Clinic-based index case testing

HIV prevalence was higher with clinic-based testing (6.8%) than home-based testing (2.4%), but the difference was not statistically significant (P=0.07), suggesting caregivers may select higher-risk c

Effect: null; 6.8% vs 2.4%

HIV prevalence was higher with clinic-based testing (6.8%) than home-based testing (2.4%), but the difference was not statistically significant (P=0.07), suggesting caregivers may select higher-risk c

Effect: null; 6.8% vs 2.4%

HIV prevalence was higher with clinic-based testing (6.8%) than home-based testing (2.4%), but the difference was not statistically significant (P=0.07), suggesting caregivers may select higher-risk c

Effect: null; 6.8% vs 2.4%

HIV prevalence was higher with clinic-based testing (6.8%) than home-based testing (2.4%), but the difference was not statistically significant (P=0.07), suggesting caregivers may select higher-risk c

Effect: null; 6.8% vs 2.4%

HIV prevalence was higher with clinic-based testing (6.8%) than home-based testing (2.4%), but the difference was not statistically significant (P=0.07), suggesting caregivers may select higher-risk c

Effect: null; 6.8% vs 2.4%

HIV prevalence was higher with clinic-based testing (6.8%) than home-based testing (2.4%), but the difference was not statistically significant (P=0.07), suggesting caregivers may select higher-risk c

Effect: null; 6.8% vs 2.4%

HIV prevalence was higher with clinic-based testing (6.8%) than home-based testing (2.4%), but the difference was not statistically significant (P=0.07), suggesting caregivers may select higher-risk c

Effect: null; 6.8% vs 2.4%

HIV prevalence was higher with clinic-based testing (6.8%) than home-based testing (2.4%), but the difference was not statistically significant (P=0.07), suggesting caregivers may select higher-risk c

Effect: null; 6.8% vs 2.4%

HIV prevalence was higher with clinic-based testing (6.8%) than home-based testing (2.4%), but the difference was not statistically significant (P=0.07), suggesting caregivers may select higher-risk c

Effect: null; 6.8% vs 2.4%

HIV prevalence was higher with clinic-based testing (6.8%) than home-based testing (2.4%), but the difference was not statistically significant (P=0.07), suggesting caregivers may select higher-risk c

Effect: null; 6.8% vs 2.4%

HIV prevalence was higher with clinic-based testing (6.8%) than home-based testing (2.4%), but the difference was not statistically significant (P=0.07), suggesting caregivers may select higher-risk c

Effect: null; 6.8% vs 2.4%

HIV prevalence was higher with clinic-based testing (6.8%) than home-based testing (2.4%), but the difference was not statistically significant (P=0.07), suggesting caregivers may select higher-risk c

Effect: null; 6.8% vs 2.4%

HIV prevalence was higher with clinic-based testing (6.8%) than home-based testing (2.4%), but the difference was not statistically significant (P=0.07), suggesting caregivers may select higher-risk c

Effect: null; 6.8% vs 2.4%

HIV prevalence was higher with clinic-based testing (6.8%) than home-based testing (2.4%), but the difference was not statistically significant (P=0.07), suggesting caregivers may select higher-risk c

Effect: null; 6.8% vs 2.4%

HIV prevalence was higher with clinic-based testing (6.8%) than home-based testing (2.4%), but the difference was not statistically significant (P=0.07), suggesting caregivers may select higher-risk c

Effect: null; 6.8% vs 2.4%

HIV prevalence was higher with clinic-based testing (6.8%) than home-based testing (2.4%), but the difference was not statistically significant (P=0.07), suggesting caregivers may select higher-risk c

Effect: null; 6.8% vs 2.4%

HIV prevalence was higher with clinic-based testing (6.8%) than home-based testing (2.4%), but the difference was not statistically significant (P=0.07), suggesting caregivers may select higher-risk c

Effect: null; 6.8% vs 2.4%

HIV prevalence was higher with clinic-based testing (6.8%) than home-based testing (2.4%), but the difference was not statistically significant (P=0.07), suggesting caregivers may select higher-risk c

Effect: null; 6.8% vs 2.4%

HIV prevalence was higher with clinic-based testing (6.8%) than home-based testing (2.4%), but the difference was not statistically significant (P=0.07), suggesting caregivers may select higher-risk c

Effect: null; 6.8% vs 2.4%

HIV prevalence was higher with clinic-based testing (6.8%) than home-based testing (2.4%), but the difference was not statistically significant (P=0.07), suggesting caregivers may select higher-risk c

Effect: null; 6.8% vs 2.4%

HIV prevalence was higher with clinic-based testing (6.8%) than home-based testing (2.4%), but the difference was not statistically significant (P=0.07), suggesting caregivers may select higher-risk c

Effect: null; 6.8% vs 2.4%

HIV prevalence was higher with clinic-based testing (6.8%) than home-based testing (2.4%), but the difference was not statistically significant (P=0.07), suggesting caregivers may select higher-risk c

Effect: null; 6.8% vs 2.4%

HIV prevalence was higher with clinic-based testing (6.8%) than home-based testing (2.4%), but the difference was not statistically significant (P=0.07), suggesting caregivers may select higher-risk c

Effect: null; 6.8% vs 2.4%

HIV prevalence was higher with clinic-based testing (6.8%) than home-based testing (2.4%), but the difference was not statistically significant (P=0.07), suggesting caregivers may select higher-risk c

Effect: null; 6.8% vs 2.4%

HIV prevalence was higher with clinic-based testing (6.8%) than home-based testing (2.4%), but the difference was not statistically significant (P=0.07), suggesting caregivers may select higher-risk c

Effect: null; 6.8% vs 2.4%

HIV prevalence was higher with clinic-based testing (6.8%) than home-based testing (2.4%), but the difference was not statistically significant (P=0.07), suggesting caregivers may select higher-risk c

Effect: null; 6.8% vs 2.4%

HIV prevalence was higher with clinic-based testing (6.8%) than home-based testing (2.4%), but the difference was not statistically significant (P=0.07), suggesting caregivers may select higher-risk c

Effect: null; 6.8% vs 2.4%