Table 1 MAC-FI study sample by province, district and commune for Period 1
Province District Communes | Eligible No | Consent at baseline n1 (n1/n0*100%) | Follow-up 1 (after 1 month) n2 (n2/n1*100%) | Follow-up 2 (after 2 months) n3 (n3/n1*100%) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
BEN TRE | ||||
Ben Tre | ||||
Son Dong (intervention) | 31 | 29 (93.6) | 28 (96.6) | 27 (93.1) |
Phuong 6 (delay) | 9 | 3 (33.3) | 3 (100.0) | 2 (66.7) |
Total n (%) | 40 | 32 (80.0) | 31 (96.9) | 29 (90.6) |
Giong Trom | ||||
Phuoc Long (intervention) | 15 | 12 (80.0) | 9 (75.0) | 11 (91.7) |
Long My (delay) | 10 | 9 (90.0) | 3 (33.3) | 2 (22.2) |
Total n (%) | 25 | 21 (84.0) | 12 (57.1) | 13 (61.9) |
DA NANG | ||||
Hoa Vang | ||||
Hoa Nhon (intervention) | 18 | 8 (44.4) | 5 (62.5) | 8 (100.0) |
Hoa Tien (delay) | 23 | 17 (73.9) | 12 (70.6) | 12 (70.6) |
Total n (%) | 41 | 25 (61.0) | 17 (68.0) | 20 (80.0) |
Thanh Khe | ||||
Chinh Gian (intervention) | 17 | 16 (94.1) | 12 (75.0) | 13 (81.3) |
Thanh Khe Tay (delay) | 16 | 8 (50.0) | 4 (50.0) | 2 (25.0) |
Total n (%) | 33 | 24 (72.7) | 16 (66.7) | 15 (62.5) |
KHANH HOA | ||||
Dien Khanh | ||||
Dien An (intervention) | 12 | 9 (75.0) | 6 (66.7) | 5 (55.6) |
Dien Dien (delay) | 8 | 8 (100.0) | 6 (75.0) | 7 (87.5) |
Total n (%) | 20 | 17 (85.0) | 12 (70.6) | 12 (70.6) |
Nha Trang | ||||
Phuoc Tien (intervention) | 14 | 11 (78.6) | 7 (63.6) | 10 (90.9) |
Phuong Sai (delay) | 21 | 11 (52.4) | 7 (63.6) | 6 (54.5) |
Total n (%) | 35 | 22 (62.9) | 14 (63.6) | 16 (72.7) |
LONG AN | ||||
Chau Thanh | ||||
Long Tri (intervention) | 4 | 4 (100.0) | 4 (100.0) | 4 (100.0) |
An Luc Long (delay) | 31 | 16 (51.6) | 15 (93.8) | 13 (81.3) |
Total n (%) | 35 | 20 (57.1) | 19 (95.0) | 17 (85.0) |
Tan An | ||||
Nhon Thanh Trung (Intervention) | 6 | 6 (100.0) | 5 (83.3) | 5 (83.3) |
Phuong 1 (delay) | 6 | 5 (83.3) | 2 (40.0) | 2 (40.0) |
Total n (%) | 12 | 11 (91.7) | 7 (63.6) | 7 (63.6) |
QUANG NAM | ||||
Nui Thanh | ||||
Tam Nghia (intervention) | 19 | 15 (78.9) | 13 (86.7) | 10 (66.7) |
Nui Thanh (delay) | 19 | 11 (57.9) | 8 (72.7) | 7 (63.6) |
Total n (%) | 38 | 26 (68.4) | 21 (80.8) | 17 (65.4) |
Tam Ky | ||||
An My (intervention) | 6 | 6 (100.0) | 5 (83.3) | 4 (66.7) |
Tam Phu (delay) | 24 | 12 (50.0) | 9 (75.0) | 7 (58.3) |
Total n (%) | 30 | 18 (60.0) | 14 (77.8) | 11 (61.1) |
QUANG NINH | ||||
Ha Long | ||||
Hong Hai (intervention) | 20 | 6 (30.0) | 4 (66.7) | 6 (100.0) |
Ha Tu (delay) | 14 | 10 (71.4) | 5 (50.0) | 9 (90.0) |
Total n (%) | 34 | 16 (47.1) | 9 (56.3) | 15 (93.8) |
Van Don | ||||
Đong Xa (intervention) | 7 | 5 (71.4) | 4 (80.0) | 4 (80.0) |
Ha Long (delay) | 19 | 19 (100.0) | 15 (78.9) | 19 (100.0) |
Total n (%) | 26 | 24 (92.3) | 19 (79.2) | 23 (95.8) |
THAI NGUYEN | ||||
Phu Luong | ||||
Yen Lac (intervention) | 28 | 19 (67.9) | 19 (100.0) | 17 (89.5) |
Đong Dat (delay) | 21 | 14 (66.7) | 13 (92.9) | 12 (85.7) |
Total n (%) | 49 | 33 (67.3) | 32 (97.0) | 29 (87.9) |
Song Cong | ||||
Tan Quang (intervention) | 16 | 15 (93.8) | 12 (80.0) | 12 (80.0) |
Thang Loi (delay) | 23 | 20 (87.0) | 19 (95.0) | 20 (100.0) |
Total n (%) | 39 | 35 (89.7) | 31 (88.6) | 32 (91.4) |
THANH HOA | ||||
Dong Son | ||||
Đong Minh (intervention) | 9 | 8 (88.9) | 6 (75.0) | 6 (75.0) |
Đong Tien (delay) | 10 | 10 (100.0) | 7 (70.0) | 6 (60.0) |
Total n (%) | 19 | 18 (94.7) | 13 (72.2) | 12 (66.7) |
Quang Xuong | ||||
Quang Ngoc (intervention) | 22 | 21 (95.5) | 17 (81.0) | 17 (81.0) |
Quang Phong (delay) | 12 | 12 (100.0) | 11 (91.7) | 11 (91.7) |
Total n (%) | 34 | 33 (97.1) | 28 (84.8) | 28 (84.8) |
Total | ||||
Intervention | 244 | 190 (77.9) | 156 (82.1) | 159 (83.7) |
Delay | 266 | 185 (69.5) | 139 (75.1) | 137 (74.1) |
Total n(%) | 510 | 375 (73.5) | 295 (78.7) | 296 (78.9) |