Table 2.

Comparison of Patients’ Experience on Non-Clinical Quality of Care Domains by Facility Type Through Mean Scores^† (and 95%-confidence interval).

Domains/quality attributes	Total population	Public urban (2)	Private urban (3)	Public rural (4)	P value
Mean, [95% Conf. Interval]
Dignity (n = 954)	3.65 [3.58-3.71]	3.70 [3.58-3.82]	3.81 [3.64-3.98]	3.59 [3.52-3.67]	2 versus 3; P = .28
					2 versus 4; P = .16
Communication (n = 933)	3.75 [3.70-3.80]	3.71 [3.61-3.81]	3.7 [3.56-3.83]	3.79 [3.72-3.85]	2 versus 3; P = .88
					2 versus 4; P = .19
Coordination of care (n = 854)	3.10 [2.83-3.37]	2.90 [2.71-3.08]	2.12 [1.86-2.38]	3.35 [3.23-3.47]	2 versus 3; P < .01
					2 versus 4; P < .01
Confidentiality (n = 940)	3.47 [3.31-3.64]	3.38 [3.15-3.60]	3.77 [3.45-4.09]	3.46 [3.31-3.61]	2 versus 3; P = .04
					2 versus 4; P = .5
Choice (n = 790)	2.89 [2.40-3.38]	2.69 [2.18-3.10]	2.57 [2.00-3.14]	3.06 [2.65-3.46]	2 versus 3; P = .78
					2 vsersu 4; P = .02
Autonomy (n = 772)	3.19 [3.05-3.33]	3.1 [2.84-3.37]	3.42 [3.06-3.79]	3.17 [3.00-3.34]	2 versus 3; P = .16
					2 versus 4; P = .66
Prompt attention (n = 622)	3.00 [2.86-3.14]	3.17 [2.97-3.36]	2.94 [2.71-3.18]	2.95 [2.78-3.11]	2 versus 3; P = .07
					2 versus 4; P = .01
Quality of basic amenities (n = 954)	3.14 [2.98-3.31]	3.02 [2.69-3.36]	3.70 [3.23-4.17]	3.10 [2.87-3.32]	2 versus 3; P = .01
					2 versus 4; P = .7
Total score (n = 890)	3.30 [3.21-3.38]	3.21 [3.07-3.33]	3.26 [3.07-3.43]	3.35 [3.26-3.42]	2 versus 3; P = .65
					2 versus 4; P = .06

^†Mean values were obtained from linear mixed models with random intercepts for districts and facilities nested in districts. Statistically significant, P < .05.