Skip to main content

Advertisement

Table 3 Results of the general linear model (GLM) with Poisson error structure and log link function testing the influence of various factors on annual deworming frequency in dogs

From: Survey of German pet owners quantifying endoparasitic infection risk and implications for deworming recommendations

  Estimate SE 95% CI z-value P-value
Intercept 0.719 0.307 0.087–1.296 2.343 0.019
Owner gender (ref: male, n = 182) -0.129 0.070 -0.266–0.006 -1.855 0.064
Owner age -0.001 0.002 -0.006–0.004 -0.492 0.623
Attitude towards pets
Affectionate (n = 269) Baseline     
Devoted (n = 126) -0.100 0.077 -0.253–0.049 -1.305 0.192
Dispassionate (n = 53) -0.074 0.114 -0.304–0.145 -0.649 0.516
Sceptical (n = 52) -0.256 0.122 -0.502– -0.023 -2.101 0.036
Veterinary visits     
Once a year only (n = 227) Baseline     
More than once a year (n = 273) 0.328 0.069 0.193–0.465 4.736 <0.001
German ESCCAP risk groupa
A (n = 10) vs B (n = 24) -0.176 0.303 -0.932–0.581 -0.581 0.930
A (n = 10) vs C (n = 154) 0.008 0.261 -0.646–0.662 0.031 1.000
A (n = 10) vs D (n = 312) -0.011 0.259 -0.657–0.636 -0.041 1.000
B (n = 24) vs C (n = 154) 0.184 0.178 -0.260–0.628 1.036 0.701
B (n = 24) vs D (n = 312) 0.165 0.172 -0.266–0.596 0.958 0.749
C (n = 154) vs D (n = 312) -0.019 0.070 -0.194–0.156 -0.268 0.992
Neighbourhooda
Rural (n = 186) vs city (n = 58) 0.003 0.106 -0.268–0.273 0.025 1.000
Suburban (n = 79) vs city (n = 58) -0.051 0.124 -0.367–0.266 -0.411 0.976
Town (n = 177) vs city (n = 58) -0.012 0.107 -0.286–0.261 -0.117 0.999
Suburban (n = 79) vs rural (n = 186) -0.054 0.099 -0.306–0.199 -0.543 0.947
Town (n = 177) vs rural (n = 186) -0.015 0.075 -0.208–0.177 -0.201 0.997
Town (n = 177) vs suburban (n = 79) 0.038 0.100 -0.218–0.295 0.383 0.980
Source of information regarding deworming
Veterinarian/vet nurse (ref: yes, n = 7) 0.412 0.213 -0.029–0.811 1.928 0.054
Non-veterinarian (other pet owners, pet shop staff, etc.) (ref: yes, n = 331) -0.093 0.073 -0.236–0.050 -1.278 0.201
Books and magazines (ref: yes, n = 93) 0.079 0.089 -0.098–0.252 0.889 0.374
  1. Note: For this model, three outlier datapoints with a deworming frequency of 12 times/year were removed. The model was significantly different from a null model containing only an intercept term (likelihood ratio test, χ2 = 47.25, df = 15, P < 0.001). Significant P-values are printed in bold
  2. aMultiple comparisons for the levels of ESCCAP risk group and neighbourhood using Tukey contrasts with single-step P-value adjustment were performed using the function glht from the package multcomp in R
  3. Abbreviations: SE, standard error; CI, confidence interval; ref, reference