Skip to main content
. 2016 May 31;16:457. doi: 10.1186/s12889-016-3126-6

Table 3.

Pairwise comparison of the intervention arms using mixed effects multivariate linear regression model based on zinc, ORS and joint adherence, Jan-Mar 2015

Pairwise combination P value β coefficient a
Zinc adherence (%)
 Central bundling vs HC level bundling 0.894 −0.4
 Central bundling vs Bundling without message 0.001* 13.5
 Central bundling vs Status quo <0.001* 17.6
 HC level bundling vs Bundling without message 0.002* 14.1
 HC level bundling vs Status quo <0.001* 19.4
 Bundling without message vs Status quo 0.319 4.2
ORS adherence (%)
 Central bundling vs HC level bundling 0.969 0.2
 Central bundling vs Bundling without message 0.007* 11.5
 Central bundling vs Status quo <0.001* 12.0
 HC level bundling vs Bundling without message 0.022* 10.2
 HC level bundling vs Status quo 0.003* 12.1
 Bundling without message vs Status quo 0.966 −0.3
Joint zinc and ORS adherence (%)
 Central bundling vs HC level bundling 0.965 −0.1
 Central bundling vs Bundling without message 0.002* 12.6
 Central bundling vs Status quo <0.001* 14.8
 HC level bundling vs Bundling without message <0.001* 12.0
 HC level bundling vs Status quo <0.001* 15.7
 Bundling without message vs Status quo 0.673 1.8

* Statistically significant association at p value of 0.05

a Unstandardized multiple linear regression coefficient adjusted for number of episodes of diarrhea and level of severity of dehydration