Table 3.
Uptake of LTBI education and screening, ranked from most successful to least successful strategy
| PHS | Strategies | Numbers envisioned to reach | Participated in LTBI education | Received LTBI screening |
|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| n | n (% of n envisioned to reach) | n (% of n LTBI education) | (% of n envisioned to reach) | ||
| Total | 904 | 401 (44%) | 257 (64%) | (28%) | |
| 4 | Strategy 4.3: Female group house | 35 | 25 (71%) | 31 (124%)a | (89%) |
| 3 | Strategy 2.1: Face to face promotion | 47 | 30 (64%) | 62 (124%)a | (84%) |
| Strategy 2.2: Face to face promotion | 27 | 20 (74%) | |||
| 2 | Strategy 5: Male football team | 20 | 15 (75%) | 10 (67%) | (50%) |
| 2 | Strategy 4.1: Female group house | 20 | 12 (60%) | 9 (75%) | (45%) |
| 4 | Strategy 6.1: Eritrean church | 200 | 65+ (33%) b,c | 70 (108%) | (35%) |
| 2 | Strategy 3.2: Dutch language classes | 50 | 30 (60%) | 16 (53%) | (32%) |
| 1 |
Strategy 1: Invitation through mail and social media |
175 | 44 (25%) | 32 (73%) | (18%) |
| 1 | Strategy 3.1: Dutch language classes | 20 | 12 (60%) | 3 (25%) | (15%) |
| 2 | Strategy 3.3: Dutch language classes | 60 | 8 (13%) | 7 (88%) | (12%) |
| 2 | Strategy 4.2: Male group house | 50 | 30 (60%) | 5 (17%) | (10%) |
| 5 | Strategy 6.2: Eritrean church | 200 | 110 (55%)d | 11 (10%) | (6%) |
PHS Public Health Service, LTBI Latent tuberculosis infection
aPersons who attended the education session were encouraged to motivate and bring friends and family to the LTBI screening, which resulted in LTBI screening uptake (compared to LTBI education uptake) percentages over 100%
bPersons in the church who registered-after promotion talk after church service- to receive an invitation by mail for extensive education session and LTBI screening at the PHS
cOne household member had to register to receive an invitation which was valid for the whole household
dNumber of invitations handed out after the promotion talk after the church service