Skip to main content

Advertisement

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.