Index Case Epidemiology

Index case testing achieved 70% uptake among enrolled caregivers (347/493 completed testing for at least one child), with 80% of testers choosing clinic-based testing and 61% of all eligible children

Effect: improvement; 70%

Index case testing achieved 70% uptake among enrolled caregivers (347/493 completed testing for at least one child), with 80% of testers choosing clinic-based testing and 61% of all eligible children

Effect: improvement; 70%

Index case testing achieved 70% uptake among enrolled caregivers (347/493 completed testing for at least one child), with 80% of testers choosing clinic-based testing and 61% of all eligible children

Effect: improvement; 70%

Index case testing achieved 70% uptake among enrolled caregivers (347/493 completed testing for at least one child), with 80% of testers choosing clinic-based testing and 61% of all eligible children

Effect: improvement; 70%

Index case testing achieved 70% uptake among enrolled caregivers (347/493 completed testing for at least one child), with 80% of testers choosing clinic-based testing and 61% of all eligible children

Effect: improvement; 70%

Index case testing achieved 70% uptake among enrolled caregivers (347/493 completed testing for at least one child), with 80% of testers choosing clinic-based testing and 61% of all eligible children

Effect: improvement; 70%

Index case testing achieved 70% uptake among enrolled caregivers (347/493 completed testing for at least one child), with 80% of testers choosing clinic-based testing and 61% of all eligible children

Effect: improvement; 70%

Index case testing achieved 70% uptake among enrolled caregivers (347/493 completed testing for at least one child), with 80% of testers choosing clinic-based testing and 61% of all eligible children

Effect: improvement; 70%

Index case testing achieved 70% uptake among enrolled caregivers (347/493 completed testing for at least one child), with 80% of testers choosing clinic-based testing and 61% of all eligible children

Effect: improvement; 70%

Index case testing achieved 70% uptake among enrolled caregivers (347/493 completed testing for at least one child), with 80% of testers choosing clinic-based testing and 61% of all eligible children

Effect: improvement; 70%

Index case testing achieved 70% uptake among enrolled caregivers (347/493 completed testing for at least one child), with 80% of testers choosing clinic-based testing and 61% of all eligible children

Effect: improvement; 70%

Index case testing achieved 70% uptake among enrolled caregivers (347/493 completed testing for at least one child), with 80% of testers choosing clinic-based testing and 61% of all eligible children

Effect: improvement; 70%

Index case testing achieved 70% uptake among enrolled caregivers (347/493 completed testing for at least one child), with 80% of testers choosing clinic-based testing and 61% of all eligible children

Effect: improvement; 70%

Index case testing achieved 70% uptake among enrolled caregivers (347/493 completed testing for at least one child), with 80% of testers choosing clinic-based testing and 61% of all eligible children

Effect: improvement; 70%

Index case testing achieved 70% uptake among enrolled caregivers (347/493 completed testing for at least one child), with 80% of testers choosing clinic-based testing and 61% of all eligible children

Effect: improvement; 70%

Index case testing achieved 70% uptake among enrolled caregivers (347/493 completed testing for at least one child), with 80% of testers choosing clinic-based testing and 61% of all eligible children

Effect: improvement; 70%

Index case testing achieved 70% uptake among enrolled caregivers (347/493 completed testing for at least one child), with 80% of testers choosing clinic-based testing and 61% of all eligible children

Effect: improvement; 70%

Index case testing achieved 70% uptake among enrolled caregivers (347/493 completed testing for at least one child), with 80% of testers choosing clinic-based testing and 61% of all eligible children

Effect: improvement; 70%

Index case testing achieved 70% uptake among enrolled caregivers (347/493 completed testing for at least one child), with 80% of testers choosing clinic-based testing and 61% of all eligible children

Effect: improvement; 70%

Index case testing achieved 70% uptake among enrolled caregivers (347/493 completed testing for at least one child), with 80% of testers choosing clinic-based testing and 61% of all eligible children

Effect: improvement; 70%

Index case testing achieved 70% uptake among enrolled caregivers (347/493 completed testing for at least one child), with 80% of testers choosing clinic-based testing and 61% of all eligible children

Effect: improvement; 70%

Index case testing achieved 70% uptake among enrolled caregivers (347/493 completed testing for at least one child), with 80% of testers choosing clinic-based testing and 61% of all eligible children

Effect: improvement; 70%

Index case testing achieved 70% uptake among enrolled caregivers (347/493 completed testing for at least one child), with 80% of testers choosing clinic-based testing and 61% of all eligible children

Effect: improvement; 70%

Index case testing achieved 70% uptake among enrolled caregivers (347/493 completed testing for at least one child), with 80% of testers choosing clinic-based testing and 61% of all eligible children

Effect: improvement; 70%

Index case testing achieved 70% uptake among enrolled caregivers (347/493 completed testing for at least one child), with 80% of testers choosing clinic-based testing and 61% of all eligible children

Effect: improvement; 70%

Index case testing achieved 70% uptake among enrolled caregivers (347/493 completed testing for at least one child), with 80% of testers choosing clinic-based testing and 61% of all eligible children

