Table 4.
Control proportion | Intervention proportion | Within-period ICC | Cluster autocorre-lation | Average cluster size per period | Absolute increase in proportion |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
0.5 | 0.61 | 0.06 | 0.8 | 100 | 0.110 |
0.6 | 0.06 | 0.8 | 250 | 0.100 | |
0.59 | 0.06 | 0.8 | 400 | 0.090 | |
0.59 | 0.06 | 0.95 | 100 | 0.090 | |
0.565 | 0.06 | 0.95 | 250 | 0.065 | |
0.56 | 0.06 | 0.95 | 400 | 0.060 | |
0.4 | 0.51 | 0.06 | 0.8 | 100 | 0.110 |
0.5 | 0.06 | 0.8 | 250 | 0.100 | |
0.49 | 0.06 | 0.8 | 400 | 0.090 | |
0.49 | 0.06 | 0.95 | 100 | 0.090 | |
0.465 | 0.06 | 0.95 | 250 | 0.065 | |
0.46 | 0.06 | 0.95 | 400 | 0.060 | |
0.45 | 0.56 | 0.06 | 0.8 | 100 | 0.110 |
0.55 | 0.06 | 0.8 | 250 | 0.100 | |
0.545 | 0.06 | 0.8 | 400 | 0.095 | |
0.54 | 0.06 | 0.95 | 100 | 0.090 | |
0.515 | 0.06 | 0.95 | 250 | 0.065 | |
0.51 | 0.06 | 0.95 | 400 | 0.060 |
Sensitivity analysis showing detectable difference with a sample size of six practices, expressed as an absolute increase in proportions, with 80% power using a two-sided test at the 5% level of significance