| |
OR (95 % CI)
|
|---|
|
Model 1
|
Model 2
|
Model 3
|
Model 4
|
|---|
|
No strategy (ref.)
|
1.00
|
1.00
|
1.00
|
1.00
|
|
Announcement letter
|
1.03 (0.47–2.25)
|
0.56 (0.26–1.17)
|
0.69 (0.36–1.29)
|
0.83 (0.42–1.62)
|
|
Information meeting
|
1.27 (0.69–2.35)
|
1.41 (0.86–2.31)
|
1.31 (0.86–1.98)
|
1.16 (0.74–1.80)
|
|
Local Media
|
1.08 (0.49–2.39)
|
1.89 (0.91–3.94)*
|
1.52 (0.81–2.83)
|
1.46 (0.73–2.93)
|
|
Social Media
|
0.71 (0.36–1.40)
|
0.52 (0.29–0.93)
|
0.64 (0.38–1.05)
|
0.58 (0.33–1.01)*
|
|
Door-to-door collection
|
1.69 (0.87–3.25)
|
1.64 (0.97–2.79)*
|
1.57 (1.01–2.43)
|
–
|
|
Involvement of community organizations
|
0.75 (0.37-1.54)
|
0.58 (0.31-1.06)*
|
0.53 (0.32–0.88)
|
0.60 (0.34-1.05)*
|
|
Key informant (cont.)a
|
–
|
1.32 (1.11–1.58)
|
1.25 (1.07–1.45)
|
1.25 (1.06–1.48)
|
|
Active key informantb
|
–
|
–
|
1.68 (1.18–2.38)
|
1.72 (1.16–2.53)
|
- Model 1: single recruitment strategies
- Model 2: model 1 + key informants
- Model 3: model 2 + active key informants
- Model 4: model 3—door-to-door collection
- A p value ≤ 0.05 is presented in italics
- * A p value ≤ 0.1
-
aThe continuous variable of key informants represents the increase in OR corresponding to one additional key informant contributing to the recruitment process
-
bKey informants were considered to be ‘active’ if they made major effort during the recruitment process (see text for the details)
