Table 4.
Participant questionnaire: ease of use, risk and appropriateness of each devicea
| Nigeria n = 78b |
Philippines n = 75b |
Uganda n = 73bc |
Combined n = 226b |
|
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Number and (%) of health workers answering "Yes" | ||||
| Easy to collect (pick up) blood | ||||
| LOOP | 77 (99%) | 30 (40%) | 67 (92%) | 174 (77%) |
| STRAW-PIPETTE | 42 (54%) | 61/74 (82%) | 40 (55%) | 143/225 (64%) |
| GLASS CAPILLARY | 72 (92%) | 63/74 (85%) | 50 (68%) | 185/225 (82%) |
| CALIBRATED PIPETTE | 42 (54%) | 61/74 (82%) | 32 (44%) | 135/225 (60%) |
| INVERTED CUP | 78 (100%) | 57 (76%) | 71 (97%) | 206 (91%) |
| Easy to release (deposit) blood | ||||
| LOOP | 78 (100%) | 63 (84%) | 69 (95%) | 210 (93%) |
| STRAW-PIPETTE | 61 (78%) | 68/74 (92%) | 61 (84%) | 190/225 (84%) |
| GLASS CAPILLARYd | 9 (12%) | 28/74 (38%) | 34 (47%) | 71/225 (32%) |
| CALIBRATED PIPETTE | 61 (78%) | 68/74 (92%) | 66 (90%) | 195/225 (87%) |
| INVERTED CUP | 78 (100%) | 65 (87%) | 68 (93%) | 211 (93%) |
| Risk of blood exposure | ||||
| LOOP | 1/76 (1%) | 22/74 (30%) | 9 (12%) | 32/223 (14%) |
| STRAW-PIPETTE | 5 (6%) | 7/73 (10%) | 19 (26%) | 31/224 (14%) |
| GLASS CAPILLARY | 21 (27%) | 11/71 (15%) | 17 (23%) | 49/222 (22%) |
| CALIBRATED PIPETTE | 14 (18%) | 5/73 (7%) | 17 (23%) | 36/224 (16%) |
| INVERTED CUP | 0/77 (0%) | 10/74 (14%) | 2 (3%) | 12/224 (5%) |
| Appropriate for health workers to use in patient care | ||||
| LOOP | 76 (97%) | 37 (49%) | 65 (89%) | 178 (79%) |
| STRAW-PIPETTE | 47 (60%) | 63/73 (86%) | 39 (53%) | 149/224 (67%) |
| GLASS CAPILLARYd | 22 (28%) | 48/71 (68%) | 36 (49%) | 106/222 (48%) |
| CALIBRATED PIPETTE | 37 (47%) | 63/73 (86%) | 36 (49%) | 136/224 (61%) |
| INVERTED CUP | 78 (100%) | 61/74 (82%) | 71 (97%) | 210/225 (93%) |
a See on-line Supplementary Table for more detailed qualitative data on health workers' reasons for these answers.
b Where alternative "n" specified, the balance had blank data in the case record forms.
c One participant did not answer questions in this section.
d The glass capillary's results for blood release were negatively affected by the fact that the filter paper surface used in this study does not consistently draw blood from the capillary device, and therefore it was more difficult for study participants to release or deposit blood using this device.