Skip to main content

Table 2 Hawthorne effect on data recording and malaria practice

From: Monitoring patient care through health facility exit interviews: an assessment of the Hawthorne effect in a trial of adherence to malaria treatment guidelines in Tanzania

  Non-survey days Survey days Adjusted comparisona
Number of consultations per day      Difference 95 % CI p
 Mean (SD) 11.9 (7.3) 14.1 (10.3) 2.03 1.20- 2.86 <0.001
 Median (IQR) 11 (7–16) 12 (8–17)    
Missing MTUHA information n % n % OR 95 % CI p
 Age 133 1.4 % 106 1.1 % 0.65 0.46-0.91 0.011
 Gender 36 0.4 % 13 0.1 % 0.20b 0.05-0.86b 0.031b
 Village of origin 5,937 60.4 % 6,919 71.0 % 1.65c 1.13-2.40c 0.010c
 Previous attendance 1,604 16.3 % 2,127 21.8 % 0.54 0.26-1.13 0.103
 Subscriber type 4,152 42.2 % 5,785 59.4 % 1.92c 1.38-2.67c <0.001c
Malaria diagnostic and treatment (primary outcomes) n/N % n/N % OR 95 % CI p
 RDT result recorded 1,811/9,834 18.4 % 2,010/9,745 20.6 % 1.11 0.98-1.26 0.097
 AM prescription with a negative RDT 168/1,721 9.8 % 160/1,901 8.4 % 0.83 0.56-1.23 0.343
 AM prescription without a RDT result 210/8,023 2.6 % 182/7,735 2.4 % 0.73 0.53-1.00 0.052
  1. aComparison of survey days to non-survey days, from mixed-effect logistic regression, adjusted for day of the week (Monday-Friday) and study period. Analyses based on three-level hierarchical models (with health facility and day of data collection as random effects), except for number of consultations per day, based on a two-level hierarchical model (health facility as random effect)
  2. bUnadjusted, due to sparse data
  3. cOne-level logistic model, with robust standard errors for health facility clustering, due convergence failure for the hierarchical model
  4. RDT Rapid Diagnostic Test, AM Antimalarial treatment, SD Standard deviation, OR Odds Ratio, CI Confidence Interval