Skip to main content

Table 1 Characteristics of respondents in comparison and intervention districts

From: The impact of a hybrid social marketing intervention on inequities in access, ownership and use of insecticide-treated nets

 

(1) Comparison (n = 1186)

(2) Intervention (n = 1800)

(3) Test statistica

(4) p

Age of respondent

30.1

29.9

0.74

0.461

Number of children in household

3.1

3.1

-0.33

0.743

Number of children under 5 in household

1.7

1.7

-0.12

0.904

Number of children 5–14 in household

1.4

1.4

-0.29

0.770

Marital status

    

   Married

85.8%

87.9%

5.88b

0.118

   Cohabiting

0.3%

0.3%

  

   Widowed/divorced/separated

9.6%

7.2%

  

   Single

4.3%

4.6%

  

Sex: Male

26.7%

28.7%

-1.19

0.233

Residence: Rural

82.2%

76.1%

4.07

0.000

Asset index

2.6

2.9

-3.48

0.001

Assets

    

   Low (0–1)

30.6%

27.3%

25.41b

0.000

   Medium low (2)

29.0%

24.1%

  

   Medium (3)

19.7%

20.5%

  

   High (4–15)

20.7%

28.1%

  

Number of years of schooling completed

4.4

5.6

-8.77

0.000

Schooling

    

   No school

34.5%

20.6%

84.80b

0.000

   Junior primary

16.5%

15.1%

  

   Senior primary

29.1%

35.9%

  

   Junior secondary

11.0%

16.4%

  

   Senior secondary or higher

8.9%

12.0%

  
  1. a All tests for the differences between control and intervention districts are independent sample t-tests unless specified otherwise. bχ2-tests.