Skip to main content

Table 2 Contingency tables and univariable ordinal logistic regression results for the association of explanatory variables with the perception of being not vulnerable to a future equine influenza outbreak ( p < 0.20) based on responses of 191 horse owners and managers interviewed in 2009 in NSW, Australia

From: Perceptions of vulnerability to a future outbreak: a study of horse managers affected by the first Australian equine influenza outbreak

  

Perception of vulnerability

  
  

Not vulnerable

Vulnerable

Very vulnerable

Odds-ratiosa(95% CI)

 
  

Freq

Freq

Freq

 

Variables and categories

 

(Row%)

(Row%)

(Row%)

P

Regional cluster

<0.001

 

Northern NSW

23 (50%)

18 (39%)

5 (11%)

8.32 (3.78, 18.89)

 
 

South-West Sydney

9 (30%)

13 (43%)

8 (27%)

3.52 (1.50, 8.44)

 
 

Hunter Valley

13 (30%)

18 (42%)

12 (28%)

3.44 (1.58, 7.63)

 
 

Central Coast

4 (20%)

12 (60%)

4 (20%)

3.25 (1.27, 8.45)

 
 

North-West Sydney

11 (20%)

10 (18%)

34 (62%)

1

 

Equine influenza outbreak control zone

<0.001

 

Restricted zone

45 (34%)

60 (46%)

26 (20%)

3.66 (2.01, 6.79)

 
 

Special restricted zone

15 (24%)

11 (17%)

37 (59%)

1

 

Suspected equine influenza transmission route during the 2007 outbreak

<0.001

 

Wind

16 (21%)

24 (31%)

37 (48%)

0.27 (0.14, 0.50)

 
 

Direct/indirect

14 (30%)

18 (38%)

15 (32%)

0.51 (0.25, 1.01)

 
 

Not infected

30 (43%)

29 (41%)

11 (16%)

1

 

Premises infected during the 2007 outbreak

<0.001

 

Yes

30 (24%)

42 (34%)

52 (42%)

0.35 (0.20, 0.60)

 
 

No

30 (43%)

29 (41%)

11 (16%)

1

 

Premise enterprise type

0.001

 

Farm

18 (51%)

14 (40%)

3 (9%)

4.02 (1.93, 8.59)

 
 

Stud

8 (47%)

5 (29%)

4 (24%)

2.69 (1.01, 7.45)

 
 

Agistmentb

6 (38%)

4 (25%)

6 (38%)

1.48 (0.53, 4.18)

 
 

Training

7 (20%)

14 (40%)

14 (40%)

0.93 (0.45, 1.90)

 
 

Small acreage home

21 (23%)

34 (37%)

36 (40%)

1

 

Involved in equestrian eventsc

0.003

 

Yes

13 (21%)

19 (31%)

29 (38%)

0.42 (0.23, 0.74)

 
 

No

47 (35%)

52 (39%)

34 (26%)

1

 

Involved in rodeo-style horse eventsd

0.006

 

Yes

14 (45%)

14 (45%)

3 (10%)

2.68 (1.33, 5.51)

 
 

No

46 (28%)

57 (35%)

60 (37%)

1

 

Involved in horse racing

0.193

 

Yes

8 (42%)

7 (37%)

4 (21%)

1.78 (0.75, 4.37)

 
 

No

52 (30%)

64 (36%)

59 (34%)

1

 

Received infection control information from sporting/breeding association/societye

0.003

 

Yes

23 (21%)

44 (41%)

41 (38%)

0.45 (0.26, 0.76)

 
 

No

37 (43%)

27 (31%)

22 (26%)

1

 

Received infection control information from non-veterinarian horse professionalsf

0.004

 

Yes

11 (18%)

24 (39%)

27 (44%)

0.44 (0.25, 0.76)

 
 

No

49 (37%)

47 (36%)

36 (27%)

1

 

Received infection control information from the internet

0.034

 

Yes

43 (28%)

55 (36%)

55 (36%)

0.54 (0.26, 0.95)

 
 

No

17 (41%)

16 (39%)

8 (20%)

1

 

Received infection control information from other horse owners

0.119

 

Yes

40 (29%)

48 (35%)

50 (36%)

0.64 (0.36, 1.12)

 
 

No

20 (36%)

23 (41%)

13 (23%)

1

 

Perceived stringency of own outbreak biosecurity measures

0.039

 

Very stringent/stringent

34 (26%)

49 (37%)

49 (37%)

0.51 (0.28, 0.92)

 
 

Average/normal

21 (41%)

18 (35%)

12 (24%)

1

 
 

Less/not at all stringent

5 (46%)

4 (36%)

2 (18%)

1.25 (0.37, 4.36)

 

Perceived level of preparedness for a future equine influenza outbreak

0.042

 

Unprepared

4 (17%)

7 (29%)

13 (54%)

1

 
 

Prepared

35 (32%)

45 (42%)

28 (26%)

2.92 (1.26, 7.03)

 
 

Highly prepared

21 (36%)

18 (30%)

20 (34%)

2.63 (1.06, 6.73)

 

Perceived level of general interest in infection control

0.066

 

Very interested

28 (27%)

38 (36%)

39 (37%)

0.48 (0.19, 1.18)

 
 

Interested

20 (30%)

27 (41%)

19 (29%)

0.36 (0.15, 0.86)

 
 

Not interested

12 (52%)

6 (26%)

5 (22%)

1

 

Age (years)

0.045

 

>54

12 (40%)

11 (37%)

7 (23%)

0.75 (0.26, 2.11)

 
 

35-54

37 (26%)

54 (38%)

51 (36%)

0.40 (0.17, 0.95)

 
 

<35

11 (50%)

6 (27%)

5 (23%)

1

 

Gender

0.126

 

Male

22 (35%)

26 (41%)

15 (24%)

1.54 (0.89, 2.68)

 
 

Female

38 (29%)

45 (34%)

48 (37%)

1

 
  1. aOdds ratios are based on cumulative logit model and compare the odds of being not vulnerable versus being vulnerable or very vulnerable. For example, the odds ratio of 3.66 for the variable ‘Equine influenza control zone during the 2007 outbreak’ indicates that owners/managers residing in the restricted area in 2007 are 3.66 times more likely to perceive that they are not vulnerable to a future outbreak than those who resided in the special restricted area; bAgistment is the keeping of other owner’s horses for remuneration, whilst spelling is resting horses on pasture; cEquestrian events include dressage, showjumping, eventing, and endurance; dRodeo-style horse events include camp-drafting, cutting and barrel-racing; eSporting organisations include those relevant to horse showing, pony-club, rodeo-style, polo, equestrian and/or racing; fincluding farriers, dentists, chiropractors, trainers and coaches.