Skip to main content

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.