HIV prevalence

Among caregivers attending HIV care, 21% had an untested accompanying child and agreed to same-day testing, yielding a 6.9% HIV prevalence (10/145), demonstrating a feasible and efficient missed oppor

Effect: improvement; 6.9% HIV prevalence among same-day tested children

Among caregivers attending HIV care, 21% had an untested accompanying child and agreed to same-day testing, yielding a 6.9% HIV prevalence (10/145), demonstrating a feasible and efficient missed oppor

Effect: improvement; 6.9% HIV prevalence among same-day tested children

Among caregivers attending HIV care, 21% had an untested accompanying child and agreed to same-day testing, yielding a 6.9% HIV prevalence (10/145), demonstrating a feasible and efficient missed oppor

Effect: improvement; 6.9% HIV prevalence among same-day tested children

Among caregivers attending HIV care, 21% had an untested accompanying child and agreed to same-day testing, yielding a 6.9% HIV prevalence (10/145), demonstrating a feasible and efficient missed oppor

Effect: improvement; 6.9% HIV prevalence among same-day tested children

Among caregivers attending HIV care, 21% had an untested accompanying child and agreed to same-day testing, yielding a 6.9% HIV prevalence (10/145), demonstrating a feasible and efficient missed oppor

Effect: improvement; 6.9% HIV prevalence among same-day tested children

Among caregivers attending HIV care, 21% had an untested accompanying child and agreed to same-day testing, yielding a 6.9% HIV prevalence (10/145), demonstrating a feasible and efficient missed oppor

Effect: improvement; 6.9% HIV prevalence among same-day tested children

Among caregivers attending HIV care, 21% had an untested accompanying child and agreed to same-day testing, yielding a 6.9% HIV prevalence (10/145), demonstrating a feasible and efficient missed oppor

Effect: improvement; 6.9% HIV prevalence among same-day tested children

Among caregivers attending HIV care, 21% had an untested accompanying child and agreed to same-day testing, yielding a 6.9% HIV prevalence (10/145), demonstrating a feasible and efficient missed oppor

Effect: improvement; 6.9% HIV prevalence among same-day tested children

Among caregivers attending HIV care, 21% had an untested accompanying child and agreed to same-day testing, yielding a 6.9% HIV prevalence (10/145), demonstrating a feasible and efficient missed oppor

Effect: improvement; 6.9% HIV prevalence among same-day tested children

Among caregivers attending HIV care, 21% had an untested accompanying child and agreed to same-day testing, yielding a 6.9% HIV prevalence (10/145), demonstrating a feasible and efficient missed oppor

Effect: improvement; 6.9% HIV prevalence among same-day tested children

Among caregivers attending HIV care, 21% had an untested accompanying child and agreed to same-day testing, yielding a 6.9% HIV prevalence (10/145), demonstrating a feasible and efficient missed oppor

Effect: improvement; 6.9% HIV prevalence among same-day tested children

Among caregivers attending HIV care, 21% had an untested accompanying child and agreed to same-day testing, yielding a 6.9% HIV prevalence (10/145), demonstrating a feasible and efficient missed oppor

Effect: improvement; 6.9% HIV prevalence among same-day tested children

Among caregivers attending HIV care, 21% had an untested accompanying child and agreed to same-day testing, yielding a 6.9% HIV prevalence (10/145), demonstrating a feasible and efficient missed oppor

Effect: improvement; 6.9% HIV prevalence among same-day tested children

Among caregivers attending HIV care, 21% had an untested accompanying child and agreed to same-day testing, yielding a 6.9% HIV prevalence (10/145), demonstrating a feasible and efficient missed oppor

Effect: improvement; 6.9% HIV prevalence among same-day tested children

Among caregivers attending HIV care, 21% had an untested accompanying child and agreed to same-day testing, yielding a 6.9% HIV prevalence (10/145), demonstrating a feasible and efficient missed oppor

Effect: improvement; 6.9% HIV prevalence among same-day tested children

Among caregivers attending HIV care, 21% had an untested accompanying child and agreed to same-day testing, yielding a 6.9% HIV prevalence (10/145), demonstrating a feasible and efficient missed oppor

Effect: improvement; 6.9% HIV prevalence among same-day tested children

Among caregivers attending HIV care, 21% had an untested accompanying child and agreed to same-day testing, yielding a 6.9% HIV prevalence (10/145), demonstrating a feasible and efficient missed oppor

Effect: improvement; 6.9% HIV prevalence among same-day tested children

Among caregivers attending HIV care, 21% had an untested accompanying child and agreed to same-day testing, yielding a 6.9% HIV prevalence (10/145), demonstrating a feasible and efficient missed oppor

Effect: improvement; 6.9% HIV prevalence among same-day tested children

Among caregivers attending HIV care, 21% had an untested accompanying child and agreed to same-day testing, yielding a 6.9% HIV prevalence (10/145), demonstrating a feasible and efficient missed oppor

Effect: improvement; 6.9% HIV prevalence among same-day tested children

Among caregivers attending HIV care, 21% had an untested accompanying child and agreed to same-day testing, yielding a 6.9% HIV prevalence (10/145), demonstrating a feasible and efficient missed oppor

Effect: improvement; 6.9% HIV prevalence among same-day tested children

Among caregivers attending HIV care, 21% had an untested accompanying child and agreed to same-day testing, yielding a 6.9% HIV prevalence (10/145), demonstrating a feasible and efficient missed oppor

Effect: improvement; 6.9% HIV prevalence among same-day tested children

Among caregivers attending HIV care, 21% had an untested accompanying child and agreed to same-day testing, yielding a 6.9% HIV prevalence (10/145), demonstrating a feasible and efficient missed oppor

Effect: improvement; 6.9% HIV prevalence among same-day tested children

Among caregivers attending HIV care, 21% had an untested accompanying child and agreed to same-day testing, yielding a 6.9% HIV prevalence (10/145), demonstrating a feasible and efficient missed oppor

Effect: improvement; 6.9% HIV prevalence among same-day tested children

Among caregivers attending HIV care, 21% had an untested accompanying child and agreed to same-day testing, yielding a 6.9% HIV prevalence (10/145), demonstrating a feasible and efficient missed oppor

Effect: improvement; 6.9% HIV prevalence among same-day tested children

Among caregivers attending HIV care, 21% had an untested accompanying child and agreed to same-day testing, yielding a 6.9% HIV prevalence (10/145), demonstrating a feasible and efficient missed oppor

Effect: improvement; 6.9% HIV prevalence among same-day tested children

Among caregivers attending HIV care, 21% had an untested accompanying child and agreed to same-day testing, yielding a 6.9% HIV prevalence (10/145), demonstrating a feasible and efficient missed oppor

Effect: improvement; 6.9% HIV prevalence among same-day tested children

Among caregivers attending HIV care, 21% had an untested accompanying child and agreed to same-day testing, yielding a 6.9% HIV prevalence (10/145), demonstrating a feasible and efficient missed oppor

Effect: improvement; 6.9% HIV prevalence among same-day tested children

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%