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 11, Number 3—March 2005
Research

SARS Risk Perceptions in Healthcare Workers, Japan

Teppei Imai*, Ken Takahashi*Comments to Author , Tsutomu Hoshuyama*, Naoki Hasegawa†, Meng-Kin Lim‡, and David Koh‡
Author affiliations: *University of Occupational and Environmental Health, Kitakyushu, Japan; †Keio University, Tokyo, Japan; ‡National University of Singapore, Singapore

Main Article

Table 4

Factors associated with concept of institutional measures (effectiveness) and perception of risk (selected factors) by job category

Variable* OR (95% CI)†
Physician (N = 1,370) Nurse (N = 3,274) Other (N = 2,638) Total (N = 7,282)
Effectiveness
I-score (0,1,2,3) 1.87 (1.65–2.13) 1.83 (1.69–1.98) 2.02 (1.84–2.22) 1.90 (1.80–2.01)
Age (>35 year) 1.23 (0.93–1.62) 1.19 (0.99–1.41) 1.42 (1.15–1.74) 1.25 (1.11–1.41)
K-score (low, middle, high) 0.89 (0.72–1.10) 1.01 (0.88–1.17) 0.96 (0.82–1.11) 0.97 (0.88–1.06)
Type of facility (university) 0.82 (0.59–1.15) 0.71 (0.60–0.84) 0.75 (0.60–0.92) 0.74 (0.65–0.83)
Sex (women) 0.79 (0.53–1.18) 0.63 (0.38–1.06) 0.97 (0.79–1.18) 1.00 (0.88–1.14)
Fear (+) 0.61 (0.46–0.80) 0.90 (0.76–1.06) 0.58 (0.47–0.70) 0.72 (0.64–0.81)
Avoidance of patient
Fear (+) 1.91 (1.33–2.76) 2.56 (1.89–3.48) 2.32 (1.66–3.24) 2.31 (1.91–2.80)
K-score (low, middle, high) 1.42 (1.10–1.84) 1.01 (0.78–1.30) 1.23 (0.98–1.56) 1.19 (1.03–1.37)
Sex (women) 1.27 (0.76–2.13) 1.95 (0.91–4.21) 2.05 (1.50–2.82) 1.93 (1.59–2.33)
Age (>35 year) 1.00 (0.70–1.42) 0.58 (0.42–0.79) 0.84 (0.60–1.17) 0.81 (0.67–0.97)
Type of facility (university) 0.91 (0.57–1.43) 0.83 (0.59–1.16) 0.75 (0.52–1.08) 0.82 (0.66–1.01)
I-score (0,1,2,3) 0.80 (0.68–0.94) 0.87 (0.75–0.99) 0.80 (0.69–0.93) 0.81 (0.75–0.88)
Acceptance of risk
I-score (0,1,2,3) 1.26 (1.11–1.42) 1.08 (1.01–1.16) 1.24 (1.14–1.35) 1.18 (1.12–1.24)
Age (>35 year) 1.05 (0.81–1.36) 1.27 (1.06–1.51) 1.11 (0.93–1.33) 1.10 (0.99–1.22)
Fear (+) 1.01 (0.78–1.30) 1.14 (0.97–1.33) 1.44 (1.21–1.71) 1.21 (1.09–1.34)
Sex (women) 1.01 (0.71–1.43) 0.65 (0.38–1.12) 0.85 (0.71–1.02) 0.82 (0.73–0.92)
K-score (low, middle, high) 0.90 (0.74–1.10) 1.05 (0.92–1.20) 1.04 (0.91–1.18) 1.03 (0.95–1.12)
Type of facility (university) 0.81 (0.58–1.14) 0.98 (0.83–1.15) 1.20 (0.99–1.45) 1.04 (0.93–1.17)

*Goodness-of-fit was satisfactory: ranged from [goodness-of-fit statistics = 0.49 with 8 df (p = 0.99)] for (effectiveness) x (physician) to [goodness-of-fit statistics = 12.71 with 8 df (p = 0.12)] for (nurse) x (avoidance), except for [goodness-of-fit statistics = 18.98 with 8 df (p = 0.02)] for (nurse) x (effectiveness) and [goodness-of-fit statistics = 18.38 with 8 df (p = 0.02)] for (others) x (effectiveness).
†OR, odds ratio calculated by logistic regression; CI, confidence interval.

Main Article

Page created: April 25, 2012
Page updated: April 25, 2012
Page reviewed: April 25, 2012
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