Skip directly to search Skip directly to A to Z list Skip directly to page options Skip directly to site content

Volume 11, Number 3—March 2005

Research

SARS-related Perceptions in Hong Kong

Joseph T.F. Lau*Comments to Author , Xilin Yang*, Ellie Pang*, H.Y. Tsui*, Eric Wong*, and Yun Kwok Wing*
Author affiliations: *The Chinese University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong Special Administrative Region, China

Main Article

Table A1

Univariate and multivariate analyses of factors associated with preventive behaviors and emotional responses because of acute respiratory syndrome (SARS) (survey 1 data)*

OR (95% CI)
Would avoid going to mainland China
Would avoid going to hospitals
Still emotionally disturbed because of SARS
Would be in a state of panic if there are sporadic SARS cases
Univariate Multivariate† Univariate Multivariate† Univariate Multivariate† Univariate Multivariate†
Female sex (ref = male) 1.71 (1.25–2.34) 1.41 (1.01–1.97) 1.56 (1.16–2.11) 1.32 (1.00–1.75) 1.83 (1.29–2.61) 1.60 (1.08–2.26)
Age group 45–60 y (ref = 18–44 y) 1.84 (1.38–2.46) 1.52 (1.06–2.15)
Education level <12 y (ref = university) 1.82 (1.29–2.56) 1.48 (1.02–2.14)
Married/divorced/widowed (ref = single) 1.49 (1.08–2.06) 1.73 (1.27–2.35) 1.48 (1.06–2.07) 2.95 (2.12–4.12) 2.43 (1.71–3.44) 2.07 (1.37–3.13) 1.92 (1.23–2.97)
SARS is transmittable through respiratory droplets (ref = no) 1.76 (1.15–2.71) 1.54 (1.16–2.04) 2.08 (1.46–3.00) 1.75 (1.20–2.54)
SARS is transmittable through fomites (ref = no) 1.84 (1.21–2.79) 1.64 (1.06–2.56) 2.21 (1.56–3.14) 1.69 (1.16–2.45) 2.52 (1.54–4.10) 2.05 (1.23–3.41)
SARS is transmittable through aerosols (ref = no) 1.60 (1.17–2.19) 1.47 (1.05–2.05) 1.52 (1.13–2.06) 1.70 (1.26–2.30)
SARS is transmittable through rats and cockroaches (ref = no) 2.11 (1.51–2.95) 1.81 (1.31–2.52) 1.81 (1.11–2.97) 222 (1.09–2.05)
SARS is transmittable through pets (ref = no) 1.81 (1.33–2.49) 1.56 (1.15–2.11) 2.41 (1.59–3.67) 1.87 (1.20–2.90)
SARS is transmittable through sewage (ref = no) 2.19 (1.40–3.44) 1.61 (1.17–2.20) 1.41 (1.01–1.97)
High likelihood of contracting SARS through wild animal meat (ref = no) 3.51 (2.43–5.08) 2.71 (1.84–4.00) 2.86 (1.99–4.12) 1.35 (1.02–1.78)
Old people are more likely than others to contract SARS (ref = no) 1.86 (1.36–2.54) 1.55 (1.11–2.16) 1.40 (1.06–1.85)
There would be a resurgence of SARS in Hong Kong in the coming 6 months (ref = no) 2.33 (1.66–3.27) 2.03 (1.47–2.79) 1.55 (1.06–2.27) 1.69 (1.27–2.24) 1.62 (1.20–2.18) 1.73 (1.22–2.44) 1.48 (1.03–2.13)
There would be a resurgence of SARS in China in the coming 6 months (ref = no) 2.71 (1.96–3.73) 2.40 (1.71–3.35) 2.01 (1.47–2.75) 1.50 (1.03–2.18)
There would be a resurgence of SARS overseas in the coming 6 months (ref = no) 1.63 (1.14–2.34) 0.52 (0.38–0.77) 0.56 (0.38–0.82)
The government could control SARS if there were sporadic new SARS cases in Hong Kong (ref = no) 0.50 (0.34–0.74) 0.52 (0.34–0.79)
I am still emotionally disturbed because of SARS (ref = no) 2.44 (1.71–3.49) 2.04 (1.41–2.97) 2.08 (1.49–2.90) 1.63 (1.14–2.33) 4.99 (3.45–7.22)

*OR, odds ratio; CI, confidence interval; ref, referent; –, non-significant in multivariate analysis (although significant in univariate analysis).
†Multivariate odds ratio (stepwise logistic regression) using univariate significant variables as input variables. Belief that SARS is transmittable through droplets or fomites, belief that there is no effective drugs to treat SARS, and belief that there would be a resurgence of SARS in China in the coming 6 months were not univariately significant for any of the 4 dependent variables (data not tabulated).

Main Article

TOP