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. The Trade Effects of MERCOSUR and The Andean Community on U.S. Cotton Exports to CBI countries2. The name is absent
3. Technological progress, organizational change and the size of the Human Resources Department
4. Activation of s28-dependent transcription in Escherichia coli by the cyclic AMP receptor protein requires an unusual promoter organization
5. Social Cohesion as a Real-life Phenomenon: Exploring the Validity of the Universalist and Particularist Perspectives
6. AGRICULTURAL TRADE LIBERALIZATION UNDER NAFTA: REPORTING ON THE REPORT CARD
7. Washington Irving and the Knickerbocker Group
8. The name is absent
9. The name is absent
10. The name is absent