Skip to main content

Table 2 Raw and bootstrapped DEA efficiencies in different key populations

From: Assessing frontline HIV service provider efficiency using data envelopment analysis: a case study of Philippine social hygiene clinics (SHCs)

SHCa MSMb RFSWc FFSWd AGGREGATEe
Technical efficiency Bias-corrected technical efficiency 95% CI Technical efficiency Bias-corrected technical efficiency 95% CI Technical efficiency Bias-corrected technical efficiency 95% CI Technical efficiency Bias-corrected technical efficiency 95% CI
Baguio 0.91 0.80 (0.69–0.90) 1.00 0.99 (0.99–1.00) 0.48 0.42 (0.36–0.48) 0.82 0.78 (0.73–0.81)
Cagayan de Oro 0.46 0.40 (0.33–0.45) 1.00 1.00 (0.98–1.00) 1.00 0.79 (0.65–0.98) 1.00 0.88 (0.68–1.00)
Cebu 0.50 0.44 (0.38–0.50) 1.00 0.99 (0.99–1.00) 0.93 0.80 (0.69–0.92) 0.91 0.87 (0.80–0.91)
Davao 1.00 0.78 (0.63–0.99) 1.00 0.99 (0.96–1.00) 1.00 0.78 (0.60–0.99) 1.00 0.88 (0.68–1.00)
Makati 1.00 0.78 (0.63–0.98) 1.00 0.99 (0.96–1.00) 1.00 0.77 (0.55–0.98) 1.00 0.89 (0.68–1.00)
Manila 1.00 0.78 (0.62–0.99) 1.00 0.77 (0.55–0.99)
Pasay 0.44 0.38 (0.31–0.43) 0.96 0.96 (0.95–0.96) 0.18 0.16 (0.13–0.18) 0.54 0.51 (0.45–0.54)
Quezon City 1.00 0.86 (0.75–0.99) 1.00 0.99 (0.96–1.00) 1.00 0.79 (0.64–0.99) 1.00 0.89 (0.68–1.00)
Zamboanga 1.00 0.81 (0.66–0.99) 1.00 0.99 (0.96–1.00) 1.00 0.82 (0.67–0.99) 1.00 0.91 (0.76–1.00)
Average efficiency 0.81 0.67   1.00 0.99   0.84 0.68   0.91 0.83  
  1. aSHC Social Hygiene Clinic
  2. bMSM Male having sex with male
  3. cRFSW Registered Female Sex Worker
  4. dFFSW Freelance Female Sex Worker
  5. eAGGREGATE combined population of the MSM, RFSW and FFSW