TABLE 4
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 4. Indices of deprivation at ward level
| Significance | ||
|---|---|---|
| Trial data | GU data | |
| Deprivation index | P-value | P-value |
| Multiple rank position | 0.000** | 0.141 |
| 0.000** | 0.023* | |
| Income rank position | 0.001** | 0.136 |
| 0.000** | 0.028* | |
| Employment rank position | 0.002** | 0.189 |
| 0.001** | 0.038* | |
| Health rank position | 0.001** | 0.017* |
| 0.001** | 0.026* | |
| Education rank position | 0.000** | 0.002** |
| 0.000** | 0.000** | |
| Housing rank position | 0.004** | 0.057 |
| 0.001** | 0.042* | |
| Access to services rank position | 0.000** | 0.005** |
| 0.000** | 0.001** | |
| Child poverty rank position | 0.001** | 0.263 |
| 0.001** | 0.111 | |
