Table 1. Percentage of Adequately Iodized Salt (≥15 ppm Iodine Concentration) in Households of Selected Children (N = 1068) in Selected AWC Catchment Areas in Telangana, India, 2014.
| Characteristic | n | %a | (95% CI)b | P-valuec |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Residence | ||||
| Urban | 470 | 87.8 | (82.6, 91.6) | <0.05 |
| Rural/Tribal | 400 | 77.0 | (69.0, 83.5) | |
| MPI | ||||
| Poor | 128 | 66.2 | (53.4, 77.0) | <0.01 |
| Non-poor | 712 | 82.7 | (76.2, 87.7) | |
| Education of caregiver (years) | ||||
| 0–4 | 217 | 71.2 | (59.1, 80.9) | <0.01 |
| ≥5 | 653 | 83.7 | (78.7, 87.6) | |
| District | ||||
| Adilabad | 127 | 84.5 | (75.9, 90.4) | <0.01 |
| Hyderabad | 104 | 92.3 | (83.0, 96.7) | |
| Karimnagar | 88 | 90.5 | (78.5, 96.1) | |
| Khammam | 132 | 82.5 | (63.2, 92.8) | |
| Mahbubnagar | 106 | 65.5 | (45.9, 81.0) | |
| Medak | 38 | 94.1 | (89.6, 96.8) | |
| Nalgonda | 79 | 78.5 | (65.3, 87.7) | |
| Nizamabad | 33 | 59.0 | (39.9, 75.8) | |
| Ranga Reddy | 61 | 70.1 | (32.7, 91.9) | |
| Warangal | 102 | 71.9 | (62.7, 79.6) | |
| Brand | ||||
| Major brand 1 | 129 | 92.0 | (83.9, 96.2) | <0.001 |
| Major brand 2 | 77 | 94.6 | (88.1, 97.7) | |
| Major brand 3 | 80 | 82.0 | (64.6, 91.9) | |
| Major brand 4 | 62 | 100.0 | – | |
| Major brand 5 | 43 | 86.6 | (76.8, 92.6) | |
| Major brand 6 | 142 | 94.6 | (87.2, 97.8) | |
| Other brands | 155 | 64.5 | (50.0, 76.8) | |
| Don’t know | 178 | 71.3 | (64.0, 77.6) | |
| Open salt | 3 | 13.8 | (3.70, 40.0) | |
| TOTAL | 870 | 78.8 | (72.1, 84.2) | – |
CI, confidence interval.
Note: The n’s are unweighted numbers with the condition (i.e., numerator) for each subgroup; subgroups that do not sum to the total have missing data.
a Percentages weighted for unequal probability of selection.
b CI calculated taking into account the complex sampling design.
c Chi-square p-value <0.05 indicates that the variation in the values of the subgroup is significantly different from all other subgroups.