Skip to main content

Table 3 Influence of doctors and clinics characteristics on their performances before during and after the intervention.

From: Does a competitive voucher program for adolescents improve the quality of reproductive health care? A simulated patient study in Nicaragua

Scores 1

Before

During (with voucher)

After

Gender 2

N = 17

Mean

p3

N = 24

Mean

p3

N = 17

Mean

p3

Women

9

19.7 (sd 8.0)

 

16

22.8 (sd 6.5)

 

11

20.5 (sd 5.6)

 

Male

8

9.7 (sd 2.9)

0.01

8

16.4 (sd 7.1)

0.05

6

12.6 (sd 5.6)

0.03

Age group 2

  

p 4

  

P 4

  

p 4

30–34

6

14.8 (sd 8.9)

 

7

24.2 (sd 5.3)

 

6

18.7 (sd 6.1)

 

35–39

7

17.6 (sd 8.7)

 

12

19.8 (sd 7.3)

 

7

21.2 (sd 4.6)

 

40 +

4

10.8 (sd 3.1)

 

5

17.7 (sd 8.6)

 

4

10.1 (sd 4.7)

0.04

Type of clinic 5

N = 16

 

P 4

N = 17

 

P 4

N = 15

 

P 4

Public

4

12.5 (sd 8.0)

 

3

22.2 (sd 10.3)

 

2

14.8 (sd 2.9)

 

NGO

8

18.4 (sd 8.6)

 

10

20.6 (sd 4.9)

 

9

20.7 (sd 6.2)

 

Private

4

12.9 (sd 5.1)

 

4

22.1 (sd 6.3)

 

4

11.3 (sd 7.2)

 
  1. 1 Mean sum score of categories I to III reflecting the consultation
  2. 2 During the voucher programme some doctors were visited more than once by SPs, but for this analysis only the first visits were considered. After the intervention 1 SP was seen by a Nurse.
  3. 3 Outcome of the Mann Whitney test (comparing the mean sum score of men and women) only p-values ≤ 0.10 are reflected.
  4. 4 Outcomes of the Kruskall Wallis test, only p-values ≤ 0.10 are reflected.
  5. 5 For each clinic the mean score is considered. Column 'before ' is based on 17 observations, column 'during' on 30 observations and column 'after' on 18 observations, only p-values ≤ 0.10 are reflected.