Table 2

Pre-post analysis examining change in waiting time and ANC utilisation among treatment facilities

Boane
(T)
Malhangalene
(T)
Quissico
(T)
Pooled treatment facility results
β (95% CI)β (95% CI)β (95% CI)β (95% CI)
Panel A: waiting time†‡
 Post indicator−144.8***
(–156.9 to –132.8)
−88.9***
(–98.6 to –79.2)
−47.1***
(–56.0 to –38.3)
−100.0***
(–107.2 to –92.9)
 Baseline mean281.6178.8128.2201.6
 n1709157917024990
Panel B: ≥4 ANC visits§¶
 Weeks exposed0.004***
(0.003 to 0.006)
0.008***
(0.006 to 0.009)
0.003***
(0.001 to 0.004)
0.004***
(0.004 to 0.005)
 Constant0.504***
(0.467 to 0.542)
0.294***
(0.248 to 0.340)
0.570***
(0.535 to 0.605)
0.499***
(0.469 to 0.528)
 n1742120119214864
  • ***p<0.01.

  • †Source: Five rounds of waiting time data collection (one round before treatment and four rounds in post-treatment).

  • ‡Ordinary least squares regression models comparing baseline waiting time with waiting time during four rounds of follow-up waiting time data collected after the start of the scheduling intervention. 95% CIs in parentheses. Regressions are adjusted for day or the week.

  • §Source: Administrative data from facility records documenting the number of antenatal care visits obtained during pregnancy among women who came for their first antenatal care visit between 1 April 2016 and 30 April 2017.

  • ¶Generalised linear model for a binomial outcome with an identity link function. 95% CI in parentheses.

  • ANC, antenatal care.