Table 5. Differences in Drinking Water Source Cleaning and Maintenance Issues in Hydrate Philly Intervention and Control Sites, Hydrate Philly Intervention, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, July 2017–August 2018.
| Water Fountain Maintenance | Intervention | Control | Adjusted treatment effect (95% CI)a | P Value |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Routine cleaning, mean (SD) | 2.25 (0.54) | 2.45 (0.53) | −0.12 (−0.55 to 0.30) | .56 |
| Extensive cleaning, mean (SD) | 1.13 (0.13) | 1.24 (0.20) | −0.08 (−0.22 to 0.05) | .23 |
| Time spent cleaning, min per week, mean (SD) | 3.03 (2.58) | 3.58 (3.25) | −0.37 (−2.82 to 2.08) | .76 |
| Sites with a maintenance issue, n (%)b | 1 (14.3) | 7 (50.0) | 0.09 (0.004 to 0.76) | .06 |
a
Parameter estimates (or odds ratio for sites with a maintenance issue) can be interpreted as the difference between treatment and control groups at post, adjusting for covariates. Adjusted models controlled for number of operational indoor fountains at post and level of on-site maintenance employee support (full-time, part-time, none).
b
Sites reporting maintenance issues required site visits from separate centralized trades union plumbing staff members because of issues unable to be resolved by on-site maintenance employees.