Table 5.
Baseline coverage levels by facility subgroups across study arms
| Outcome variable/subgrouping variable | Intervention arm (n = 75) |
Comparison arm (n = 75) |
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Yes | No | Gap | Yes | No | Gap | |
| (1) | (2) | (3) | (4) | (5) | (6) | |
| OUTCOME 1: institutional/facility-based deliveries | ||||||
| Public facility (%) | 84.6 | 84.7 | –0.1 | 86.4 | 89.0 | –2.6 |
| Dispensary facility (%) | 82.5 | 89.5 | –7.0 | 85.3 | 90.7 | –5.4** |
| Facility with utilities (electricity and water supply) (%) | 86.9 | 81.7 | 5.2 | 88.3 | 85.4 | 2.9 |
| Facility with drugs availability below the median (%) | 83.9 | 85.2 | –1.3 | 88.6 | 85.1 | 3.5 |
| Facility with poorest catchment population (%) | 84.6 | 89.7 | –5.1* | 81.5 | 92.7 | –11.2*** |
| Facility with middle wealth catchment population (%) | 79.5 | 89.7 | –10.2** | 86.3 | 92.7 | –6.4** |
| Facility in rural district (%) | 83.9 | 87.1 | –3.2 | 85.9 | 92.0 | –6.1* |
| Lower performer (below the median) (%) | 73.9 | 95.6 | –21.7*** | 80.4 | 95.9 | –15.5*** |
| OUTCOME 2: provision of IPT2 to ANC clients | ||||||
| Public facility (%) | 50.2 | 50.6 | –0.4 | 57.0 | 51.3 | 5.7 |
| Dispensary facility (%) | 53.8 | 41.7 | 12.1*** | 54.1 | 60.5 | –6.4* |
| Facility with utilities (electricity and water supply) (%) | 47.7 | 53.2 | –5.5 | 57.8 | 54.1 | 3.7 |
| Facility with drugs availability below the median (%) | 53.6 | 46.7 | 6.9* | 57.2 | 54.7 | 2.5 |
| Facility with poorest catchment population (%) | 49.5 | 45.7 | 3.8 | 61.6 | 52.5 | 9.1** |
| Facility with middle wealth catchment population (%) | 55.5 | 45.7 | 9.8** | 53.8 | 52.5 | 1.3 |
| Facility in rural district (%) | 50.8 | 47.9 | 2.9 | 56.1 | 55.3 | 0.8 |
| Lower performer (below the median) (%) | 37.3 | 63.5 | –26.2*** | 44.0 | 68.9 | –24.9*** |
We used a t-test to test the null hypothesis of a gap (Columns 3 and 6) equals to zero; Terciles classified in each arm separately were used for wealth status of the facility’s catchment population; availability of drugs included 37 essential drugs and analysis used a dummy variable classified in each arm separately based on baseline availability distribution (=1 for availability below the median/bottom half and 0, otherwise); reference category for ‘NO’ column in brackets: public (vs non-public), dispensary (vs health centre and hospital), with electricity and water supply at baseline (vs none), baseline availability of drugs below the median/in bottom half (vs top half), baseline lower performer/below the median (vs higher performer); similar pattern of results when hospitals are excluded for facility-based delivery outcome; overall baseline coverage in facility-based deliveries was (84.7 and 86.8%) and IPT2 coverage was (49.5 and 56.7%) for intervention and control arm, respectively (Binyaruka et al., 2015).
Significance at 10% level.
Significance 5% level.
Significance at 1% level.