4.1 Article

Risk factors for active trachoma in The Gambia

出版社

OXFORD UNIV PRESS
DOI: 10.1016/j.trstmh.2008.04.022

关键词

Trachoma; Chlamydia trachomatis; Prevalence; Risk factors; Control; The Gambia

资金

  1. Wellcome Trust, London, UK [078460/Z/05/Z]
  2. Wellcome Trust [078460/Z/05/Z] Funding Source: Wellcome Trust
  3. MRC [MC_U190081961, G0700837] Funding Source: UKRI
  4. Medical Research Council [MC_U190081961, G0700837] Funding Source: researchfish

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Trachoma has been endemic in The Gambia for decades but national surveys indicate that the prevalence is failing. Risk factor data can help guide trachoma control efforts. This study investigated risk factors for active trachoma and ocular Chlamydia trachomatis infection in children aged below 10 years in two Gambian regions. The overall prevalence of C. trachomatis infection was only 0.3% (3/950) compared with 10.4% (311/2990) for active trachoma, therefore analyses were only performed for active trachoma. After adjustment, increased risk of trachoma was associated with being aged 1-2 years (odds ratio (OR) 2.20, 95% Cl 1.07-4.52) and 3-5 years (OR 3.62, 95% Cl 1.80-7.25) compared with < 1 year, nasal discharge (OR 2.07, 95% Cl 1.53-2.81), ocular discharge (OR 2.68, 95% Cl 1.76-4.09) and there being at least one other child in the household with active trachoma (OR 11.28, 95% Cl 8.31-15.31). Compared with other occupations, children of traders had reduced risk (OR 0.53, 95% Cl 0.30-0.94). At the household level, only the presence of another child in the household with active trachoma was associated with increased risk of active trachoma, suggesting that current trachoma control interventions are effective at this level. In contrast, child-level factors were associated with increased risk after adjustment, indicating a need to increase control efforts at the child level. Crown Copyright (c) 2008 Published by Elsevier Ltd on behalf of Royal Society of Tropical Medicine and Hygiene. All rights reserved.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.1
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据