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.