Table 4. Comparison of EWIs Performance between Urban and Rural Sites.
| EWI | Target performance | Urban Sites (10) | Rural Sites (05) | P-value |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| EWI 1 | Desirable (>90%), | 57.1% (4/7) | 0% (0/5) | < 0.0001 |
| Fair (80–90%) | 28.6% (2/7) | 20% (1/5) | 0.05 | |
| ❖ Poor (<80%) | 14.3% (1/7) | 80% (4/5) | 0.0001 | |
| EWI 2 | Desirable (>85%) | 77.8% (7/9) | 50% (2/4) | 0.01 |
| Fair (75–85%) | 11.1% (1/9) | 0% (0/4) | 0.4 | |
| ❖ Poor (<75%) | 11.1% (1/9) | 50% (2/4) | 0.0001 | |
| EWI 3 | Desirable (100%) | 11.1% (1/9) | 25% (1/5) | 0.02 |
| ❖ Poor (<100%) | 88.9% (8/9) | 75% (4/5) | 0.22 | |
| EWI 4 | Desirable (0%) | 100% (10/10) | 100% (5/5) | 0.9 |
| ❖ Poor (>0%) | 0% (0/10) | 0% (0/0) | 1 | |
| EWI 5 | NA | NA | NA | NA |
EWI, early warning indicator; NA, Not Available; ‘‘Urban” referred to city/township settings; ‘‘Rural” referred to peripheral/village settings;
❖Poor performance interpreted as “Potential HIVDR”.