Table 2 Study sample for Period 2
Province District Commune | Consent at baseline in Period 1. n0 | Baseline n1 (n1/n0*100%) | Follow-up 1 (after 1 month) n2 (n2/n0*100%) | Follow-up 2 (after 2 months) n3 (n3/n0*100%) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
BEN TRE | ||||
Ben Tre | ||||
Son Dong (intervention) | 29 | 24 (82.8) | 19 (65.5) | 17 (58.6) |
Phuong 6 (delay) | 3 | 2 (66.7) | 1 (33.3) | 2 (66.7) |
Total n (%) | 32 | 26 (81.3) | 20 (62.50) | 19 (59.4) |
Giong Trom | ||||
Phuoc Long (intervention) | 12 | 11 (91.7) | 9 (75.0) | 10 (83.3) |
Long My (delay) | 9 | 4 (44.4) | 2 (22.2) | 2 (22.2) |
Total n (%) | 21 | 15 (71.4) | 11 (52.4) | 12 (57.1) |
DA NANG | ||||
Hoa Vang | ||||
Hoa Nhon (intervention) | 8 | 4 (50.0) | 2 (25.0) | 4 (50.0) |
Hoa Tien (delay) | 17 | 11 (64.7) | 9 (52.9) | 9 (52.9) |
Total n (%) | 25 | 15 (60.0) | 11 (44.0) | 13 (52.0) |
Thanh Khe | ||||
Chinh Gian (intervention) | 16 | 13 (81.3) | 11 (68.8) | 12 (75.0) |
Thanh Khe Tay (delay) | 8 | 2 (25.0) | 2 (25.0) | 1 (12.5) |
Total n (%) | 24 | 15 (62.5) | 13 (54.2) | 13 (54.2) |
KHANH HOA | ||||
Dien Khanh | ||||
Dien An (intervention) | 9 | 1 (11.1) | 0 (0.0) | 1 (11.1) |
Dien Dien (delay) | 8 | 6 (75.0) | 4 (50.0) | 6 (75.0) |
Total n (%) | 17 | 7 (41.2) | 4 (23.5) | 7 (41.2) |
Nha Trang | ||||
Phuoc Tien (intervention) | 11 | 8 (72.7) | 4 (36.4) | 4 (36.4) |
Phuong Sai (delay) | 11 | 3 (27.3) | 0 (0.0) | 3 (27.3) |
Total n (%) | 22 | 11 (50.0) | 4 (18.2) | 7 (31.8) |
LONG AN | ||||
Chau Thanh | ||||
Long Tri (intervention) | 4 | 4 (100.0) | 3 (75.0) | 3 (75.0) |
An Luc Long (delay) | 16 | 8 (50.0) | 7 (43.8) | 7 (43.8) |
Total n (%) | 20 | 12 (60.0) | 10 (50.0) | 10 (50.0) |
Tan An | ||||
Nhon Thanh Trung (intervention) | 6 | 3 (50.0) | 1 (16.7) | 1 (16.7) |
Phuong 1 (delay) | 5 | 3 (60.0) | 2 (40.0) | 2 (40.0) |
Total n (%) | 11 | 6 (54.5) | 3 (27.3) | 3 (27.3) |
QUANG NAM | ||||
Nui Thanh | ||||
Tam Nghia (intervention) | 15 | 10 (66.7) | 8 (53.3) | 7 (46.7) |
Nui Thanh (delay) | 11 | 7 (63.6) | 7 (63.6) | 6 (54.6) |
Total n (%) | 26 | 17 (65.4) | 15 (57.7) | 13 (50.0) |
Tam Ky | ||||
An My (intervention) | 6 | 5 (83.3) | 3 (50.0) | 3 (50.0) |
Tam Phu (delay) | 12 | 6 (50.0) | 4 (33.3) | 4 (33.3) |
Total n (%) | 18 | 11 (61.1) | 7 (38.9) | 7 (38.9) |
QUANG NINH | ||||
Ha Long | ||||
Hong Hai (intervention) | 6 | 5 (83.3) | 2 (33.3) | 2 (33.3) |
Ha Tu (delay) | 10 | 7 (70.0) | 6 (60.0) | 6 (60.0) |
Total n (%) | 16 | 12 (75.0) | 8 (50.0) | 8 (50.0) |
Van Don | ||||
Đong Xa (intervention) | 5 | 4 (80.0) | 4 (80.0) | 4 (80.0) |
Ha Long (delay) | 19 | 14 (73.7) | 12 (63.2) | 9 (47.4) |
Total n (%) | 24 | 18 (75.0) | 16 (66.7) | 13 (54.2) |
THAI NGUYEN | ||||
Phu Luong | ||||
Yen Lac (intervention) | 19 | 18 (94.7) | 17 (89.5) | 16 (84.2) |
Đong Dat (delay) | 14 | 10 (71.4) | 9 (64.3) | 8 (57.1) |
Total n (%) | 33 | 28 (84.8) | 26 (78.8) | 24 (72.7) |
Song Cong | ||||
Tan Quang (intervention) | 15 | 11 (73.3) | 11 (73.3) | 11 (73.3) |
Thang Loi (delay) | 20 | 16 (80.0) | 13 (65.0) | 11 (55.0) |
Total n (%) | 35 | 27 (77.1) | 24 (68.6) | 22 (62.9) |
THANH HOA | ||||
Dong Son | ||||
Đong Minh (intervention) | 8 | 6 (75.0) | 6 (75.0) | 6 (75.0) |
Đong Tien (delay) | 10 | 5 (50.0) | 5 (50.0) | 5 (50.0) |
Total n (%) | 18 | 11 (61.1) | 11 (61.1) | 11 (61.1) |
Quang Xuong | ||||
Quang Ngoc (intervention) | 21 | 18 (85.7) | 17 (81.0) | 17 (81.0) |
Quang Phong (delay) | 12 | 8 (66.7) | 6 (50.0) | 8 (66.7) |
Total n (%) | 33 | 26 (78.8) | 23 (69.7) | 25 (75.8) |
Total | ||||
Intervention | 190 | 145 (76.3) | 117 (61.6) | 118 (62.1) |
Delay | 185 | 112 (60.5) | 89 (48.1) | 89 (48.1) |
Total n(%) | 375 | 257 (68.5) | 206 (54.9) | 207 (55.2) |