Skip to main content

Table 3 Comparison of study initiation and intervention effects between clinics

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

 

Site

Study Initiation effect within each site

Relative-Risk between each site (p value)c

Chart Intervention effect within each site (p value)c

Relative-Risk between each site (p value)c

Total effect within each site (p value)c

Relative-Risk between each site and respective control site (p value)c

Viral Suppressiona

Bethesda CDC

15·5% (0·022)

1·03 (0·82)

−6·2% (0·42)

0·86 (0·18)

9·3% (0·12)

0·89 (0·58)

RK Khan (ref)

13·8% (0·036)

4·7% (0·01)

18·6% (< 0·01)

Mkhuze

28·3% (< 0·01)

1·58 (0·03)

10·9% (< 0·01)

1·16 (< 0·01)

39·3% (< 0·01)

1·84 (< 0·01)

Shallcross (ref)

14·7% (< 0·01)

1·3% (0·49)

16·0% (0·0)

Jozini

29·2% (< 0·01)

1·57 (< 0·01)

7·0% (0·48)

1·08 (0·55)

36·2% (< 0·01)

1·70 (< 0·01)

Township (ref)

10·8% (< 0·01)

0·7% (0·69)

11·4% (< 0·01)

Viral Load Test Performedb

Bethesda CDC

21·0% (< 0·01)

1·08 (0·57)

−12·3% (0·05)

0·82 (0·037)

8·7%(0·16)

0·88 (0·38)

RK Khan (ref)

16·4% (0·03)

3·5% (0·42)

19·9% (< 0·01)

Mkhuze

31·2% (< 0·01)

1·63 (0·03)

10·7% (< 0·01)

1·14 (< 0·01)

41·9% (< 0·01)

1·86 (< 0·01)

Shallcross (ref)

13·8% (< 0·01)

1·9% (0·34)

15·7% (0·08)

Jozini

27·9% (< 0·01)

1·51 (0·01)

9·0% (0·31)

1·11 (0·43)

37·1% (< 0·01)

1·68 (< 0·01)

Township (ref)

10·3% (< 0·01)

1·8% (0·34)

12·1% (0·01)

  1. aDefined as Viral Load < 400 copies per mL/Viral Load Due
  2. bDefined as Viral Load Performed/Viral Load Due
  3. cAdjusted p value