Table 4

Linear probability model estimates* of the effect of RDT and ACT subsidies on ACT consumption among study participants who were tested for malaria, stratified by test results (N=267)

Estimated effects
Malaria negativeMalaria positive
UnadjustedAdjusted (parsimonious)UnadjustedAdjusted (parsimonious)
Comparisons of interest (% differences)
 RDT subsidy (irrespective of ACT subsidy group)13.4% (2.4% to 24.4%)12.8% (1.7% to 23.9%)2.9% (−13.6% to 19.4%)4.2% (−1.2% to 20.4%)
 ACT subsidy (irrespective of RDT subsidy group)6.4% (−4.7% to 17.6%)8.2% (−3.3% to 19.6%)17.8% (0.4% to 35.1%)19.5% (2.2% to 36.8%)
Covariate effects (% differences)
 Wealth: poorest 40th centile2.9% (−9.0% to 14.8%)4.2% (−12.2% to 20.6%)
Reference level % (Group D—no subsidies)7.0% (−1.5% to 15.6%)5.6% (−3.4% to 14.6%)63.2% (47.4% to 79.0%)60.8% (43.3% to 78.2%)
  • *LPM models specified as a generalised linear model for a binomial outcome with an identity link function. All models include two factors (RDT subsidy and ACT subsidy). The interaction terms are excluded in order to simplify interpretation. The interaction terms were not significant for these secondary drug purchasing outcomes in the subsample of clients who underwent a test.

  • ACT, artemisinin combination therapy; RDT, rapid diagnostic test.