Skip to main content

Table 2 Comparison of three study period values and difference of each period within and between clinics

From: A packaged intervention to improve viral load monitoring within a deeply rural health district of South Africa

 

Site

Study Implementation Period Value

Study Steady State Period Value

Difference of Steady State and Implementation within each site

(p value)d

Chart Intervention Period Value

Difference of Intervention and Steady State within each site

(p value)d

Difference of Intervention and Implementation within each sites

(p value)d

Viral Suppressiona

Bethesda CDC

59·2%

74·7%

15·5% (0·022)

68·5%c

−6·2% (0·42)

9·3% (0·12)

RK Khan (ref)

62·3%

76·2%

13·8% (0·036)

80·9%

4·7% (0·01)

18·6% (< 0·01)

Mkhuze

31·2%c

59·5%c

28·3% (< 0·01)

70·5%c

10·9% (< 0·01)

39·3% (< 0·01)

Shallcross (ref)

69·4%

84·1%

14·7% (< 0·01)

85·4%

1·3% (0·49)

16·0% (0·04)

Jozini

32·6%c

61·8%

29·2% (< 0·01)

68·8%c

7·0% (0·48)

36·2% (< 0·01)

Township (ref)

51·5%

62·3%

10·8% (< 0·01)

62·9%

0·7% (0·69)

11·4% (< 0·01)

Viral Load Test Performedb

Bethesda CDC

62·5%

83·5%

21·0% (< 0·01)

71·2%c

−12·3% (0·05)

8·7% (0·16)

RK Khan (ref)

68·4%

84·8%

16·4% (0·03)

88·3%

3·5% (0·42)

19·9% (< 0·01)

Mkhuze

33·9%c

65·1%c

31·2% (< 0·01)

75·8%c

10·7% (< 0·01)

41·9% (< 0·01)

Shallcross (ref)

75·6%

89·4%

13·8% (< 0·01)

91·3%

1·9% (0·34)

15·7% (0·08)

Jozini

35·3%c

63·2%

27·9% (< 0·01)

72·4%c

9·0% (0·31)

37·1% (< 0·01)

Township (ref)

55·4%

65·7%

10·3% (< 0·01)

67·5%

1·8% (0·34)

12·1% (0·01)

  1. ed as Viral Load < 400 copies per mL/Viral Load Due
  2. bDefined as Viral Load Performed/Viral Load Due
  3. cChi Square comparing sites, p value < 0·01
  4. dAdjusted p value