Skip to main content
. Author manuscript; available in PMC: 2016 Sep 1.
Published in final edited form as: Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev. 2015 Jun 23;24(9):1341–1349. doi: 10.1158/1055-9965.EPI-14-1396

Table 3. Effect of the Intervention on Hepatitis B Testing Rates at 6 Month Follow-up.

All Randomized Participants (n = 1123) Randomized Participants Excluding those from Large, Koreatown Churches with Documented Contamination (n = 968)
Intervention Group Control Group OR (95% CI) P Intervention Group Control Group OR (95% CI) P
All Participants 19% (104/543) 6% (33/580) 4.9 (2.4-9.9) <.001 18% (77/440) 4% (20/528) 5.7 (3.1-10.3) <.001
By Size
Small churches (51-200) 17% (36/206) 4% (9/218) 5.3 (1.7-16.5) .004 17% (36/206) 4% (9/218) 5.3 (1.7-16.5) .004
Medium churches (201-900) 19% (30/161) 4% (7/191) 6.4 (2.5-16.3) <.001 19% (30/161) 4% (7/191) 6.4 (2.5-16.3) <.001
Large churches (901+) 22% (38/176) 10% (17/171) 3.1 (0.7-14.9) .152 15% (11/73) 3% (4/119) 5.1 (1.2-21.3) .026
By Geographic Location
Koreatown churches 20% (50/247) 11% (23/213) 2.4 (0.8-7.0) .105 16% (23/144) 6% (10/161) 2.9 (1.1-7.2) .025
Non-Koreatown churches 18% (54/296) 3% (10/367) 8.6 (3.9-19.4) <.001 18% (54/296) 3% (10/367) 8.6 (3.9-19.4) <.001

Intent-to-treat analysis in which participants with missing outcome data were assumed not tested for HBV. Odds ratios and p-values are from mixed effects logistic regression accounting for clustering on church and session.