Table 1.Socio-demographic characteristics
|
Variables |
Number |
Percentage |
|
Age(year) | ||
|
_______________≤ 19_______________ |
___________________13___________________ |
_______________________2.8_______________________ |
|
_______________20 - 24_______________ |
__________________88__________________ |
_____________________18.9_____________________ |
|
_______________25 - 29_______________ |
___________________185___________________ |
____________________39.8_____________________ |
|
_______________30 - 34_______________ |
___________________139___________________ |
____________________29.5_____________________ |
|
______________≥ 35______________ |
__________________40__________________ |
_______________________8.6_______________________ |
|
_______________Tribes_______________ | ||
|
Yoruba |
_________________443_________________ |
____________________92.5_____________________ |
|
Ibo |
__________________24__________________ |
___________________________5.1___________________________ |
|
Hausa |
_______________________3_______________________ |
_______________________0.6_______________________ |
|
Other tribes |
_____________________8_____________________ |
_________________________1.7_________________________ |
|
Religion | ||
|
Christianity |
__________________243_________________ |
____________________52.0_____________________ |
|
Islam |
____________________221____________________ |
____________________47.3_____________________ |
|
_____________Others_____________ |
_______________________3_______________________ |
_______________________0.6_______________________ |
|
Educational Status | ||
|
None |
__________________50__________________ |
_______________________0.8_______________________ |
|
Primary |
___________________139___________________ |
____________________29.9_____________________ |
|
Secondary |
__________________215_________________ |
____________________46.2_____________________ |
|
Tertiary |
______________________61_______________________ |
________________________13.1________________________ |
|
Employment Status | ||
|
Government employed |
__________________86__________________ |
_____________________18.5_____________________ |
|
Private employed |
__________________47__________________ |
________________________10.1________________________ |
|
Self-employed |
__________________207_________________ |
____________________44.6_____________________ |
|
Unemployed |
__________________63__________________ |
_____________________13.6_____________________ |
|
Students |
______________________61_______________________ |
________________________13.1________________________ |
|
Husband’s Educational Status | ||
|
None |
___________________18___________________ |
_______________________3.9_______________________ |
|
Primary |
___________________22___________________ |
_______________________4.8_______________________ |
|
Secondary |
__________________144_________________ |
____________________31.6_____________________ |
|
Tertiary |
__________________272_________________ |
____________________59.6_____________________ |
|
Parity | ||
|
Para 0 |
___________________139___________________ |
____________________29.6_____________________ |
|
Para 1 and above |
____________________331____________________ |
___________________70.4___________________ |
OnGiwJJouniafqfHeaftfi ancfjMfιeιfSciences
On bivariate analysis, those who earned lesser income
were more likely to book late compared to those who
earned more,(p < 0.01). So also, those were less than 25
years, 91(91.1%) were significantly likely to register late
compared to those that were older, 276(78.9%), p < 0.01.
Those who had no previous caesarean delivery,
262(81.9%) would more likely book late compared to
those with previous caesarean section, 33(75.0%), p >
0.05. Those who had no complaints in index pregnancy,
321(82.1%) booked later than those who had complaints,
28(73.7%), p > 0.05. Those who had no problems in the
last delivery, 246(81.7%) were more likely to book late
compared to those who had problems, 50(75.8%), p >
0.05. Those in polygamous union, 107(78.7%) were more
likely to register late compared to those who were in
monogamous union, 307(80.8%), p > 0.05. Multiparous
women were more likely book late compared to Nulli-
parous women, 107(78.7%), p > 0.05. Those who had pri-
mary school education or none, 152(85.4%) were more
likely to register late compared to those who had sec-
ondary school education and above, 215(79.3%), p >
0.05. Pregnant women whose husband had primary
school education or none, 33(86.8%) would more likely
book late compared to those whose husband had sec-
ondary school education and above, 325(81.0%), p > 0.05
(Table 2).
OJHAS Vol 7 Issue 1(4) Adekanle DA et al. Late Antenatal Care Booking And Its Predictors Among Pregnant Women In South Western Nigeria
http://ojhas.org
More intriguing information
1. ANTI-COMPETITIVE FINANCIAL CONTRACTING: THE DESIGN OF FINANCIAL CLAIMS.2. Spatial patterns in intermunicipal Danish commuting
3. The name is absent
4. The name is absent
5. Dynamiques des Entreprises Agroalimentaires (EAA) du Languedoc-Roussillon : évolutions 1998-2003. Programme de recherche PSDR 2001-2006 financé par l'Inra et la Région Languedoc-Roussillon
6. Constrained School Choice
7. The name is absent
8. Markets for Influence
9. CONSUMER PERCEPTION ON ALTERNATIVE POULTRY
10. The name is absent