Prevalence and associated risk factors for hepatitis B and C viruses among refugee populations living in Mahama, Rwanda: A cross-sectional study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: As part of the integration of refugees into Rwanda's national hepatitis C elimination agenda, a mass screening campaign for hepatitis B (HBV) and hepatitis C (HCV) was conducted among Burundian refugees living in Mahama Camp, Eastern Rwanda. This cross-sectional survey used data from the screening campaign to report on the epidemiology of viral hepatitis in this setting. METHODS: Rapid diagnostic tests (RDTs) were used to screen for hepatitis B surface antigen (HBsAg) and hepatitis C antibody (anti-HCV) among people of ≥15years old. We calculated seroprevalence for HBsAg and anti-HCV by age and sex and also calculated age-and-sex adjusted risk ratios (ARR) for other possible risk factors. RESULTS: Of the 26,498 screened refugees, 1,006 (3.8%) and 297 (1.1%) tested positive for HBsAg and Anti-HCV, respectively. HBsAg was more prevalent among men than women and most common among people 25-54 years old. Anti-HCV prevalence increased with age group with no difference between sexes. After adjusting for age and sex, having a household contact with HBsAg was associated with 1.59 times higher risk of having HBsAg (95% CI: 1.27, 1.99) and having a household contact with anti-HCV was associated with 3.66 times higher risk of Anti-HCV (95% CI: 2.26, 5.93). Self-reporting having HBV, HCV, liver disease, or previously screened for HBV and HCV were significantly associated with both HBsAg and anti-HCV, but RDT-confirmed HBsAg and anti-HCV statuses were not associated with each other. Other risk factors for HBsAg included diabetes (ARR = 1.97, 95% CI: 1.08, 3.59) and family history of hepatitis B (ARR = 1.32, 95% CI: 1.11, 1.56) and for anti-HCV included heart disease (ARR = 1.91, 95% CI: 1.30, 2.80) and history of surgery (ARR = 1.70, 95% CI: 1.24, 2.32). CONCLUSION: Sero-prevalence and risks factors for hepatitis B and C among Burundian were comparable to that in the Rwandan general population. Contact tracing among household members of identified HBsAg and anti-HCV infected case may be an effective approach to targeted hepatitis screening given the high risk among self-reported cases. Expanded access to voluntary testing may be needed to improve access to hepatitis treatment and care in other refugee settings.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".