Skip to main content

Table 2 Logistic regression analysis of selected variables on TB screening of household contact of index TB cases by HEWs in Tigray region, Northern Ethiopia, 2018

From: Implementation status of household contact tuberculosis screening by health extension workers: assessment findings from programme implementation in Tigray region, northern Ethiopia

VariablesHousehold contact screened for TB by HEWsCOR(95% CI)AOR(95% CI)
No (%)Yes (%)
Types of district
 Urban45(14)22(24.7)2.02 (1.137–3.594*1.24 (0.54–2.86)
Index TB case diagnosed time
  < 6 Months74(23)11(12.4)11
 6–12 Months189(58.7)58(65.2)2.10 (1.027–4.150)*2.24 (0.68–7.57)
  > 12 Months59(18.3)20(22.5)2.28 (1.013–5.133)*1.70 (0.44–6.51)
Site of DOTS in intensive phase
 Primary hospital80(24.8)21(23.6)11
 Health center218(67.7)52(58.4)0.91 (0.515–1.603)0.65 (0.31–1.40)
 Health post24(7.5)16(18)2.54 (1.148–5.621)*1.68(0.56–5.01)
Having treatment supporter during intensive phase
 Yes247(76.7)77(86.5)1.95 (1.01–3.77)*2.55 (1.06–6.10)*
Household members had received health education on TB by HEWs
 Yes57(17.7)64(71.9)11.9 (6.91–20.50)***4.28 (2.04–9.00)***
Household had visited by HEW in the last 6 months
 Yes48(14.9)62(69.7)13.12 (7.59–22.63)***5.84(2.81–12.17)***
Household’s mother was member of WDA team
 Yes91(28.3)38(42.7)1.89 (1.16–3.078)0.72(0.35–1.51)
Household’s index TB case visited by WDA leaders
 Don’t know/NA12(3.7)3(3.4)1.71 (0.46–6.38)2.26 (0.40–12.84)
 Yes77(23.9)52(58.4)4.63 (2.80–7.66)***1.84 (0.89–43.81)
Household’s members had received health education by WDG leaders
 Yes28(8.7)23(25.8)3.66 (1.98–6.75)***1.66 (0.44–6.18)
Household’s members had screened for TB by WDA leaders
 Yes20(6.2)22(24.7)4.96 (2.56–9.60)***0.97 (0.24–3.85)
Educational status of the serving HEWs
 Diploma (HEWS)204(66.9)44(51.2)0.78 (0.436–1.375)1.18(0.47–2.95)
 Diploma (Nurse)22(7.2)20(23.3)3.26 (1.514–7.037)***5.18(0.80–33.60)
HEWs had discussions with WDA leaders on TB activities
Availability of recording tools in the serving health posts
  1. *statistically significant at 0.05 < p < 0.01, ** statistically significant at 0.01 < p < 0.001, *** statistically significant at p < 0.001
  2. Variables with P-value < 0.25 in bivariate analysis were entered in the final model (Time taken to reach health facility, household average monthly income, family size, knowledge of the respondents on TB, type of index TB case, index TB case currently on treatment, marital status of the serving HEW, involvement of Kebeles administrator on TB program and availability of job aid in the serving health post)