Table 6. Multinomial logistic regression model of association between categorised perceived quality of care and service provider for the overall perceived quality score and for each domain (N= 753).

Domain/Scale item	Quality category	CHWs versus PHFWs (unadjusted)	CHWs vs PHFWs (unadjusted)
Financial access	Low quality	1.0	1.0
	Medium quality	4.6 (3.17-6.85)	5.2 (3.5-8.01)
	High quality	7.3 (4.94-10.88)	7.8(5.27-11.01)
Organizational access	Medium versus low	17.1(10.17-28.93)	19.2 (10.88-33.80)
	High versus low	78.5 (38.97-158.34)	87.5 (41.60-184.03)
Visit based continuity	Medium versus low	0.2 (0.14-0.31)	0.2 (0.13-0.31)
	High versus low	0.0 (0.02-0.09)	0.4 (0.03-0.10)
Patient competence	Medium versus low	4.9 (3.18-7.49)	4.7 (3.02-7.50)
	High versus low	10.9 (5.96-20.01)	9.1 ( 5.35-15.63)
Preventive counselling	Medium versus low	3.2 (2.14-4.72)	2.5 (1.70-3.98)
	High versus low	4.7 (3.13-7.02)	3.6 (2.37-5.73)
Physical examination	Medium versus low	4.4 (2.87-6.86)	4.7(3.31-6.80)
	High versus low	7.4 (4.39-12.62)	8.2 (5.25-12.87)
communication	Medium versus low	4.9 (3.28-7.28)	4.8 (3.08-7.47)
	High versus low	11.5(6.88-18.08)	16.4 (9.61-28.04)
Interpersonal treatment	Medium versus low	4.7 (3.27-6.74)	5.0 (3.42-7.41)
	High versus low	12.3 (7.66-19.87)	12.3 (7.38-20.41)
Trust	Medium versus low	3.1 (2.10-4.52)	3.1 (2.07-4.82)
	High versus low	5.4 ( 3.55-8.13)	4.5 (2.84-7.01)

The reference category for service provider is PHFWs; the reference category for perceived quality of care is low quality and is always equal to one.

Models for integration and longitudinal continuity were excluded because of sample size violation.

Other covariates included in each of the models were socio-economic status, previous visit to a CHW or PHFW, education level, type of disease and duration between the interview and the health provider visit.