Table 5

Effect of the text message reminders on primary and secondary outcomes: intent-to-treat analysis for prespecified subsamples

Subsample of interest
Current non-user of contraceptionCurrent user of contraceptionReports shared ownership of phoneReports sole ownership of phoneAge ≤25Age >25
Treatment effect (risk difference)0.030 (−0.014 to 0.074)0.022 (−0.025 to 0.070)−0.004 (−0.064 to 0.055)0.032 (−0.003 to 0.066)0.041 (−0.001 to 0.083)−0.016 (−0.064 to 0.033)
p=0.184p=0.356p=0.883p=0.074p=0.055p=0.53
 N22061262917255119181550
Randomisation within 3 daysRandomisation in more than 3 daysFacility distance ≤medianFacility distance >median
Treatment effect (risk difference)0.019 (−0.017 to 0.056)0.017 (−0.017 to 0.052)0.024 (−0.014 to 0.062)0.030 (−0.007 to −0.068)
p=0.299p=0.324p=0.209p=0.112
 N1968150017171723
  • This table reports estimated risk differences corresponding to the effect of assignment to the text message treatment on the probability of a clinic visit for the specified subsamples. For the analysis of heterogeneity, phone numbers that were repeated in the analysis and thus have a constructed (continuous) value for the covariate are included in the subsample reporting non-zero values; that is, current user of contraception includes phone numbers with multiple observations in which at least one is identified as a current user of contraception; current non-user of contraception includes those phone numbers for which no recorded observation reports any contraceptive use. 28 observations are missing estimated distance to the closest facility. Each cell reports the coefficient and 95% CI, p values and the number of observations.