Evidence Hub

Epidemiology of Animal Bites and Associated Factors with Delay in Post-Exposure Prophylaxis; A Cross-Sectional Study

S. Khazaei, M. Karami, Yousef Veisani, Manoochehr Solgi, Shahram Goodarzi

Bulletin of Emergency and Trauma, 2018

16 citations

Abstract

Objective: To address the epidemiology of animal bites and associated factors with delay in post-exposure prophylaxis (PEP) in Nahvand district, western Iran. Methods: Data were obtained from Rabies Treatment Center (RTC) in Nahavan district from March 2015 to March 2017. All of referred cases to RTC include 1448 cases of animal bites using the census method were recruited. Epidemiological profile of participants was demonstrated using descriptive statistics and determinants of PEP was addressed by logistic regression model. Results: The majority of victims were males 1167(80.5%). superficial bites were more prevalent than deep status injuries (1145(79.0%) VS. 303(20.9%)). The biting rate differed according to season in the period of the study (p<0.001). Cases who experienced animal biting in the autumn was more likely to refer timely for PEP than cases in spring season (OR, 0.39; 95% CI: 0.26 - 0.59, p<0.001). Conclusion: Our findings addressed the pattern of potential delays in PEP including the role of season. Local authorities of Nahavand district should considered preventive activities and educational interventions to reduce animal biting and provide timely prophylaxis.

How strong is the evidence?

Evidence Hub reads this as a cross-sectional, done in people. Its evidence level is 4 of 5 (Low · observational). Observational designs can show an association but not prove cause.

How the five levels of evidence work. The level is assigned automatically from the abstract and can be wrong, so check the paper.

Read the paper

Related studies

Go deeper in Evidence Hub

Evidence Hub adds a study data sheet (design, sample size, evidence level, key numbers), an AI summary and a chat grounded in the paper's text.

Open this study Sign up free