Table 4.
Adequacy, quality and perceived benefit of care for treatment in recent episode
| Service characteristic | Service type | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Biomedical | FTH | ||||
| N | Percent | N | Percent | ||
|
Adequacy of care (Biomedical = 109)a |
Inadequate treatment | 75 | 68.8 | – | – |
| bMinimally Adequate | 34 | 31.2 | – | – | |
|
Perceived benefit (N=Biomedical = 112) (N=Holy water = 149) |
Complete improvement | 37 | 33.0 | 49 | 32.9 |
| Some improvement | 63 | 56.3 | 76 | 51.0 | |
| No improvement | 12 | 10.7 | 23 | 15.4 | |
| Harm | 0 | 0.0 | 1 | 0.7 | |
|
Satisfaction in care (measuring quality) Biomedical (111) (FTH = 150) |
Very satisfied | 34 | 25.5 | 21 | 14.0 |
| Satisfied | 46 | 43.0 | 52 | 34.7 | |
| Neutral | 21 | 18.8 | 32 | 21.3 | |
| Dissatisfied | 7 | 8.1 | 32 | 21.3 | |
| Very dissatisfied | 3 | 4.7 | 13 | 8.7 | |
aData not collected for Faith & Traditional providers as there is no guideline for this
FTH Faith and Traditional Treatment
bMinimally adequate treatment defined as receipt of appropriate treatment with at least four monitoring visits