| Literature DB >> 33318598 |
Ashutosh K Pathak1, Mukesh Sharma2, Subodh K Katiyar3, Sandeep Katiyar3, Pavan K Nagar1.
Abstract
The objective of this study was to examine the association of 14 variables with TB in respiratory patients. The variables included: urban/rural, persons in 1200 sqft area, TB in family, crowding, smoking (family member), gender, age, education, smoking, workplace, kitchen location, cooking fuel, ventilation, and kerosene uses. Eight hundred respiratory patients were tested for sputum positive pulmonary TB; 500 had TB and 300 did not. An analysis of the unadjusted odds ratio (UOR) and adjusted OR (AOR) was undertaken using logistic regression to link the probability of TB incidences with the variables. There was an inconsistency in the significance of variables using UOR and AOR. A subset model of 4 variables (kerosene uses, ventilation, workplace, and gender) based on significant AOR was adjudged acceptable for estimating the probability of TB incidences. Uses of kerosene (AOR 2.62 (1.95, 3.54)) consistently related to incidences of TB. It was estimated that 50% reduction in kerosene uses could reduce the probability of TB by 13.29% in respiratory patients. The major recommendation was to replace kerosene uses from households with a supply of clean fuel like liquid petroleum or natural gas and rural electrification.Entities:
Mesh:
Year: 2020 PMID: 33318598 PMCID: PMC7736574 DOI: 10.1038/s41598-020-79023-5
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Sci Rep ISSN: 2045-2322 Impact factor: 4.379
UOR for Independent Variables and significance levels.
| S. no. | Independent variable (abbreviations) | Groups within variable | 500 | 300 | UOR (95% CI) | Studies number (1–16)* | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Significant | Non-significant | ||||||
| Cases | Control | ||||||
| 1 | Residence—Urban/Rural (RUR) | Urban | 265 (53%) | 162 (54%) | 1 | 4, 14, 16 | 1, 7, 9, 15 |
| Rural | 235 (47%) | 138 (46%) | 1.04 (0.78, 1.38) | ||||
| 2 | Family members in 1200 sqft of area (FMW) | ≤ 5 | 146 (29%) | 117 (39%) | 1 | 3, 4 | – |
| > 5 | 354 (71%) | 183 (61%) | 1.55 (1.14, 2.09) | ||||
| 3 | TB in the family (TBF) | No | 297 (59%) | 215 (72%) | 1 | 1, 2, 3, 4, 7, 8, 11, 14 | – |
| Yes | 203 (41%) | 85 (28%) | 1.73 (1.27, 2.35) | ||||
| 4 | Crowding per room (CPR) | ≤ 2 | 217 (43%) | 152 (51%) | 1 | 1, 3, 8 | 4, 7, 9, 10, 14, 15 |
| > 2 | 283 (57%) | 148 (49%) | 1.34 (1.00, 1.78) | ||||
| 5 | Smoking by a family member (SFM) | No | 279 (56%) | 172 (57%) | 1 | 2, 14, 15 | 5, 7, 10 |
| Yes | 221 (44%) | 128 (43%) | 1.06 (0.79, 1.42) | ||||
| 6 | Gender (GEN) | Male | 270 (54%) | 193 (64%) | 1 | 11, 12, 15 | 4, 5 |
| Female | 230 (46%) | 107 (36%) | 1.53 (1.14, 2.06) | ||||
| 7 | Age (AGE) | ≤ 30 | 199 (40%) | 142 (47%) | 1 | 3, 4, 15 | 7, 14 |
| > 30 | 301 (60%) | 158 (53%) | 1.36 (1.02, 1.81) | ||||
| 8 | Education (EDU) | Literate | 330 (66%) | 223 (74%) | 1 | 1, 2, 14 | 4 |
| Illiterate | 170 (34%) | 77 (26%) | 1.49 (1.08, 2.05) | ||||
| 9 | Smoking (SMO) | No | 300 (60%) | 204 (68%) | 1 | 3, 4, 6, 7, 8, 10, 11, 14, 15 | – |
| Yes | 200 (40%) | 96 (32%) | 1.42 (1.05, 1.91) | ||||
| 10 | Workplace (WPL) | Clean environment (CEW) | 170 (33%) | 133 (44%) | 1 | 8, 14 | – |
| Polluted environment (PEW) | 330 (66%) | 167 (56%) | 1.55 (1.55, 2.07) | ||||
| 11 | Kitchen location (KLO) | PIH | 185 (37%) | 148 (49%) | 1 | 9, 14 | 7 |
| NPIH | 315 (63%) | 152 (51%) | 1.66 (1.24, 2.21) | ||||
| 12 | Cooking fuel (CFU) | LPG | 169 (34%) | 136 (45%) | 1 | 6, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16 | 7, 9 |
| Solid fuels | 331 (66%) | 164 (55%) | 1.62 (1.21, 2.17) | ||||
| 13 | Ventilation (VEN) | Yes | 255 (51%) | 204 (68%) | 1 | 8, 9, 14 | – |
| No | 245 (49%) | 96 (32%) | 2.04 (1.51, 2.75) | ||||
| 14 | Kerosene-cooking or lighting (KCL) | No | 218 (44%) | 201 (67%) | 1 | 5, 14, 15, 16 | – |
| Yes | 282 (56%) | 99 (33%) | 2.62 (1.95, 3.54) | ||||
*1[3]; 2[59]; 3[4]; 4[9]; 5[60]; 6[13]; 7[34]; 8[39]; 9[37]; 10[61]; 11[12]; 12[20]; 13[14]; 14[23]; 15[10]; 16[58].
Figure 1Log (L) Level for different models. (Models with variables: Model 1: Full Model (14 variables); Model 2: Stepwise (KCL, VEN, GEN, SMO, TBF, & WPL); Model 3: KCL, VEN, GEN and WPL; Model 4: VEN, GEN and WPL and Model 5: GEN and WPL.
Figure 2Probability plot for (a) full model, and (b) sub-set model (Eq. (2)).
Figure 3Districts from where most patients visited CCC.
Figure 4District-wise Uses of kerosene[65] (Kt/year) and TB cases in the state of Uttar Pradesh[51].