TABLE 7.

IRS Refusal Rates During the Second Spray Round Among Intervention and Control Households, by District and Block, Bihar and Jharkhand States of India, 2016

District	Block	% IRS Refusal		OR^a	95% CI	P Value
District	Block	Intervention	Control	OR^a	95% CI	P Value
Bihar		6.20	20.90	0.24	(0.09, 0.62)	<.001
Araria	Forbesganj	5.63	51.39	0.06	(0.02, 0.15)	<.001
Gopalganj	Baruali	3.16	15.08	0.18	(0.05, 0.63)	.01
Katihar	Kadwa	3.68	4.62	0.79	(0.21, 3.04)	.73
Muzaffarpur	Paroo	11.96	16.65	0.67	(0.30, 1.48)	.32
Purnia	Kaswa	5.18	1.67	2.58	(0.49, 13.62)	.26
Samastipur	Sarairanjan	12.72	26.11	0.43	(0.20, 0.89)	.02
Saran	Dariyapur, Garkha	9.08	32.84	0.20	(0.09, 0.45)	<.001
Sitamarhi	Dumra	5.63	37.79	0.10	(0.04, 0.26)	<.001
Siwan	Barhariya	3.96	12.44	0.31	(0.10, 0.98)	.05
Vaishali	Mahua	1.44	10.12	0.09	(0.01, 0.72)	.02
Jharkhand		12.20	33.40	0.28	(0.13, 0.58)	<.001
Dumka	Ramgarh	1.18	34.72	0.02	(0.00, 0.14)	<.001
Godda	Sundarpahari	18.76	44.73	0.29	(0.15, 0.54)	<.001
Pakur	Littipara	19.07	25.07	0.70	(0.36, 1.38)	.31
Sahibganj	Borio	9.82	29.09	0.27	(0.12, 0.60)	<.001
Total (Bihar and Jharkhand)		7.95	24.45	0.27	(0.11, 0.62)	<.001

Abbreviations: CI, confidence interval; OR, odds ratio; IRS, indoor residual spraying.
↵a OR estimated based on assumption that the percentage of households that accepted IRS in the intervention areas would have refused IRS had they not been exposed to the BCC intervention. For example, in Araria district, 5.63% of households exposed to BCC activities still refused IRS. Therefore, we assume that 94.37% of households would have refused IRS if they had not been exposed to the BCC intervention, keeping aside confounders and outliers.