Table 1 Logistic regression assessing the effect of household socio-economic status on ITN ownership after the net distribution campaigns
Factors | Number of households | Number of households with at least one ITN (%) | Odd Ratios (95% CI) |
|---|---|---|---|
Total number of households | 987 | 650 (65.9) | Â |
Wealth quintiles | Â | Â | Â |
   Lowest | 196 | 117 (59.7) | 1.18 (0.63; 2.22) |
   Second | 197 | 134 (68.0) | 1.44 (0.77; 2.70) |
   Third | 198 | 134 (67.7) | 1.29 (0.70; 2.36) |
   Fourth | 198 | 138 (69.7) | 1.48 (0.82; 2.69) |
   Highest | 198 | 127 (64.1) | 1 |
Campaign wave | Â | Â | Â |
   Wave1 (May 2009) | 492 | 309 (62.8) | 1 |
   Wave2 (July 2009) | 495 | 341 (68.9) | 0.93 (0.64; 1.36) |
Place of residence | Â | Â | Â |
   Urban | 294 | 202 (68.7) | 1 |
   Rural | 693 | 448 (64.6) | 0.89 (0.58; 1.37) |
Education level of head of household | Â | Â | |
   None | 653 | 411 (62.9) | 1 |
   Primary | 168 | 130 (77.4) | 2.31 (1.32; 4.05) |
   Secondary | 118 | 77 (65.3) | 1.35 (0.71; 2.57) |
   Higher | 29 | 24 (82.8) | 7.88 (2.21; 28.10) |
   Missing | 19 | 11 (57.9) |  |
Size of the household | Â | Â | Â |
   1 member | 62 | 38 (61.3) |  |
   2-4 members | 460 | 315 (68.5) | 0.44 (0.19; 0.99) |
   5-7 members | 359 | 226 (63.0) | 0.3 (0.12; 0.71) |
   8 and more members | 106 | 71 (67.0) | 0.3 (0.11; 0.82) |
Pregnant woman in the household | Â | Â | |
   Yes | 122 | 83 (68.0) | 0.89 (0.50; 1.58) |
   No | 865 | 567 (65.5) | 1 |
Under five in the household | Â | Â | Â |
   Yes | 625 | 415 (66.4) | 1.18 (0.77; 1.79) |
   No | 362 | 235 (64.9) | 1 |
Household present at distribution point | Â | Â | |
   Yes | 694 | 601 (86.6) | 38.49 (25.26; 58.66) |
   No | 293 | 49 (16.7) |  |