You are viewing the site in preview mode

Skip to main content

Advertisement

Table 5 Integration indicators by health facility characteristics

From: The impact of HIV/SRH service integration on workload: analysis from the Integra Initiative in two African settings

  Service Availability in MCH/FP Unit (out of 5) Service Availability in Facility (out of 8) Human Resources Integration (out of 5) Physical Resources Integration (out of 5)
  Baseline Endline Baseline Endline Baseline Endline Baseline Endline
Country         
Kenya (n = 30) 2.23 2.3 6.1 6.56 1.88 1.93 1.28 1.29
Swaziland (n = 10) 2.2 2.3 6.7 7 1.36 1.01 1.15 1.18
HR integration         
More integrated (top 20%) 2.69b 3.11c 6.38 7.11b 2.62d 2.88d 1.58 1.09b
Less integrated (bottom 80%) 2 2.06 6.19 6.52 1.33 1.34 1.10 1.86
Change in HR integration         
Most changed (top 20%) 1.75 2.50 6.00 7.00 1.17 2.01a 0.67 1.36a
Least changed (bottom 80%) 2.34 2.25 6.31 6.56 1.90 1.61 1.40 1.24
Facility type         
Hospital (n = 2) 3 3 8 8 2.77 1.79 0.98 0.59
District Hospital (n = 5) 2.2 2.4 7.8 7.82 1.94 2.34 1.37 0.9
Sub-District Hospital (n = 6) 2 1.84 6.33 6.36 2 1.75 1.16 1.03
Health Centre (n = 17) 1.41 1.52 5.35 6.18a 1.15 1.21 0.71 0.95a
Public Health Unit (n = 2) 2.5 3 5.5 6.5 0.77 0.35a 0.88 0.8
SRH Clinic (n = 8) 3.87 3.87 6.87 6.87 2.72 2.54 2.58 2.6
Location         
Rural (n = 23) 1.57 1.61 5.61 6.24a 1.37 1.35 0.83 0.97
Urban (n = 17) 3.11 3.23 7.12 7.24 2.26 2.13 1.83 1.64
Ownership type         
Private (n = 8) 3.87 3.87 6.87 6.87 2.72 2.54 2.58 2.6
Public (n = 32) 1.81 1.91 6.09 6.63 1.51 1.47 0.92 0.92
  1. adifference from baseline significant at the P < 0.10 level.
  2. bdifference from 'less integrated' group significant at the P < 0.10 level.
  3. cdifference from 'less integrated' group significant at the P < 0.05 level.
  4. ddifference from 'less integrated' group significant at the P < 0.00 level.