Table 3.
The Mean of the Reported Appointment Attendance Rates for SLFVSPs Associated are Depicted as percentage
| Follow-Up Attendance Rate (Mobile Clinics) | follow-Up Attendance Rate (Non – Mobile Clinics) | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| All Mobile (n = 4) | CSLEC Only (n = 1) | All Non-Mobile (n = 3) | CSLEC Only (n = 3) | Total (n = 7) | |
| Directly schedule follow-up care | 62.5% (n = 2) | 75% (n = 1) | 70.5% (n = 2) | 70.5% (n = 2) | 66.5% (n = 4) |
| Submit referrals for follow-up care | 20% (n = 1) | 20% (n = 1) | 20% (n = 1) | 20% (n = 1) | 20% (n = 2) |
| Directly schedule and submit referral | 50% (n = 1) | 50% (n = 1) | 0% (n = 0) | 0% (n = 0) | 50% (n = 1) |
| Faculty assist with follow-up | 35% (n = 2) | 35% (n = 2) | 53.6% (n = 3) | 53.6%(n = 3) | 46% (n = 5) |
| Faculty does not assist with follow-up | 63% (n = 2) | 63% (n = 2) | No attendance rate reported | 63% (n = 2) | |
| 49% (n = 4) | 54% (n = 3) | 51% (n = 7) | |||
This is stratified based on direct appointment scheduling versus referral only approaches and faculty involvement with follow-up. This is also stratified between mobile and traditional models. SLFVSPs that did not indicate the appointment attendance rates were not included in the total count; based on this criterion, there was a 43.8% (7/16) response rate.