TABLE 3
FROM:
Improving the cost-effectiveness of Chlamydia screening with targeted screening strategies
D Evenden, P R Harper, S C Brailsford and V Harindra
BACK TO ARTICLETable 3. Allocation of sectors to target groups
| Category | Target sector | Category | Target sector | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Upper primary | PO9 6 | PO12 1 | Lower Primary | PO13 0 | PO7 7 |
| Top 9 | PO1 3 | PO1 4 | Second 7 | PO6 4 | PO6 3 |
| Prevalence | PO17 6 | PO1 1 | Prevalence | PO12 4 | PO9 3 |
| Average 17.3% | PO11 9 | PO11 0 | Average 13.51% | PO7 8 | |
| SD 4.0% | PO15 6 | SD 0.2% | |||
| Secondary | PO2 0 | PO13 9 | Tertiary | PO7 5 | PO15 7 |
| Middle 20 | PO5 4 | PO4 8 | Lower 23 | PO10 8 | PO9 1 |
| Prevalence | PO9 2 | PO3 6 | Prevalence | PO4 9 | PO6 2 |
| Average 11.62% | PO2 8 | PO9 5 | Average 7.87% | PO8 8 | PO5 2 |
| SD 0.7% | PO12 3 | PO13 8 | SD 1.7% | PO9 4 | PO16 7 |
| PO2 7 | PO5 3 | PO4 0 | PO17 5 | ||
| PO12 2 | PO16 0 | PO7 6 | PO14 2 | ||
| PO14 4 | PO6 1 | PO8 9 | PO3 5 | ||
| PO16 9 | PO14 1 | PO1 5 | PO8 0 | ||
| PO1 2 | PO5 1 | PO16 8 | PO10 7 | ||
| PO2 9 | PO15 5 | ||||
| PO14 3 | |||||
