Skip directly to site content Skip directly to page options Skip directly to A-Z link Skip directly to A-Z link Skip directly to A-Z link
Volume 21, Number 11—November 2015
Research

Shigella Infections in Household Contacts of Pediatric Shigellosis Patients in Rural Bangladesh

Christine Marie GeorgeComments to Author , Shahnawaz Ahmed, Kaisar A. Talukder, Ishrat J. Azmi, Jamie Perin, R. Bradley Sack, David A Sack, O. Colin Stine, Lauren Oldja, Mohammad Shahnaij, Subhra Chakraborty, Tahmina Parvin, Sazzadul Islam Bhuyian, Edward Bouwer, Xiaotong Zhang, Trisheeta N. Hasan, Sharmin J. Luna, Fatema Akter, and Abu S.G. Faruque
Author affiliations: Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, Maryland, USA (C.M. George, J. Perin, R.B. Sack, D.A. Sack, L. Oldja, S. Chakraborty, E. Bouwer, X. Zhang); icddb,b, Bangladesh (S. Ahmed, K.A. Talukder, I.J. Azmi, M. Shahnaij, T. Parvin, S.I. Bhuyian, T.N. Hasan, S.J. Luna, F. Akter, A.S.G. Faruque); University of Maryland School of Medicine, Baltimore (O.C. Stine)

Main Article

Table 2

Demographic and environmental characteristics of households of pediatric shigellosis patients and of community controls, rural Bangladesh

Characteristic No. (%) or median ± SD (range)
 p value
Patient households, n = 27 Control households, n = 27
Demographic*
Age of child, patient or control†
0–11 mo 3 (11) 3 (11) 1.00
12–23 mo 11 (41) 11 (41)
24–35 mo 6 (22) 6 (22)
36–47 mo 6 (22) 6 (22)
48–59 mo 1 (4) 1 (4)
Female sex, patient or control† 13 (48) 13 (48)
Primary caregiver educational level‡
No formal education 2 (7) 4 (15) 0.48
Less than primary school 2 (7) 3 (11)
Completed primary school or greater 23 (86) 20 (74)
Electricity in home*
 20 (74)
 19 (70)
 0.75
Environmental
Main source of drinking water*
Shallow tube well 16 (59) 16 (59) 1.00
Deep tube well 11 (41) 11 (41)
Households with water source Shigella positive by PCR for ipaH gene* 0 2 (7) 0.48
Households with stored water Shigella positive by culture* 2 (7) 0 0.48
Households with stored water Shigella positive by PCR* 2 (7) 1 (4) 1.00
Households with no soap observed at any surveillance visit*§ 18 (67) 19 (70) 0.75
Floor type*
Earth 18 (67) 23 (85) 0.13
Concrete 9 (33) 4 (15)
Latrine type‡
Ventilated improved pit latrine 14 (52) 12 (44) 0.49
Pour flush toilet 6 (22) 6 (22)
Traditional pit latrine 6 (22) 8 (30)
No facility 1 (4) 1 (4)
Latrine area weekly fly counts¶ 27 ± 20 (0–84) 16 ± 13 (0–48) 0.0014
Kitchen area weekly fly counts¶ 59 ± 55 (0–216) 44 ± 48 (0–192) 0.47

*McNemar test was used for paired categorical variables.
†All patient–control pairs were the same.
‡Friedman test was used for paired categorical variables with >2 levels.
§Soap within 10 steps of location reported to be used for household defecation.
¶Wilcoxon signed-rank test was used for paired continuous variables.

Main Article

Page created: October 16, 2015
Page updated: October 16, 2015
Page reviewed: October 16, 2015
The conclusions, findings, and opinions expressed by authors contributing to this journal do not necessarily reflect the official position of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, the Public Health Service, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, or the authors' affiliated institutions. Use of trade names is for identification only and does not imply endorsement by any of the groups named above.
file_external