1) | 79 (39.5) | 0.19; 0.08-0.45 | |
| Total | 48 (24.0) | 152 (76.0) | 200 (100.0) |
NA: not applicable as p-value at bivariate analysis is more than 10%
The respondents (n=26) who were not pork consumers were excluded from the analysis