Skip to main content

Advertisement

Table 3 Risk awareness, attitudes, and protection behaviors against avian influenza in period after LPAI H5N2 outbreaks (Stage I) in Taiwan, 2007–2009

From: Changing risk awareness and personal protection measures for low to high pathogenic avian influenza in live-poultry markets in Taiwan, 2007 to 2012

5 Surveyed questions Variables ORs 95 % CI
1. Taiwan will be affected by the outbreaks of influenza in China Educational Status 2.09 1.48–2.95
Oppose ban on live poultry slaughtering in traditional markets 0.34 0.18–0.64
2. Taiwan residents will become infected with avian influenza (AI) Educational Status 1.42 1.19–1.69
Believe outbreak of AI in China will affect Taiwan 2.22 1.55–3.18
Support ban on live poultry markets 1.51 1.10–2.06
Southern Taiwana 3.27 2.01–5.31
Central Taiwana 0.59 0.41–0.84
Ageb 0.98 0.97–1.00
3. Knowing new “Ten No’s, Five Needs” policy Educational Status 1.26 1.08–1.46
Central Taiwana 3.37 2.42–4.70
Eastern Taiwana 3.87 2.63–5.71
Believe Taiwan residents will not be infected with avian influenza 0.58 0.36–0.91
Oppose ban on live poultry slaughter in traditional markets 0.76 0.56–1.01
4. Willing to take self-protection measures against avian influenza viral infection Live-poultry market workersc 0.47 0.28–0.80
Believe AI cases will appear in Taiwan 2.28 1.13–4.60
Aware of new “10 No’s, 5 Needs” policy 2.41 1.46–3.97
Eastern Taiwana 0.53 0.28–1.00
Believe outbreaks of AI from Mainland China will not affect Taiwan 0.14 0.07–0.28
Have no opinions on banning birds from being slaughtered in traditional markets 0.42 0.25–0.70
5. The vaccine will provide effective protection against avian influenza viral infection Live-poultry market workersc 0.30 0.17–0.50
Believe AI from Mainland China will not affect Taiwan 0.21 0.09–0.46
Aware of “Ten No’s, Five Needs” policy 0.52 0.31–0.88
Believe it is unnecessary to protect oneself against AI viral infection 0.19 0.10–0.35
Central Taiwana 0.10 0.01–0.83
Eastern Taiwana 0.05 0.01–0.39
Northern Taiwana 0.03 0.00–0.24
  1. We used logistic regression for the statistical analyses in Table 3. For better statistical performance, education status was only significant as a “continuous variable” in Question #1 to #3 but not as a “dummy categorical variable”
  2. CI Confidence Interval
  3. aOther areas as a reference
  4. bAge: A continuous variable
  5. cCommunity residents as the control group
  6. * p<0.05
  7. ** p<0.01
  8. *** p<0.001
Back to article page