Skip to main content

Table 7 Weighted odds ratios for the reasons for facility preference

From: The use of respondent‑driven sampling to assess febrile illness treatment-seeking behaviours among forest-goers in Cambodia and Vietnam

Cambodia

Odds Ratio

p-value

Public facility

 Cost

5.16

 < 0.001

 Quality of service

2.28

 < 0.001

 Friendliness of service

2.29

 < 0.001

 Availability of service

6.26

 < 0.001

 Trust in provider

0.36

 < 0.001

Private facility

 Proximity

0.33

 < 0.001

 Cost

0.23

 < 0.001

 Recommended provider

0.13

0.001

 Availability of service

0.35

0.001

 Trust in provider

1.74

0.003

 Others

4.00

0.012

Community Health Workers

 Proximity

4.80

 < 0.001

 Recommended provider

9.22

0.001

 Quality of service

0.34

 < 0.001

 Friendliness of service

0.37

0.001

 Trust in provider

1.65

0.034

Vietnam

Odds Ratio

p-value

Public facility

  

 Proximity

0.01

 < 0.001

 Cost

0.06

 < 0.001

 Previous experience

0.03

 < 0.001

 Recommended provider

0.06

 < 0.001

 Friendliness of service

0.01

 < 0.001

 Availability of service

0.01

 < 0.001

 Trust in provider

0.02

 < 0.001

Private facility

 Proximity

0.17

 < 0.001

 Cost

0.57

0.014

 Quality of service

0.15

 < 0.001

 Friendliness of service

0.16

 < 0.001

 Availability of service

3.04

 < 0.001

Community Health Facility

 Cost

0.12

 < 0.001

 Previous experience

0.09

 < 0.001

 Recommended provider

0.08

 < 0.001

 Quality of service

0.01

 < 0.001

 Friendliness of service

0.25

0.007

 Availability of service

0.02

 < 0.001

 Trust in provider

0.06

 < 0.001