Table 5.
Use of RDTs for Diagnosis of Malaria
| Variables | N (%) |
|---|---|
| Have Ever Used RDT (n = 45) | |
| Yes | 23 (51.1) |
| No | 22 (48.9) |
| Ever used according to location | |
| Urban (n = 34) | 16 (47.1) |
| Rural (n = 11) | 7 (63.6) |
| Chi-square | 0.91 |
| P-value | 0.339 |
| Ever used RDTs according to type of facility | |
| Public (n = 26) | 16 (61.5) |
| Private (n = 19) | 7 (36.8) |
| Chi-square | 2.68 |
| P-value | 0.102 |
| Ever used according to professional cadre | |
| Doctors (n = 18) | 11 (61.1) |
| Nurses (n = 3) | 0 (0.0) |
| CHEW/CHO (n = 10) | 5 (50.0) |
| Laboratory technologists (n = 14) | 7 (50.0) |
| Chi-square | 5.99 |
| P-value | 0.102 |
| Current usage (n = 23) | |
| Yes | 10 (43.5) |
| No | 13 (56.5) |
| Non usage of RDTs according to facility | |
| Public (n = 26) | 5 (19.2) |
| Private (n = 19) | 8 (42.1) |
| Chi-square | 2.8 |
| P-value | 0.09 |
| Reasons for non use (n = 13) | |
| Supply issues | 4 (30.8) |
| Not reliable | 8 (61.5) |
| Prefer other methods | 2 (15.4) |
| Cost of RDT | 2 (15.4) |