Skip to main content
Have a personal or library account? Click to login
1918 Influenza Outcomes among Institutionalized Norwegian Populations: Implications for Disability-Inclusive Pandemic Preparedness Cover

1918 Influenza Outcomes among Institutionalized Norwegian Populations: Implications for Disability-Inclusive Pandemic Preparedness

Open Access
|Jul 2020

Figures & Tables

Table 1

Sample Details.

CovariatesPatients (%)Employees (%)
N1282337
Age (years)
10–1926 (2.0)31 (9.2)
20–29210 (16.4)160 (47.5)
30–39370 (28.9)77 (22.8)
40–49298 (23.2)41 (12.2)
50–59229 (17.9)21 (6.2)
60–69149 (11.6)7 (2.1)
Sex
Males692 (54.0)150 (44.5)
Females590 (46.0)187 (55.5)
Institution
Eg288 (22.5)80 (23.7)
Neevengaarden279 (21.8)84 (24.9)
Dale207 (16.1)53 (15.7)
Valen192 (15.0)47 (14.0)
Opdal137 (10.7)36 (10.7)
Rosenberg95 (7.4)20 (5.9)
Møllendal84 (6.6)17 (5.0)
Table 2

Morbidity and case fatality among patients and employees.

Patients (N = 1282)Employees (N = 337)
Morbidity (%)Case Fatality (%)Morbidity (%)Case Fatality (%)
Total305 (23.8)30 (9.8)180 (53.4)2 (1.1)
Age (years)
10–1910 (38.5)0 (0)23 (74.2)0 (0)
20–2975 (35.7)9 (12.0)103 (64.4)1 (1.0)
30–39100 (27.0)12 (12.0)35 (45.5)1 (2.9)
40–4956 (18.8)6 (10.7)12 (29.3)0 (0)
50–5948 (21.0)1 (2.1)6 (28.6)0 (0)
60–6916 (10.7)2 (12.5)1 (14.3)0 (0)
Sex
Males166 (24.0)17 (10.2)70 (46.7)1 (1.4)
Females139 (23.6)13 (9.4)110 (58.8)1 (0.9)
Institution
Eg48 (16.7)1 (2.1)48 (60.0)0 (0)
Neevengaarden78 (28.0)1 (1.3)36 (42.9)1 (2.8)
Dale30 (14.5)2 (6.7)35 (66.0)0 (0)
Valen66 (34.4)7 (10.6)25 (53.2)0 (0)
Opdal19 (13.9)1 (5.3)23 (63.9)0 (0)
Rosenberg45 (47.4)12 (26.7)3 (15.0)0 (0)
Møllendal19 (22.6)6 (31.6)10 (58.8)1 (10.0)
Table 3

Share and relative odds of morbidity by patient status, age, sex, and institution.

CovariatesN (%) Not SickN (%) SickModel 1Model 2Model 3Model 4
OR (95% CI)OR (95% CI)OR (95% CI)OR (95% CI)
Patients977 (76.2)305 (23.8)0.272 (0.212–0.350)*0.394 (0.301–0.516)*0.402 (0.307–0.527)*0.392 (0.298–0.516)*
Employees157(46.6)180 (53.4)1.00 (Ref)  1.00 (Ref)  1.00 (Ref)  1.00 (Ref)  
10–1924 (42.1)33 (57.9)  1.00 (Ref)  1.00 (Ref)  1.00 (Ref)  
20–29192 (51.9)178 (48.1)  0.735 (0.412–1.311)  0.714 (0.399–1.277)  0.620 (0.344–1.117)  
30–39312 (69.8)135 (30.2)  0.429 (0.239–0.768)*0.415 (0.231–0.746)*0.371 (0.205–0.670)*
40–49271 (79.9)68 (20.1)  0.259 (0.141–0.477)*0.250 (0.135–0.461)*0.213 (0.115–0.397)*
50–59196 (78.4)54 (21.6)  0.297 (0.159–0.557)*0.285 (0.152–0.537)*0.242 (0.127–0.458)*
60–69139 (89.1)17 (10.9)  0.137 (0.065–0.290)*0.133 (0.063–0.281)*0.114 (0.053–2.43)*
Males606 (72.0)236 (28.0)    1.00 (Ref)  1.00 (Ref)  
Females528 (68.0)249 (32.0)    1.182 (0.942–1.484)  1.288 (1.015–1.634)*
Eg272 (73.9)96 (26.1)  0.721 (0.512–1.017)+
Neevengaarden249 (68.6)114 (31.4)  1.00 (Ref)  
Dale195 (75.0)65 (25.0)  0.674 (0.460–0.989)*
Valen148 (61.9)91 (38.1)  1.348 (0.934–1.945)  
Opdal131 (75.7)42 (24.3)  0.634 (0.407–0.986)*
Rosenberg67 (58.3)48 (41.7)  1.966 (1.219–3.172)*
Møllendal72 (71.3)29 (28.7)  0.944 (0.564–1.580)  
N1619  1619  1619  1619  
–2 log likelihood1872.370  1800.254  1798.177  1766.024  
Nagelkerke R2.089  .147  .148  .173  

[i] * p < 0.05.

+ p < 0.10.

Table 4

Chi-square results testing association between patient status and case fatality.

ComparisonsILI CasesILI DeathsILI SurvivorsCase Fatality (Deaths/Cases, %)Chi-Square Results
Both Sexes
Patients305302759.84X2 = 13.983
Employees18021781.11P = 0.000
Males
Patients1661714910.24X2 = 5.427
Employees701691.43P = 0.02
Females
Patients139131269.35X2 = 8.250
Employees11011090.91P = 0.004
DOI: https://doi.org/10.16993/sjdr.725 | Journal eISSN: 1745-3011
Language: English
Page range: 175 - 186
Submitted on: Mar 30, 2020
Accepted on: May 4, 2020
Published on: Jul 1, 2020
In partnership with: Paradigm Publishing Services

© 2020 Jessica Dimka, Svenn-Erik Mamelund, published by Stockholm University Press
This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.