1. Background
2. Objectives
3. Methods
3.1. Study Population
3.2. Serology
3.3. Questionnaire
3.4. Statistical Analysis
4. Results
4.1. Participants
| Characteristic | Number Tested (Percent of Total Tested) | IgG Positive | P - Value | IgM Positive | P - Value | Total |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Total | 88 (100) | 34 (38.63) | 2 (2.27) | 36 (40.90) | ||
| Age (y) | 0.642 | 0.079 | ||||
| 10 - 20 | 17 (19.32) | 7 (41.17) | 0 (0) | 7 (41.17) | ||
| 21 - 30 | 42 (47.73) | 19 (45.23) | 1 (2.38) | 20 (47.61) | ||
| 31 - 40 | 27 (30.68) | 8 (29.62) | 1 (3.70) | 9 (33.33) | ||
| 41 - 50 | 2 (2.27) | 0 (0) | 0 (0) | 0 (0) | ||
| Residence | 0.968 | 0.654 | ||||
| Urban | 52 (59.10) | 20 (38.46) | 1 (1.92) | 21 (40.38) | ||
| Rural | 36 (40.90) | 14 (38.88) | 1 (2.77) | 15 (41.66) | ||
| Education level | 0.887 | 0.595 | ||||
| Diploma or lower | 68 (77.27) | 26 (38.23) | 2 (2.94) | 28 (41.17) | ||
| University degree | 20 (22.73) | 8 (40.00) | 0 (0) | 8 (40.00) | ||
| Contact with cat | 0.098 | 0.598 | ||||
| Yes | 32 (36.37) | 16 (50.00) | 1 (3.12) | 17 (53.12) | ||
| No | 56 (63.63) | 18 (32.14) | 1 (1.78) | 19 (33.62) | ||
| Consumption of raw/undercooked meat | 0.888 | 0.68 | ||||
| Yes | 38 (43.18) | 15 (39.47) | 1 (2.63) | 16 (42.10) | ||
| No | 50 (56.82) | 19 (38.00) | 1 (2.00) | 20 (40.00) | ||
| Source of drinking water | 0.015 | 0.538 | ||||
| Purified water | 60 (68.18) | 18 (30.00) | 1 (1.66) | 19 (31.66) | ||
| Unpurified water | 28 (31.82) | 16 (57.14) | 1 (3.57) | 17 (60.71) | ||
| Reason for referral | 0.37 | 0.175 | ||||
| Routine checkup | 80 (90.90) | 30 (37.50) | 1 (1.25) | 31 (38.75) | ||
| Abortion | 8 (9.10) | 4 (50.00) | 1 (12.50) | 5 (62.50) | ||
| History of abortion | 0.267 | 0.369 | ||||
| Yes | 18 (20.45) | 9 (50.00) | 1 (5.55) | 10 (55.55) | ||
| No | 70 (79.55) | 25 (35.71) | 1 (1.42) | 26 (37.14) |
a Values are expressed as No. (%).
b P-value < 0.05 indicates a significant difference in seroprevalence between the categories within each characteristic.