Skip to main content

Table 4 Comparison of prevention options 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 = 354

Overall

Total reported

Prominence

 

Total reported

Prominence

 

Total reported

Prominence

 

Health education

92.5

1.75

 

98.9

1.89

 

95.5

1.90

 

Safe disposal of garbage***

95.0

1.79

 

97.9

1.61

 

98.6

2.09

 

Safe disposal of stool***

93.9

1.53

 

97.9

1.81

 

98.3

2.09

 

Safe food***

95.3

1.92

 

98.4

1.67

 

97.5

1.66

 

Safe water***

93.3

2.06

 

98.2

1.93

 

96.9

1.74

 

Vaccines***

87.2

2.00

 

87.9

1.15

 

86.2

1.20

 

Site comparison

Urban

Rural

 

Urban

Rural

 

Urban

Rural

 

Total reported

Prominence

Total reported

Prominence

P value

Total reported

Prominence

Total reported

Prominence

P value

Total reported

Prominence

Total reported

Prominence

P value

Health education

90.0

1.80

95.0

1.71

0.371

98.9

2.27

98.9

1.51

<0.001

96.6

1.93

94.3

1.88

0.581

Preventive drugs

59.4

0.87

65.0

1.04

0.331

86.3

1.05

91.5

1.20

0.049

83.7

1.01

88.6

1.18

0.040

Protection from supernatural influencea

10.6

0.13

5.0

0.05

0.047

7.4

0.09

21.7

0.22

<0.001

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

Safe disposal of garbage

93.9

1.71

96.1

1.87

0.154

98.4

1.53

97.4

1.69

0.257

99.4

2.51

97.7

1.66

<0.001

Safe disposal of stool

91.7

1.53

96.1

1.54

0.911

97.4

1.66

98.4

1.96

0.026

99.4

1.96

97.2

2.21

0.301

Safe food

94.4

1.86

96.1

1.98

0.298

98.9

1.76

97.9

1.58

0.002

98.3

1.78

96.6

1.53

0.001

Gender comparison

Female

Male

 

Female

Male

 

Female

Male

 

Total reported

Prominence

Total reported

Prominence

P value

Total reported

Prominence

Total reported

Prominence

P value

Total reported

Prominence

Total reported

Prominence

P value

Health education

91.7

1.66

93.3

1.84

0.361

98.5

1.87

99.5

1.92

0.571

95.5

1.72

95.4

2.10

0.014

Protection from supernatural influencea

5.0

0.05

10.6

0.13

0.044

13.4

0.14

15.7

0.17

0.533

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

Safe disposal of garbage

95.6

1.78

94.4

1.79

0.500

97.4

1.52

98.4

1.70

0.026

98.9

2.13

98.3

2.05

0.906

Safe food

94.5

1.98

96.1

1.86

0.206

98.5

1.69

98.4

1.65

0.888

98.3

1.78

96.6

1.53

0.013

Safe water

92.3

2.15

94.4

1.98

0.159

98.5

2.04

97.8

1.82

0.019

97.2

1.77

96.6

1.71

0.926

  1. Categories ordered alphabetically. ‘Total reported’ = percentage of categories reported spontaneously and upon probing. ‘Prominence’ = mean prominence of categories based on how reported (spontaneous = 2, probed = 1, most useful = 3). ‘Overall’: figures in bold designate top three prominent categories; comparison between settings based on the Kruskal-Wallis test, *** 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].
  2. aNot elicited in Zanzibar.
Back to article page

BMC Medicine

ISSN: 1741-7015

Contact us