Effect of the text message reminders on primary and secondary outcomes: intent-to-treat analysis
| Full sample | Pre-SOE | Post-SOE | |
| Clinic visit (primary) | 0.023 (−0.003 to 0.048) | 0.032 (0.001 to 0.063) | 0.023 (−0.017 to 0.064) |
| p=0.081 | p=0.042 | p=0.254 | |
| 3468 | 1502 | 1966 | |
| Clinic visit within 1 month (secondary) | 0.037 (0.012 to 0.062) | 0.042 (0.008 to 0.075) | 0.040 (0.000 to 0.080) |
| p=0.004 | p=0.014 | p=0.049 | |
| 3468 | 1502 | 1966 | |
| Received contraceptive method (secondary) | 0.022 (−0.004 to 0.048) | 0.034 (0.003 to 0.065) | 0.021 (−0.019 to 0.062) |
| p=0.091 | p=0.033 | p=0.306 | |
| 3460 | 1499 | 1961 | |
| Days between promoter visit and clinic visit | −1.219 (−2.13 to −0.306) | −0.643 (−2.170 to 0.884) | −1.302 (−2.541 to −0.062) |
| p=0.009 | p=0.409 | p=0.04 | |
| 1779 | 704 | 1075 |
This table reports estimated risk differences corresponding to the effect of assignment to the text message treatment for the full sample, the sample enrolled pre-SOE and the sample enrolled post-SOE. For phone numbers that were enrolled more than once, we identify the phone number as pre-SOE if at least one enrolment was recorded pre-SOE. Eight phone numbers are missing data for method choice that would allow us to identify contraceptive receipt. Days between promoter visit and clinic visit are coded as missing for women who never reported a clinic visit. Each cell reports the coefficient and 95% CI, and p value and the number of observations.
SOE, state of emergency.