Volume 17, Number 12—December 2011
Dispatch
Knowledge of Avian Influenza (H5N1) among Poultry Workers, Hong Kong, China
, Ka Kin Cheuk, Ming Sum Kwong, William B. Goggins, Yan Shan Cai, Shui Shan Lee, and Sian Griffiths
Table A2
Perceptions of and outbreak preparedness for avian influenza (H5N1) for 360 poultry workers, Hong Kong, China*
| Item | Value |
|---|---|
| Perceived benefits of preventive measures | |
| Influenza vaccination for poultry | 69.8 |
| Handwashing with soap | 68.4 |
| Used gloves | 59.4 |
| Killed all live poultry in market by end of every day | 52.4 |
| Used N95 face masks | 38.4 |
| Two wet market rest days a month for cleaning | 38.0 |
| Made sure poultry are healthy before buying | 31.1 |
| Sterilized cutting boards and surfaces | 27.2 |
| Stayed >1 m from live or dead birds | 19.2 |
| Took antiviral drugs | 14.4 |
| Used goggles | 10.1 |
| Perceived benefit summative score, mean ± SD (range) | 4.05 ± 2.33 (0–11) |
| Perceived severity | |
| Anxiety toward severity of symptoms: low/medium/high | 76.6/15.5/7.9 |
| Anxiety toward severity of infection: less than SARS/similar to SARS/more than SARS | 46.0/45.4/8.6 |
| Perceived severity summative score, mean ± SD (range) | 2.37 ± 1.42 (0–4) |
| Perceived susceptibility | |
| Government has sufficient measures to prevent infection in humans | 65.8 |
| I have immunity to avian influenza | 48.4 |
| Virus is transmitted from birds to humans | 32.7 |
| General public is susceptible to avian influenza | 15.8 |
| An epidemic will occur in Hong Kong | 14.7 |
| Poultry workers are highly susceptible to avian influenza | 13.9 |
| Perceived susceptibility summative score, mean ± SD (range) | 1.91 ± 1.19 (0–6) |
| Perceived self-efficacy | |
| I know how to protect myself from avian influenza | 82.4 |
| I can reduce the risk for transmission in the community | 76.6 |
| I am confident that I know how to handle infected poultry | 48.3 |
| Perceived self-efficacy summative score, mean ± SD (range) | 2.05 ± 0.93 (0–3) |
| Perceived cues to action | |
| Received prevention information from mass media | 93.3 |
| Public announcements are effective reminders of risk behavior | 61.2 |
| Exposed to worksite cues of action (health workers, posters, employer) | 41.7 |
| Cues to action summative score, mean ± SD (range) | 2.04 ± 0.75 (0–3) |
| Perceived barriers toward preventive measures | |
| Never received any infection control training | 83.4 |
| Following hygiene guidelines is difficult during peak hours | 64.9 |
| It is difficult to attend training on prevention | 57.6 |
| Wearing face masks when working will reduce business | 46.4 |
| Influenza vaccination is too costly | 46.1 |
| Wet market does not provide sufficient cleaning facilities | 35.3 |
| Influenza vaccination is inconvenient | 33.3 |
| Perceived barrier summative score, mean ± SD (range) | 3.69 ± 1.66 (0–7) |
| Preparedness | |
| Know who to contact for a suspected outbreak at work? | 71.1 |
| In the past year, have you been vaccinated for influenza? | 28.8 |
| In the event of a local outbreak in birds, are you likely to | |
| Increase sanitation measures at work | 79.7 |
| Wash hands more often | 72.6 |
| Accept influenza vaccination | 67.5 |
| Prevent customers from direct contact with birds | 62.4 |
| Get influenza vaccination | 62.2 |
| Wear a face mask during work | 57.3 |
| Wear more PPE during work | 30.8 |
| Stay away from chickens | 24.3 |
| Reduce work until condition improves | 15.8 |
| In the event of a small local human outbreak, will you | |
| See a doctor right away if you have symptoms | 82.4 |
| Wash hands more often | 68.5 |
| Get influenza vaccination | 62.2 |
| Wear a face mask during work | 59.4 |
| Wear a face mask in public | 38.9 |
| Take oseltamivir | 27.4 |
| Stay away from chickens | 24.1 |
| Quarantine yourself if you feel sick | 17.9 |
| Preparedness summative score, mean ± SD (range) | 9.22 ± 3.77 (0–18) |
| Preparedness score multivariable linear regression model, β (95% CI), p value† | |
| Above median perceived barriers score; above or equal to median is referent | 1.56 (0.64–2.47), 0.001 |
| Above or equal to median perceived susceptibility score; below median is referent | 0.98 (0.21–1.75), 0.013 |
| Above or equal to median perceived benefit score; below median is referent | 3.42 (2.61–4.22), <0.001 |
| Above or equal to median knowledge score; below median is referent | 1.26 (0.46–2.07), 0.002 |
*Values are % agree/yes unless otherwise indicated. Wet market, open food stall market; SARS, severe acute respiratory syndrome; PPE, personal protection equipment; CI, confidence interval.
†Variance inflation factors (VIF) diagnostics indicated no evidence of colinearity (VIF<1.2) among variables in final models. Model fit analysis showed that standardized residuals of models were normally distributed and not associated with standardized predicted values. Final model constant for preparedness score α (95% CI) 5.64 (4.49–6.80); not significant at p<0.05. The following candidate covariates had the following β coefficients and p values before removal from the final backward elimination model: cues to action above median, β = 0.101, p = 0.840; avian influenza (H5N1) training, β = 0.432, p = 0.502; >10 years in poultry industry, β = 0.543, p = 0.253; educational level, β = −0.232, p = 0.390; monthly income >20,000 Hong Kong dollars, β = 0.576, p = 0.226.
Medline reports the first author should be "Olsen SJ" not "Olsen S" in reference 10 "Olsen, Laosiritaworn, Pattanasin, Prapasiri, Dowel, 2005".