. 2021 Feb 10;2021(2):CD012882. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD012882.pub2

16. Comparison 2 results: coverage of careseeking to an iCCM provider.

Outcome	Trial ID	Study design	Preintervention coverage		Postintervention coverage		Cluster‐adjusted relative effect (95% CI)	Coverage indicators analysis summary
Outcome	Trial ID	Study design	iCCM	Control	iCCM	Control	Cluster‐adjusted relative effect (95% CI)	Coverage indicators analysis summary
Coverage of careseeking to an iCCM provider for any iCCM illness	Kalyango 2012a	cRCT	—	—	27.9% 117/419	19.9% 78/392	RR 1.40 (1.09 to 1.80)	Adjusted for stratified sampling
Coverage of careseeking to an iCCM provider for diarrhoea	Munos 2016	CBA	3.5% 50/1431	0.5% 4/715	4.2% 68/1627	4.9% 5/1014	RR 8.47 (3.43 to 20.95)	Adjusted for cluster design and non‐response
Coverage of careseeking to an iCCM provider for fever	Kalyango 2012a	cRCT	—	—	27.0% 103/381	19.3% 72/373	RR 1.40 (1.07 to 1.83)	Adjusted for stratified sampling
Coverage of careseeking to an iCCM provider for fever	Munos 2016	CBA	4.5% 163/3639	2.1% 49/2338	7.2% 220/3057	2.5% 56/2178	RR 2.80 (2.10 to 3.73)	Adjusted for cluster design and non‐response
Coverage of careseeking to an iCCM provider for suspected pneumonia	Kalyango 2012a	cRCT	—	—	32.1% 43/134	17.6% 18/102	RR 1.82 (1.12 to 2.96)	Adjusted for stratified sampling
	Munos 2016	CBA	4.9% 15/307	0.6% 1/164	5.1% 27/530	1.8% 4/220	RR 2.80 (0.99 to 7.91)	Adjusted for cluster design and non‐response

CBA: controlled before‐after study; CI: confidence interval; cRCT: cluster‐randomized controlled trial; iCCM: integrated community case management; RR: risk ratio.