TABLE 3.

Association Between Coaching Intensity and EBP Adherence Among BAs During Births in 15 Health Facilities, Utter Pradesh, India (N=2,083 Births)

		Model 1^a			Model 2^b
Coaching Domain	Units in IQR Increase	Change in Practices Adhered to Associated With 1-Unit Increase (95% CI)	Change in Practices Adhered to Associated With IQR Increase (95% CI)	P Value	Change in Practices Adhered to Associated With 1-Unit Increase (95% CI)	Change in Practices Adhered to Associated With IQR Increase (95% CI)	P Value
Coaching frequency
Visits in the past month	6.0	0.2 (0.1, 0.3)	1.3 (0.6, 1.9)	<.01	0.2 (−0.0, 0.4)	1.0 (−0.1, 2.2)	.10
Mean visits in the past month per BA	1.3	1.0 (0.6, 1.4)	1.2 (0.7, 1.8)	<.01	0.9 (0.2, 1.6)	1.2 (0.3, 2.1)	.01
BAs receiving ≥1 visit in past month, %	70	2.8 (1.4, 4.2)	2.0 (1.0, 2.9)	.01	3.4 (1.0, 5.8)	2.4 (0.7, 4.0)	.03
Standard deviation in visits among BAs past month	1.3	0.9 (0.5, 1.4)	1.2 (0.6, 1.8)	.01	0.7 (0.0, 1.5)	1.0 (-0.0, 1.9)	.08
Cumulative coaching
Total visits	8.0	−0.0 (−0.1, 0.0)	−0.4 (−0.8, 0.1)	.09	0.1 (0.0, 0.1)	0.6 (0.3, 0.9)	.07
Mean visits per BA	5.3	−0.2 (−0.4, 0.0)	−1.0 (−2.1, 0.1)	.09	0.2 (0.0, 0.4)	1.0 (0.0, 2.0)	.21
BAs receiving ≥10 visits, %	40	−3.0 (−5.9, −0.1)	−1.2 (−2.4, 0.0)	.12	0.3 (−3.5, 4.1)	0.1 (−1.4, 1.6)	.89
Standard deviation in visits among BAs	3.5	−0.2 (−0.4, 0.1)	−0.6 (−1.5, 0.2)	.12	0.3 (0.0, 0.5)	0.9 (0.2, 1.7)	.08
Scheduling adherence
Current scheduling nonadherence	NA^c	0.3 (−0.7, 1.3)	–	.55	-0.5 (−1.3, 0.4)	–	.27
Cumulative scheduling nonadherence	12	−0.0 (−0.1, 0.0)	−0.5 (−1.0, 0.1)	.08	0.1 (0.0, 0.1)	0.8 (0.0, 1.6)	.11

Abbreviations: BA, birth attendant; CI, confidence interval; EBP, essential birth practice; IQR, interquartile range, NA, not applicable.
Effects are reported for a 1-unit increase and for increasing each continuous coaching metric from its 25^th percentile to its 75^th percentile, that is, by 1 IQR. Results are from a generalized linear model with an identity link. Standard errors are estimated using the empirical variance with an exchangeable working covariance structure to account for clustering at the facility level.
↵a Adjusted for whether the facility was in a high-priority district, distance to district hospital, facility staff size, facility delivery load, and whether birth occurred on the same day as a coaching visit.
↵b Adjusted for everything in Model 1 plus months since start of the intervention.
↵c Because current scheduling nonadherence is a binary outcome, we report the effect for nonadherence vs. no adherent, rather than for a 1 IQR increase.