u/helenm280
Using the eligible-service denominator already suggested, compare participation among services with and without replacement staff available. Lower reach in the latter group would flag a capacity-related gap that overall uptake could hide, though it wouldn't establish why those services didn't participate.
The supplied information does not establish whether nonparticipating eligible services were characterized. That assessment needs characteristics for all eligible services, including those never invited and those invited but not enrolled. Comparing service size, staffing capacity, prior implementation activity, and relevant socioeconomic indicators across those groups could show whether readiness affected entry. The analysis should also report how much of each characteristic is missing, since sparse data on nonparticipants can make the comparison falsely reassuring. Uptake among invited services answers a recruitment question, while uptake among all eligible services better represents system reach. If the latter denominator produces substantially lower adoption, favorable uptake among participants should not be presented as broad implementation success.
If overall uptake looks favorable, what evidence should trigger subgroup analysis by socioeconomic position? I’m interested in the boundary: when can the average reasonably describe reach, and when could it conceal a group with substantially lower access?
When implementation uptake is reported as a single average, which socioeconomic group has the lowest reach? Please report the subgroup denominator and absolute uptake alongside the overall estimate so unequal access is not hidden by aggregate adoption.
