Table 3.
Vulnerability score | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|
Less vulnerable | Highly vulnerable | Total | % | |
More than 20% of women in the cluster had less than 3 antenatal care visitsa | ||||
No | 37 | 4 | 41 | |
Yes | 2 | 5 | 7 | |
Total | 39 | 9 | 48 | |
Sensitivity | 71 | |||
Specificity | 90 | |||
Positive predictive value | 56 | |||
Negative predictive value | 95 | |||
More than 10% of women in the cluster had a home deliverya | ||||
No | 35 | 1 | 36 | |
Yes | 4 | 8 | 12 | |
Total | 39 | 9 | 48 | |
Sensitivity | 67 | |||
Specificity | 97 | |||
Positive predictive value | 89 | |||
Negative predictive value | 90 | |||
Neonatal mortality rate for the cluster more than 18 per 1,000 live birthsa | ||||
No | 30 | 6 | 36 | |
Yes | 9 | 3 | 12 | |
Total | 39 | 9 | 48 | |
Sensitivity | 25 | |||
Specificity | 83 | |||
Positive predictive value | 33 | |||
Negative predictive value | 77 | |||
More than 25% of infants in cluster low birth weight (<2,500 g)a | ||||
No | 23 | 6 | 29 | |
Yes | 16 | 3 | 3 | |
Total | 39 | 9 | 48 | |
Sensitivity | 16 | |||
Specificity | 79 | |||
Positive predictive value | 33 | |||
Negative predictive value | 59 |
PPV positive predictive value, NPV negative predictive value
aCut-offs based on 75th centile