Skip to main content

Table 4 Socio-economic status (SES) and rural/urban differences in ranking of preferences for treating malaria

From: Do consumers' preferences for improved provision of malaria treatment services differ by their socio-economic status and geographic location? A study in southeast Nigeria

 

CHW

PHC centre

Public Hospital

Train mothers

Patent medicine dealer

Herbalists

Private hospital

 

n (%)

n (%)

n (%)

n (%)

n (%)

n (%)

n (%)

SES

       

Q1 most poor

66(10.8)

107(17.4)

196(31.9)

123(20.0)

17(2.8)

41(6.7)

62(10.1)

Q2 very poor

78(12.7)

99(16.1)

167(27.2)

141(22.9)

40(6.5)

33(5.4)

57(9.3)

Q3 poor

82(13.3)

120(19.5)

153(24.8)

119(19.3)

31(5.0)

26(4.2)

81(13.2)

Q4 least poor

79(13.0)

123(20.2)

225(37.0)

90 (14.8)

15(2.5)

20(3.3)

55(9.1)

Equity (Q1:Q4) ratio

0.83

0.86

0.86

1.35

1.12

2.03

1.11

Chi-square(p-value

2.3(.52)

4.4 (.22)

25.3(<.01)

13.3(.004)

16.8(.001)

8.4(.038)

7.1(.07)

R/U

       

Rural

142(11.5)

207(16.8)

399(32.4)

232(18.9)

549(4.4)

77(6.3)

115(9.4)

Urban

165(13.2)

244(19.5)

362(28.9)

242(19.3)

50 (4.0)

44(3.5)

140(11.2)

Equity (R:U) ratio

0.87

0.86

1.12

0.98

1.10

1.80

1.84

Chi-square (p-value

1.6 (.21)

3.0(.086)

3.6 (.059)

.09(.76)

.24(.63)

10.0(.002)

2.3(.13)