Table 3

Associations between provider communication and caregivers’ satisfaction with—and ratings of—care

Per cent of caregivers reporting outcome by communication scoreUnadjusted results*Adjusted results†
Score is 0Score is completeRR‡95% CIN§RR‡95% CIN§
Very satisfied with the services73.6%84.6%1.211.17 to 1.2613 7521.221.17 to 1.2612 774
Would recommend the facility to others95.4%99.2%1.051.04 to 1.0613 6161.051.04 to 1.0712 654
Would return to facility if child does not get completely better84.5%96.4%1.191.16 to 1.2216 2941.201.17 to 1.2314 947
No problems with:
 The ability to discus problems or concerns85.3%87.1%1.111.09 to 1.1416 3011.111.08 to 1.1314 952
 Amount of explanation received for problem/treatment82.4%87.7%1.171.14 to 1.2016 2821.171.14 to 1.2014 939
 Treatment by staff89.7%90.2%1.061.04 to 1.0816 2891.061.04 to 1.0814 938
 Quality of the examination and treatment83.8%88.1%1.111.08 to 1.1558391.121.08 to 1.165168

  • *Adjusted for country.

  • †Adjusted for patient-level, provider-level and facility-level characteristics: caregiver’s age, caregiver’s education, caregiver’s relationship to child, payment for visit, caregiver’s insurance status, duration of visit, reason for visit, provider’s education, time since provider graduated, time provider worked in this facility, provider’s cadre, provider’s managerial role, provider’s sex, provider's receipt of integrated management of childhood illness training and in-service training, facility management, supportive supervision, facility infrastructure and country.

  • ‡The exposure, provider communication, is on a scale from 0% to 100% and is measured during exit interviews with the caregiver.

  • §Questions on caregiver satisfaction and whether they would recommend the facility were not asked in Rwanda and Uganda. The question on quality of the examination and treatment was only asked in Kenya, Rwanda and Uganda.