Table 2. Exhaustiveness of case-area targeted interventions (CATIs) in response to cholera alerts from July 2013 to June 2017: Factors associated with the odds of CATI response to alerts (logistic mixed models).
| Red and orange alerts | Univariate analysis bc | Multivariate analysis d | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Responded | Non-responded | cOR [95%-CI] |
p-value | aOR [95%-CI] |
p-value | |
| Number of alerts (%) | 3824 (49%) | 4032 (51%) | ||||
| Commune | <0.0001 b | |||||
| Department a | 0.79 b | |||||
| NGO responsible for CATI a | 0.3 b | |||||
| Commune, department and NGO random effects d | <0.01 | |||||
| Alert level, red vs. orange a | 2.22 [1.97–2.50] |
<0.0001 c | 2.52 [2.22–2.86] |
<0.0001 | ||
| Semester since mid-2013 a | 1.42 [1.37–1.46] |
<0.0001 c | 1.43 [1.38–1.48] |
<0.0001 | ||
| Weekly UNICEF disbursements for CATIs, mean (SD; $10,000 USD) | 12.9 (4.7) | 12 (4.7) | 1.06 [1.05–1.07] |
<0.0001 c | 1.01 [1.00–1.02] |
0.22 |
| Weekly accumulated rainfall in the commune, mean (SD; cm) | 12.3 (14.2) | 6.4 (9.6) | 0.99 [0.98–1.00] |
0.24 c | 0.99 [0.97–1] |
<0.05 |
| Population of the commune, mean (SD; 10,000 inhabitants) | 12.3 (14.2) | 6.4 (9.6) | 1.03 [0.68–1.81] |
<0.01 c | 1.01 [1–1.03] |
0.11 |
| OCV in the commune before or during the study period, number (%) | 935 (24%) | 1091 (27%) | 1.11 [0.68–1.81] |
0.67 c | ND | ND |
| Distance from the capital Port-au-Prince, mean (SD; 10 km) | 14.5 (8.1) | 16.8 (7.8) | 1.02 [0.97–1.08] |
0.44 c | ND | ND |
| Distance from the department capital, mean (SD; 10 km) | 3.4 (2.7) | 4.3 (3) | 0.92 [0.86–0.98] |
<0.01 c | 0.94 [0.88–1] |
0.06 |
| Mountainous commune, no. of alerts (%) | 1456 (38%) | 1646 (41%) | 1.01 [0.68–1.50] |
0.96 c | ND | ND |
Comparisons between responded and non-responded alerts were estimated using generalized linear mixed models with a binomial distribution.
a Response rates for each class are summarized in S3 Table provided as supplementary information
b For each of these univariate analyses, communes, departments or NGOs was modeled as a unique random effect variable.
c For these univariate analyses, communes, departments and NGOs were modeled as random effect variables, with communes nested within departments. Models provided a common P-value for both random effects.
d For the multivariate analysis, the model included communes, departments and NGOs as random effect variables, with communes nested within departments, and all fixed variables for which univariate P-value was <0.25 The model provided a common P-value for random effect variables.
SD, standard deviation; cOR, crude odds ratio; aOR, adjusted odds ratio; 95%-CI, 95% confidence interval; ND, no data (variables not included in the multivariate analysis).