Skip to main content

Table 3 Comparison of perceived causes for cholera in endemic areas of three African settings, by site and gender

From: Comparing sociocultural features of cholera in three endemic African settings

Category

SE-DRC, n = 360

Western Kenya, n = 379

Zanzibar, n = 356

Overall

Total reported

Prominence

 

Total reported

Prominence

 

Total reported

Prominence

 

Dirty environment***

93.3

1.83

 

96.3

1.97

 

97.8

2.99

 

Drinking contaminated water***

94.7

2.68

 

95.5

2.21

 

95.2

1.65

 

Eating unprotected/spoiled food***

94.7

1.94

 

93.1

1.75

 

94.9

1.44

 

Flies*

95.3

1.44

 

96.0

1.30

 

96.9

1.60

 

Lack of latrinesa***

93.3

1.72

 

95.8

1.79

 

NA

NA

 

Site comparison

Urban

Rural

P value

Urban

Rural

P value

Urban

Rural

P value

Total reported

Prominence

Total reported

Prominence

Total reported

Prominence

Total reported

Prominence

Total reported

Prominence

Total reported

Prominence

Contact with contaminated water

84.4

1.17

89.4

1.12

0.657

55.8

0.64

63.0

0.75

0.115

85.5

1.07

91.0

1.58

<0.001

Dirty environment

91.7

1.83

95.0

1.82

0.631

97.9

2.29

94.7

1.63

<0.001

99.4

3.68

96.0

2.30

<0.001

Drinking contaminated water

93.3

2.34

96.1

3.02

<0.001

97.4

2.18

93.7

2.23

0.778

96.1

1.65

94.4

1.66

0.384

Eating forbidden food

20.6

0.23

13.3

0.15

0.094

11.6

0.12

14.8

0.15

0.365

27.4

0.27

54.8

0.48

<0.001

Eating soil

53.9

0.65

41.7

0.45

0.006

60.0

0.60

52.4

0.52

0.136

36.9

0.37

48.6

0.49

0.023

Eating unprotected/spoiled food

92.8

1.89

96.7

1.99

0.100

95.3

1.75

91.0

1.74

0.432

95.5

1.60

94.4

1.27

<0.001

Flies

93.3

1.37

97.2

1.52

0.236

96.3

1.35

95.8

1.25

0.004

99.4

1.62

94.4

1.58

0.163

God’s will

40.0

0.56

42.2

0.55

0.668

8.9

0.09

7.4

0.07

0.586

93.3

1.22

86.4

1.83

0.001

Malaria

26.1

0.30

20.0

0.21

0.115

19.5

0.21

24.9

0.25

0.243

15.1

0.15

48.0

0.49

<0.001

Witchcraft

47.8

0.64

69.4

0.86

<0.001

9.5

0.09

11.6

0.12

0.494

20.7

0.21

45.8

0.50

<0.001

Worms

36.1

0.39

36.7

0.39

0.976

23.2

0.24

39.7

0.40

0.001

13.4

0.13

46.9

0.47

<0.001

Cannot say

4.4

0.11

3.9

0.14

0.638

2.1

0.42

11.6

0.77

0.005

1.1

0.02

13.6

0.27

<0.001

Gender comparison

Female

Male

P value

Female

Male

P value

Female

Male

P value

Total reported

Prominence

Total reported

Prominence

Total reported

Prominence

Total reported

Prominence

Total reported

Prominence

Total reported

Prominence

Dirty environment

92.3

1.77

94.4

1.89

0.251

96.9

1.84

95.7

2.10

0.043

97.8

2.91

97.7

3.07

0.334

Eating soil

51.9

0.61

43.6

0.49

0.092

45.4

0.45

67.6

0.68

<0.001

43.6

0.44

41.8

0.42

0.772

Cannot say

5.0

0.15

3.4

0.10

0.620

7.7

0.65

5.9

0.54

0.476

11.2

0.22

3.4

0.07

0.005

  1. Categories ordered alphabetically, except for ‘cannot say’. ‘Total reported’ = percentage of categories reported spontaneously and upon probing. ‘Prominence’ = mean prominence of categories based on how reported (spontaneous = 2, probed = 1, most important = 3). ‘Overall’: figures in bold designate top three prominent categories; comparison between settings based on the Kruskal-Wallis test, *P <0.05, ***P <0.001. ‘Site comparison’ and ‘Gender comparison’: figures in bold designate significant differences at P <0.05 based on the Wilcoxon test. Data for Southeastern Democratic Republic of Congo (SE-DRC) in ‘Overall’ section from Merten et al. [31]. Data for western Kenya in ‘Site comparison’ section from Nyambedha et al. [28]. Data for Zanzibar in ‘Site comparison’ section from Schaetti et al. [27].
  2. aNot elicited in Zanzibar.