Table 6

Comparison between the percentages of volunteers who remembered deworming treatment or non-treatment

HIV-positives (n = 170)

HIV-negatives (n = 65)

Comparison

Treatment or non-treatment

Numbers²

%

95% CI

Numbers³

%

95% CI

Difference

95% CI⁴

Specific deworming treatment

57/93

61.3

51.1, 70.6

20/47

42.6

29.5, 56.7

18.7*

-1.3, -34.7

Mebendazole (broad spectrum)

16/93

17.2

10.9, 26.1

2/47

4.3

1.2, 14.2

12.9*

1.1, 22.4

Piperazine (narrow spectrum)

28/93

30.1

21.7, 40.1

8/47

17

8.9, 30.1

13.1

-2.5, 25.9

Traditional medicine¹

13/93

14

8.4, 22.5

10/47

21.3

12.0, 34.9

-7.3

-22.0, 5.3

Treatment not deemed necessary

36/93

38.7

29.4, 48.9

27/47

57.5

43.3, 70.5

-18.7*

-34.7, -1.3

CI = confidence interval.

*Significantly more HIV-positives remembered specific deworming treatment (including mebendazole) and fewer thought it was not necessary to treat against worms (p < 0.05).

¹Traditional medicine breakdown (n = 23): aloe 11; herbs 2; pumpkin pips 2; dried worm 1; reeds 1; benzine 1; unspecified 5. Concerning the 11 reports of the use of aloe, it has been shown that extracts of Aloe marlothii have anthelmintic activity in vitro [50].

²93/170 remembered treatment detail, or non-treatment.

³47/65 remembered treatment detail, or non-treatment.

⁴In this column, CIs that exclude zero indicate a significant difference between the percentages for the HIV-positives and HIV-negatives (p < 0.05) [41].

Adams et al. BMC Infectious Diseases 2006 6:88   doi:10.1186/1471-2334-6-88