Table 5 Efficiency improvement scenarios and potential increase in ART visits in Kenya, Uganda, and Zambia
Efficiency score improvement threshold | Kenya | Uganda | Zambia | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Potential percent increase in ART visits (95Â % UI) | Potential additional ART visits (95Â % UI) | Potential percent increase in ART visits (95Â % UI) | Potential additional ART visits (95Â % UI) | Potential percent increase in ART visits (95Â % UI) | Potential additional ART visits (95Â % UI) | |
10 % | 0 (0–0.005) | 0 (0–243) | 0 (0–0) | 0 (0–0) | 0 (0–0.07) | 0 (0–3730) |
20 % | 0.02 (0.005–0.1) | 1080 (222–4620) | 0.03 (0–0.06) | 664 (0–1270) | 0.2 (0.01–2) | 11,100 (710–106,000) |
30 % | 0.3 (0.04–1) | 1270 (1830–44,100) | 2 (0–4) | 38,800 (0–78,300) | 2 (0.2–7) | 117,000 (7130–333,000) |
40 % | 1 (0.2–4) | 50,800 (8490–168,000) | 5 (0.01–12) | 104,000 (253–245,000) | 5 (0.5–13) | 267,000 (22,400–633,000) |
50 % | 3 (1–9) | 142,000 (45,400–405,000) | 12 (1–23) | 241,000 (20,500–489,000) | 9 (2–21) | 456,000 (76,500–1,070,000) |
60 % | 9 (4–18) | 432,000 (186,000–843,000) | 27 (4–39) | 557,000 (85,000–815,000) | 14 (5–33) | 718,000 (234,000–1,690,000) |
70 % | 20 (10–32) | 924,000 (463,000–1,490,000) | 43 (10–57) | 903,000 (218,000–1,220,000) | 21 (10–48) | 1,140,000 (503,000–2,470,000) |
80 % | 33 (19–48) | 1,560,000 (871,000–2,250,000) | 62 (21–78) | 1,280,000 (444,000–1,630,000) | 33 (18–65) | 1,770,000 (884,000–3,440,000) |
90 % | 50 (31–66) | 2,330,000 (1,460,000–3,110,000) | 81 (34–99) | 1,690,000 (720,000–2,090,000) | 49 (29–84) | 2,590,000 (1,420,000–4,430,000) |
100 % | 67 (45–85) | 3,120,000 (2,120,000–3,970,000) | 101 (49–120) | 2,110,000 (1,030,000–2,550,000) | 65 (42–103) | 3,460,000 (2,100,000–5,440,000) |