Prevalence of intestinal parasitic infection among primary school children in southern Iran

Abstract

A cross-sectional study was carried out to determine the prevalence of intestinal parasites in primary school children in Bandar Abbas, southern Iran during January to March 2016. Single stool samples were collected from 1465 participants by clean stool cup. The questionnaire was prepared on the basis of demographic characteristics. The diagnosis was made on the basis of the direct wet mount, formalin-ether concentration, and Ziehl-Neelsen and trichrome stained slides. Out of the 1465 school children examined, six species of intestinal parasites were identified with an overall prevalence of 95 positive students (6.5%). Prevalence of protozoan infections (6.2%) was significantly higher than helminth infections (0.3%). The most common protozoan species were ( = 42, 2.9%) and ( = 31, 2.1%). Only two cases of and two cases of were detected. The prevalence of parasitic infections was higher in boys ( = 52, 7%) than girls ( = 41, 5.7%), but the difference was not significant. The parasitic infections were higher among the children whose parent's education was less than high school diploma ( = 0.000), and there was also a significant association between the parents' jobs and the intensity of parasitic infection. The prevalence of intestinal parasites, compared to the previous studies in this area, was significantly lower; that is mainly due to an increase in the quality of life and parents' education as well as the accessibility to health services. The most prevalent intestinal parasite was ; therefore, it is recommended that more emphasis is applied to controlling and preventing this parasitic infection by washing hands, particularly before each meal course.

Prevalence of Intestinal Parasitic Infections among Patients Referring to Medical Diagnostic Laboratories, Kashan, Central Iran, 2015-2018

“…Another study on the incidence of intestinal parasites in Haftkel County, Southwest of Iran, in 2017, showed that 4.8% of individuals were harbored one of the human intestinal helminths or protozoa [28]. Also, a study in Bandar Abbas, southern Iran showed that the prevalence of intestinal parasites in primary school children was 6.5% which is consistent with the findings of our study [24]. However, in Hamedan Province, Iran, the prevalence of intestinal parasites showed to be much higher than (35.1%) [1] what we obtained in this study.…”

“…This finding is consistent with the recent studies in Iran showing a decline in intestinal helminths human infection [22]. Previous studies in Iran during 2005 -2016 revealed that the prevalence of intestinal parasites was between 4.7% and 19.7% [23][24][25][26][27]. Another study on the incidence of intestinal parasites in Haftkel County, Southwest of Iran, in 2017, showed that 4.8% of individuals were harbored one of the human intestinal helminths or protozoa [28].…”

Genetic analysis of Giardia duodenalis isolates from children of low-income families living in an economically successful region in Southeastern Brazil

“…This frequency was lower than those recently reported in daycare and preschool children living in communities of São Paulo State, some of them placed in regions near the study area 8,16,17 . Recently, the examination of one fecal sample has revealed Giardia infection rates ranging from 2.7% to 11% in children of preschool age in some surveys worldwide [18][19][20][21] , including Brazil [22][23][24][25] . Even when the diagnosis is based on the examination of three stool samples, the studies did not report much higher prevalence rates 8,9,16,17 .…”

Poisson-Gamma Mixture Spatially Varying Coefficient Modeling of Small-Area Intestinal Parasites Infection

“…Hence, they are unable to evaluate the effect of demographic variables on the spatial patterns of infection. Some prevalence studies have used exploratory methods to derive associations with environmental and demographic factors [24,25,26]. While these studies suggest the uneven distribution of risk, they are unable to evaluate the spatial effects of risk factors.…”