Skip to main content

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

From: 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

   Initial survey Follow-up surveyb  
   Useful Not useful Useful Not useful  
   n % n % n % n % Pd
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 incidencec 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
  1. 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.
  2. bOne response was missing from the follow-up survey.
  3. 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.
  4. dchi2 test for significance comparing responses from the initial and follow-up surveys, missing items were excluded.