Table 1. Characteristics of facilities selected.
| Facility | ART service available (years) | Approx. no. of patients on ART | Decentralisation status | No. of clerks during back-capture | Number of patient records back-captured | Staff dedicated to ART programme | Perceived quality of Paper Register* | Data champion present | Time to complete back-capture onto electronic register |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| A | >5 | ~1300 (large) | “Mother” facility | 2 | 2624 | Yes | Low | No | 3 months |
| B | <5 | ~600 (med) | Decentralised facility | N/A | N/A | Yes | N/A | Yes | “Live” capturing |
| C | >5 | ~400 (small) | Decentralised facility | 1 | 577 | Yes | Med | Yes | 1 month |
| D | <5 | ~300 (small) | Decentralised facility | 2 | 435 | No | Low | No | 5–6 months |
| E | >5 | ~1500 (large) | “Mother” facility | 2 | 2343 | Yes | High | Yes | 4–5 months |
Table 1 shows the five facilities selected for inclusion in our sample. Selection considered the following: to compile a diverse sample determined by the number of patients on ART, decentralisation status, and the historic quality of their ART paper-based register.
* Paper register quality was determined during site visits.