| Literature DB >> 33209795 |
Rabbanie Tariq Wani1, Iqra Nisar Chowdri1, Hibba Dar2.
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND AIMS: The aim of this study was to identify the delay and the factors associated with delay in initiating post exposure prophylaxis.Entities:
Keywords: Post-exposure prophylaxis; prevention and control; rabies
Year: 2020 PMID: 33209795 PMCID: PMC7652120 DOI: 10.4103/jfmpc.jfmpc_890_20
Source DB: PubMed Journal: J Family Med Prim Care ISSN: 2249-4863
Distribution of socio-demographic and clinical characteristics of animal bite victims.
| Factors for delay | Time of reporting | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| <6 h | (6-48) h | >48 h | Total | ||
| Gender | Male | 104 (68.4%) | 32 (21.1%) | 16(10.5%) | 152(100.0%) |
| Female | 40 (85.1%) | 5 (10.6%) | 2 (4.3%) | 47 (100.0%) | |
| Residence | Urban | 99 (91.7%) | 9 (8.3%) | 0 (0.0%) | 108 (100%) |
| Rural | 45 (49.5%) | 28 (30.8%) | 18(19.8%) | 91(100%) | |
| Distance from hospital | Less than 10 km | 95 (91.3%) | 9 (8.7%) | 0 (0.0%) | 104 (100%) |
| More than 10 km | 49 (51.6%) | 28 (29.5%) | 18(18.9%) | 95 (100%) | |
| Educational status | Literate | 126 (80.8%) | 21 (13.5%) | 9 (5.8%) | 156(100%) |
| Illiterate | 18 (41.9%) | 16 (37.2%) | 9 (20.9%) | 43 (100%) | |
| Monthly income (INR) | Less than 10 000 | 0 (0.0%) | 19 (65.5%) | 10(34.5%) | 29 (100%) |
| More than 10 000 | 144 (84.7%) | 18 (10.6%) | 8 (4.7%) | 170(100.0%) | |
| Site of bite | Head/neck | 5 (71.4%) | 2 (28.6%) | 0 (0.0%) | 7(100.0%) |
| Hands/arms | 43(71.7%) | 10 (16.7%) | 7 (11.7%) | 60 (100.0%) | |
| Trunk | 2 (100.0%) | 0 (0.0%) | 0 (0.0%) | 2 (100.0%) | |
| Legs/thighs | 94 (72.3%) | 25 (19.2%) | 11 (8.5%) | 130(100.0%) | |
| Type of animal | Dog | 131 (89.7%) | 13 (8.9%) | 2 (1.4%) | 146(100.0%) |
| Cat | 9 (22.0%) | 18 (43.9%) | 14(34.1%) | 41 (100.0%) | |
| Others | 4 (33.3%) | 6 (50.0%) | 2 (16.7%) | 12 (100.0%) | |
| Category of bite | II | 56 (53.8%) | 31 (29.8%) | 17(16.3%) | 104(100.0%) |
| III | 88 (92.6%) | 6 (6.3%) | 1 (1.1%) | 95 (100.0%) | |
Reasons for delay in initiating PEP
| Potential reasons for inability to receive prompt PEP in animal bite cases | |
|---|---|
| Work | 4 (7.2) |
| Unaware about the PEP | 11 (20.1) |
| Unavailability of a person to accompany | 4 (7.2) |
| Lack of money | 17 (31.1) |
| Referral to other health centre | 7 (12.7) |
| Lack of transport | 3 (5.4) |
| Lack of Immunoglobulin at periphery | 9 (16.3) |
| TOTAL | 55 |
PEP: Post exposure prophylaxis
Association between factors influencing delay in PEP
| OR | 95% CI for OR | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Lower | Upper | |||
| Gender | ||||
| Female | 0.105 | 0.020 | 0.550 | 0.008 |
| Male | Ref* | |||
| Residence | ||||
| Rural | 31.517 | 7.825 | 126.942 | 0.000 |
| Urban | Ref* | |||
| Education status | ||||
| Illiterate | 4.559 | 1.413 | 14.705 | 0.011 |
| Literate | Ref* | |||
| Category of bite | ||||
| Category of bite-III | 0.063 | 0.016 | 0.243 | 0.000 |
| Category of bite-II | Ref* | |||
| Type of Animal | ||||
| Others | 14.810 | 4.361 | 50.286 | 0.000 |
| Dog | Ref* | |||