Skip to main content

Table 2 Group dynamics assessments over time

From: Measuring fidelity, feasibility, costs: an implementation evaluation of a cluster-controlled trial of group antenatal care in rural Nepal

Group Dynamics

Quarter 1

Quarter 2

Quarter 3

Quarter 4

Overall

P-valuea

(%, 95 CI)

(%, 95 CI)

(%, 95 CI)

(%, 95 CI)

(%, 95 CI)

Number of groups

49

26

28

38

141

–

Most to all engaged

81.6% (68.6–90.0%)

100.0% (87.1–100.0%)

100.0% (87.9–100.0%)

100.0% (90.8–100.0%)

93.6% (88.3–96.6%)

< 0.01

Most to all sharing

61.2% (47.2–73.6%)

61.5% (42.5–77.6%)

71.4% (52.9–87.4%)

78.9% (63.7–88.9%)

68.1% (60.0–75.2%)

0.28

Most to all supportive

44.9% (31.9–58.7%)

84.6% (66.4–93.9%)

82.1% (64.4–92.1%)

81.6% (66.6–90.8%)

69.5%(61.5–76.5%)

< 0.01

Most to all not distracting

65.3% (51.3–77.1%)

100.0% (87.1–100.0%)

100.0% (87.9–100.0%)

100.0% (90.8–100.1%)

87.9% (81.5–92.3%)

< 0.01

Peer group rating 4 or 5

77.6% (64.1–87.0%)

84.6% (66.5–93.9%)

89.3% (72.8–96.2%)

78.9% (63.7–88.9%)

81.6% (74.4–87.1%)

0.55

  1. aP-values calculated via nominal logistic regression analysis by quarter
  2. Data are percentages of all reported visits in all village clusters, by quarter and over 1 year (May 2015 to April 2016)