Effect: improvement; 70%

Index case testing achieved 70% uptake among enrolled caregivers (347/493 completed testing for at least one child), with 80% of testers choosing clinic-based testing and 61% of all eligible children

Effect: improvement; 70%

Index case testing identified a 5.8% HIV prevalence among 521 tested children of HIV-positive caregivers, higher than community-based universal testing (1.3%) and consistent with pooled index case tes

Effect: improvement; 5.8% (30/521)

Index case testing identified a 5.8% HIV prevalence among 521 tested children of HIV-positive caregivers, higher than community-based universal testing (1.3%) and consistent with pooled index case tes

Effect: improvement; 5.8% (30/521)

Index case testing identified a 5.8% HIV prevalence among 521 tested children of HIV-positive caregivers, higher than community-based universal testing (1.3%) and consistent with pooled index case tes

Effect: improvement; 5.8% (30/521)

Index case testing identified a 5.8% HIV prevalence among 521 tested children of HIV-positive caregivers, higher than community-based universal testing (1.3%) and consistent with pooled index case tes

Effect: improvement; 5.8% (30/521)

Index case testing identified a 5.8% HIV prevalence among 521 tested children of HIV-positive caregivers, higher than community-based universal testing (1.3%) and consistent with pooled index case tes

Effect: improvement; 5.8% (30/521)

Index case testing identified a 5.8% HIV prevalence among 521 tested children of HIV-positive caregivers, higher than community-based universal testing (1.3%) and consistent with pooled index case tes

Effect: improvement; 5.8% (30/521)

Index case testing identified a 5.8% HIV prevalence among 521 tested children of HIV-positive caregivers, higher than community-based universal testing (1.3%) and consistent with pooled index case tes

Effect: improvement; 5.8% (30/521)

Index case testing identified a 5.8% HIV prevalence among 521 tested children of HIV-positive caregivers, higher than community-based universal testing (1.3%) and consistent with pooled index case tes

Effect: improvement; 5.8% (30/521)

Index case testing identified a 5.8% HIV prevalence among 521 tested children of HIV-positive caregivers, higher than community-based universal testing (1.3%) and consistent with pooled index case tes

Effect: improvement; 5.8% (30/521)

Index case testing identified a 5.8% HIV prevalence among 521 tested children of HIV-positive caregivers, higher than community-based universal testing (1.3%) and consistent with pooled index case tes

Effect: improvement; 5.8% (30/521)

Index case testing identified a 5.8% HIV prevalence among 521 tested children of HIV-positive caregivers, higher than community-based universal testing (1.3%) and consistent with pooled index case tes

Effect: improvement; 5.8% (30/521)

Index case testing identified a 5.8% HIV prevalence among 521 tested children of HIV-positive caregivers, higher than community-based universal testing (1.3%) and consistent with pooled index case tes

Effect: improvement; 5.8% (30/521)

Index case testing identified a 5.8% HIV prevalence among 521 tested children of HIV-positive caregivers, higher than community-based universal testing (1.3%) and consistent with pooled index case tes

Effect: improvement; 5.8% (30/521)

Index case testing identified a 5.8% HIV prevalence among 521 tested children of HIV-positive caregivers, higher than community-based universal testing (1.3%) and consistent with pooled index case tes

Effect: improvement; 5.8% (30/521)

Index case testing identified a 5.8% HIV prevalence among 521 tested children of HIV-positive caregivers, higher than community-based universal testing (1.3%) and consistent with pooled index case tes

Effect: improvement; 5.8% (30/521)

Index case testing identified a 5.8% HIV prevalence among 521 tested children of HIV-positive caregivers, higher than community-based universal testing (1.3%) and consistent with pooled index case tes

Effect: improvement; 5.8% (30/521)

Index case testing identified a 5.8% HIV prevalence among 521 tested children of HIV-positive caregivers, higher than community-based universal testing (1.3%) and consistent with pooled index case tes

Effect: improvement; 5.8% (30/521)

Index case testing identified a 5.8% HIV prevalence among 521 tested children of HIV-positive caregivers, higher than community-based universal testing (1.3%) and consistent with pooled index case tes

Effect: improvement; 5.8% (30/521)

Index case testing identified a 5.8% HIV prevalence among 521 tested children of HIV-positive caregivers, higher than community-based universal testing (1.3%) and consistent with pooled index case tes

Effect: improvement; 5.8% (30/521)

Index case testing identified a 5.8% HIV prevalence among 521 tested children of HIV-positive caregivers, higher than community-based universal testing (1.3%) and consistent with pooled index case tes

Effect: improvement; 5.8% (30/521)

Index case testing identified a 5.8% HIV prevalence among 521 tested children of HIV-positive caregivers, higher than community-based universal testing (1.3%) and consistent with pooled index case tes

Effect: improvement; 5.8% (30/521)

Index case testing identified a 5.8% HIV prevalence among 521 tested children of HIV-positive caregivers, higher than community-based universal testing (1.3%) and consistent with pooled index case tes

Effect: improvement; 5.8% (30/521)

Index case testing identified a 5.8% HIV prevalence among 521 tested children of HIV-positive caregivers, higher than community-based universal testing (1.3%) and consistent with pooled index case tes

Effect: improvement; 5.8% (30/521)