Table 2.

Effect of the loss of lay counselors on the monthly number of HIV tests conducted at a clinic¹

	All tests	Females	Males	Adults	Children
*Absolute effect*
One counselor removed	‒29.7	‒19.6	‒7.0	‒24.2	‒2.6
95% CI	‒21.2, −38.2	‒13.3, −25.9	‒3.6, −10.4	‒16.0, −32.4	‒0.4, −4.7
p-value	<0.001	<0.001	<0.001	<0.001	0.020
n	207	207	207	207	207
*Relative effect*²^,³^,4
10% reduction in lay counselors	‒4.9%	‒5.1%	‒4.4%	‒4.8%	‒4.9%
95% CI	‒2.8%, −7.0%	‒2.9%, −7.3%	‒2.2%, −6.6%	‒2.7%, −6.8%	‒1.6%, −8.2%
p-value	<0.001	<0.001	<0.001	<0.001	0.003
n	177	177	177	177	174

Abbreviations: CI = Confidence interval

Each model included a binary indicator for each clinic and each month as explanatory variables.

These models regressed the natural logarithm of the number of HIV tests conducted at a clinic in each month on the natural logarithm of the number of counselors at a clinic each month, and a binary indicator for each clinic and each month.

The number of observations for the relative effect analysis was smaller than for the absolute effect analysis because there were zero lay counselors in 30 clinic-months and zero HIV tests among children in an additional three clinic-months (leading to missing values when the logarithm of the number of counselors and/or number of tests among children was calculated).