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 17, Number 12—December 2011

Knowledge of Avian Influenza (H5N1) among Poultry Workers, Hong Kong, China

Jean H. Kim, Fung Kuk LoComments to Author , Ka Kin Cheuk, Ming Sum Kwong, William B. Goggins, Yan Shan Cai, Shui Shan Lee, and Sian Griffiths
Author affiliations: The Chinese University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong, People’s Republic of China (J.H. Kim, F.K. Lo, M.S. Kwong, W.B. Goggins, Y.S. Cai, S.S. Lee, S. Griffiths); University of Oxford, Oxford, UK (K.K. Cheuk)

Main Article

Table A2

Perceptions of and outbreak preparedness for avian influenza (H5N1) for 360 poultry workers, Hong Kong, China*

Item Value
Perceived benefits of preventive measures
Influenza vaccination for poultry 69.8
Handwashing with soap 68.4
Used gloves 59.4
Killed all live poultry in market by end of every day 52.4
Used N95 face masks 38.4
Two wet market rest days a month for cleaning 38.0
Made sure poultry are healthy before buying 31.1
Sterilized cutting boards and surfaces 27.2
Stayed >1 m from live or dead birds 19.2
Took antiviral drugs 14.4
Used goggles 10.1
Perceived benefit summative score, mean ± SD (range) 4.05 ± 2.33 (0–11)
Perceived severity
Anxiety toward severity of symptoms: low/medium/high 76.6/15.5/7.9
Anxiety toward severity of infection: less than SARS/similar to SARS/more than SARS 46.0/45.4/8.6
Perceived severity summative score, mean ± SD (range) 2.37 ± 1.42 (0–4)
Perceived susceptibility
Government has sufficient measures to prevent infection in humans 65.8
I have immunity to avian influenza 48.4
Virus is transmitted from birds to humans 32.7
General public is susceptible to avian influenza 15.8
An epidemic will occur in Hong Kong 14.7
Poultry workers are highly susceptible to avian influenza 13.9
Perceived susceptibility summative score, mean ± SD (range) 1.91 ± 1.19 (0–6)
Perceived self-efficacy
I know how to protect myself from avian influenza 82.4
I can reduce the risk for transmission in the community 76.6
I am confident that I know how to handle infected poultry 48.3
Perceived self-efficacy summative score, mean ± SD (range) 2.05 ± 0.93 (0–3)
Perceived cues to action
Received prevention information from mass media 93.3
Public announcements are effective reminders of risk behavior 61.2
Exposed to worksite cues of action (health workers, posters, employer) 41.7
Cues to action summative score, mean ± SD (range) 2.04 ± 0.75 (0–3)
Perceived barriers toward preventive measures
Never received any infection control training 83.4
Following hygiene guidelines is difficult during peak hours 64.9
It is difficult to attend training on prevention 57.6
Wearing face masks when working will reduce business 46.4
Influenza vaccination is too costly 46.1
Wet market does not provide sufficient cleaning facilities 35.3
Influenza vaccination is inconvenient 33.3
Perceived barrier summative score, mean ± SD (range) 3.69 ± 1.66 (0–7)
Know who to contact for a suspected outbreak at work? 71.1
In the past year, have you been vaccinated for influenza? 28.8
In the event of a local outbreak in birds, are you likely to
Increase sanitation measures at work 79.7
Wash hands more often 72.6
Accept influenza vaccination 67.5
Prevent customers from direct contact with birds 62.4
Get influenza vaccination 62.2
Wear a face mask during work 57.3
Wear more PPE during work 30.8
Stay away from chickens 24.3
Reduce work until condition improves 15.8
In the event of a small local human outbreak, will you
See a doctor right away if you have symptoms 82.4
Wash hands more often 68.5
Get influenza vaccination 62.2
Wear a face mask during work 59.4
Wear a face mask in public 38.9
Take oseltamivir 27.4
Stay away from chickens 24.1
Quarantine yourself if you feel sick 17.9
Preparedness summative score, mean ± SD (range) 9.22 ± 3.77 (0–18)
Preparedness score multivariable linear regression model, β (95% CI), p value†
Above median perceived barriers score; above or equal to median is referent 1.56 (0.64–2.47), 0.001
Above or equal to median perceived susceptibility score; below median is referent 0.98 (0.21–1.75), 0.013
Above or equal to median perceived benefit score; below median is referent 3.42 (2.61–4.22), <0.001
Above or equal to median knowledge score; below median is referent 1.26 (0.46–2.07), 0.002

*Values are % agree/yes unless otherwise indicated. Wet market, open food stall market; SARS, severe acute respiratory syndrome; PPE, personal protection equipment; CI, confidence interval.
†Variance inflation factors (VIF) diagnostics indicated no evidence of colinearity (VIF<1.2) among variables in final models. Model fit analysis showed that standardized residuals of models were normally distributed and not associated with standardized predicted values. Final model constant for preparedness score α (95% CI) 5.64 (4.49–6.80); not significant at p<0.05. The following candidate covariates had the following β coefficients and p values before removal from the final backward elimination model: cues to action above median, β = 0.101, p = 0.840; avian influenza (H5N1) training, β = 0.432, p = 0.502; >10 years in poultry industry, β = 0.543, p = 0.253; educational level, β = −0.232, p = 0.390; monthly income >20,000 Hong Kong dollars, β = 0.576, p = 0.226.

Main Article

Medline reports the first author should be "Olsen SJ" not "Olsen S" in reference 10 "Olsen, Laosiritaworn, Pattanasin, Prapasiri, Dowel, 2005".

Page created: December 01, 2011
Page updated: December 01, 2011
Page reviewed: December 01, 2011
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.