TABLE 3

EPSC Results From Household-Based Recruitment Methodology

Study Location% of DUs Approached% of HH Enumerated% of PS Completed% of Women Identified as Pregnant From PS% of Pregnant Women Consenteda% of Prepregnant Women Consenteda
Urban locations
 Honolulu County, Hawaii38.347.971.87.572.358.2
 St. Louis City, Missouri29.454.767.86.765.059.4
 Polk County, Iowa89.747.286.24.162.868.8
 San Diego County, California62.060.979.04.356.956.6
 Cuyahoga County, Ohio29.146.762.65.486.463.2
 Urban summary45.651.675.75.166.761.7
Rural locations
 Baker County, Florida74.750.766.613.777.856.8
 Valencia County, New Mexico31.837.449.39.886.854.2
 Cumberland County, Maine73.641.689.42.764.964.9
 Pinal County, Arizona22.534.899.74.764.670.2
 Grant County, Washington81.827.497.88.456.152.9
 Rural summary57.638.281.76.269.660.2
Overall51.244.678.45.668.261.1
  • HH, household; PS, pregnancy screening.

  • a Total enrolled women at the initial PS according to pregnancy status and urban versus rural locations (N = 1404): pregnant women enrolled at the initial PS, n = 394 urban and n = 442 rural (836 total); prepregnant women enrolled at the initial PS, n = 332 urban and n = 236 rural (568 total).