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