Giardia duodenalis infection in the context of a community-based deworming and water, sanitation and hygiene trial in Timor-Leste

Table 2 Impact of the study intervention on G. duodenalis infection

Study time point	Study arm	n	Infection prevalence
Study time point	Study arm	n	Prevalence (95% CI)	Adjusted RR^a (95% CI)	P-value
Follow-up 1	Intervention	584	15.4 (8.8–22.3)	1.28 (0.77–2.14)	0.341
Follow-up 1	Control	689	10.2 (4.7–14.2)	1.28 (0.77–2.14)	0.341
Follow-up 2	Intervention	552	16.5 (11.8–20.8)	1.26 (0.83–1.94)	0.277
Follow-up 2	Control	624	11.2 (7.7–14.8)	1.26 (0.83–1.94)	0.277
Follow-up 3	Intervention	531	19.6 (12.5–24.4)	1.38 (0.91–2.10)	0.124
Follow-up 3	Control	609	11.7 (7.2–16.0)	1.38 (0.91–2.10)	0.124
Follow-up 4	Intervention	553	17.4 (12.9–21.6)	1.05 (0.72–1.54)	0.787
Follow-up 4	Control	623	14.0 (10.3–18.0)	1.05 (0.72–1.54)	0.787

Notes: ^aAdjusted RR obtained from generalised linear mixed model, adjusted for age group and sex (fixed effects) and clustering at the community, household, and individual levels (random effects). The model included 1878 participants in 456 households in 18 clusters (those randomly allocated to intervention and control arms)
Abbreviations: CI, confidence interval; RR, relative risk

ISSN: 1756-3305