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

Volume 16, Number 10—October 2010

Research

Risk Factors for Pandemic (H1N1) 2009 Virus Seroconversion among Hospital Staff, Singapore

Mark I.C. ChenComments to Author , Vernon J.M. Lee, Ian G. Barr, Cui Lin, Rachelle Goh, Caroline Lee, Baldev Singh, Jessie Tan, Wei-Yen Lim, Alex R. Cook, Brenda Ang, Angela Chow, Boon Huan Tan, Jimmy Loh, Robert Shaw, Kee Seng Chia, Raymond T.P. Lin, and Yee Sin Leo
Author affiliations: Author affiliations: Tan Tock Seng Hospital, Singapore (M.I.C. Chen, R. Goh, C. Lee, B. Singh, J. Tan, B. Ang, A. Chow, Y.S. Leo); Duke-National University of Singapore Graduate Medical School, Singapore (M.I.C. Chen); Ministry of Defence, Singapore (V.J.M. Lee); World Health Organization Collaborating Centre for Reference and Research on Influenza, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia (I. Barr, R. Shaw); National Public Health Laboratory, Singapore (C. Lin, R.T.P. Lin); National University of Singapore, Singapore (W.-Y. Lim, A.R. Cook, K.S. Chia); DSO National Laboratories, Singapore (B.H. Tan, J. Loh)

Main Article

Table 4

Comparison of risk factors among allied health staff, ward-based nurses, and non–ward-based nurses for exposures to pandemic (H1N1) 2009, mask use, and work-related contacts, Singapore, 2009*

Risk factor 1: Allied health staff, n = 116 2: Non–ward-based nurses, n = 103 3: Ward-based nurses, n = 187 p values†
2 vs. 1 3 vs. 1 3 vs. 2
Seroconverted in study period, % 2 (0–6) 8 (4–15) 11 (7–16) 0.05 <0.01 0.53
Mean age, y 32 (30–33) 34 (32–36) 32 (31–34) 0.14 0.81 0.21
Mean household size
4.8 (4.4–5.1)
4.8 (4.4–5.2)
5.5 (5.1–5.8)
0.96
<0.01
0.01
Household members with FRI in the following age groups, %
0– 4 y 3 (1–7) 3 (1–8) 2 (1–5) 1.00 1.00 0.70
5–12 y 2 (0–6) 4 (2–10) 1 (0–4) 0.42 0.64 0.19
13–19 y
1 (0–5)
3 (1–8)
2 (1–5)
0.34
0.65
0.70
Masks for patient care all or almost all the time, % 64 (53–74) 71 (59–80) 69 (61–77) 0.48 0.54 0.87
Valid responses‡
76
69
130



Received seasonal influenza vaccine, %
84 (77–90)
91 (84–95)
96 (92–98)
0.15
<0.01
0.19
Geometric mean no. colleagues in work area 27 (24–31) 48 (39–59) 23 (20–25) <0.01 0.05 <0.01
Valid responses‡
101
89
147



Geometric mean no. patient contacts per day 15 (12–18) 37 (26–52) 19 (17–22) <0.01 0.03 <0.01
Valid responses‡
73
59
127



Geometric mean no. visitor contacts per day 12 (9–15) 28 (21–38) 15 (13–18) <0.01 0.04 <0.01
Valid responses‡
75
58
133



Occupational-related exposures, %
Direct patient contact 84 (77–90) 91 (84–95) 99 (97–100) 0.15 <0.01 <0.01
Contact with patients who had pandemic
(H1N1) 2009 14 (9–21) 19 (13–28) 41 (34–48) 0.28 <0.01 <0.01
Contact with colleague(s) who had
pandemic (H1N1) 2009 2 (0–6) 15 (9–23) 14 (10–20) <0.01 <0.01 0.86

*Values in parentheses are 95% confidence intervals. FRI, febrile respiratory illness.
†p values by Fisher exact test for proportions and unpaired Student t test for means.
‡Based on participants who answered this questionnaire item; all other analyses are based on no. participants in that occupational subgroup.

Main Article

TOP