Skip to main content
. 2018 Apr 18;13(4):e0195362. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0195362

Table 4. The relative risk of missing data and mean change in concordance score from the baseline to the follow-up RDQAs.


Baseline
N = 2411
Follow-up
N = 2381
Unadjusted model Adjusted model1
Relative risk of missing data n (%)2 n (%)2 RR3 (95% CI) P-value RR3 (95% CI) P-value
    Baseline to follow-up, paper forms 735 (30) 760 (32) 1.04 (0.79–1.38) 0.785 1.09 (0.84–1.41) 0.522
    Baseline to follow-up, KenyaEMR 747 (31) 320 (13) 0.43 (0.32–0.58) <0.001 0.43 (0.32–0.58) <0.001
Change in concordance score Mean (SD)4 Mean (SD)4 β5 (95% CI) P-value β5 (95% CI) P-value
    Baseline to follow-up 11.9 (4.0) 13.6 (4.2) 1.79 (0.25–3.33) 0.023 1.79 (0.25–3.33) 0.023

1 Adjusting for facility type, facility ownership, months of EMR implementation, and facility patient load.

2 The number (n) and percent of records with at least one missing value among nine required data elements.

3 GEE models were used to determine if RDQA round was associated with the proportion of records that had any missing values among nine required data elements. GEE models used a log link, binomial distribution, exchangeable correlation matrix, and robust standard errors that allow for clustering by facility.

4 20 data elements were incorporated into the concordance score, with one point awarded for each of the 20 elements that had matching values recorded on paper records and KenyaEMR (0 indicates no concordant elements, 20 indicates complete concordance).

5 GEE models were used to determine if the mean concordance score changed from the baseline to follow-up RDQAs. GEE models used an identity link, normal distribution, exchangeable correlation matrix, and robust standard errors that allow for clustering by facility.