Prospective evaluation of a complex public health intervention: lessons from an initial and follow-up cross-sectional survey of the tuberculosis strain typing service in England

Table 3 Attitudes: Number and proportion of respondents that reported strain typing to be useful ^a

		Initial survey				Follow-up survey^b
		Useful		Not useful		Useful		Not useful
		n	%	n	%	n	%	n	%	P^d
Total respondents that reported using strain typing		66	95.7	3	4.3	89	94.7	5	5.3	0.667
Profession	Health protection	22	95.7	1	4.3	24	96.0	1	4.0	0.952
	Physician	16	100	0	0.0	20	95.2	1	4.8	0.464
	Nurse	28	93.3	2	6.7	45	93.8	3	6.3	0.942
TB incidence^c	Low	31	100	0	0.0	38	97.4	1	2.6	0.450
	Medium	16	94.1	1	5.9	26	96.3	1	3.7	0.736
	High	19	90.5	2	9.5	25	89.3	3	10.7	0.892

^aThe following question was asked to respondents who reported that they used strain typing data for TB control (Figure 3): Do you find the strain typing information useful? (Very useful / Quite useful / Not very useful / Useless) ‘Very useful’ and ‘Quite useful’ are grouped into ‘useful’, and ‘Not very useful’ is presented as ‘Not useful’. No one reported finding the strain typing ‘useless’ in either survey.
^bOne response was missing from the follow-up survey.
^cArea where respondents worked is defined as low, medium and high TB incidence: <10/100,000, 10-19/100,000, ≥20/100,000 population, respectively.
^dchi² test for significance comparing responses from the initial and follow-up surveys, missing items were excluded.

ISSN: 1471-2458