3.8 Article

Choices and determinants of malaria treatment seeking behaviour by rural households in Enugu state, South-East Nigeria

出版社

ROUTLEDGE JOURNALS, TAYLOR & FRANCIS LTD
DOI: 10.1080/14635240.2020.1730703

关键词

choice of treatment provider; treatment seeking behaviour; malaria; rural household; determinants; Nigeria

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Malaria is a significant health issue in Nigeria and Africa, with a large percentage of the population exposed to it. Factors such as education level, treatment cost, illness severity, and distance to health facility determine the choice of treatment provider. 'Chemists' were found to be the most visited treatment provider.
Malaria has been found to be a significant contributor to the poor health problem in Nigeria and in Africa. It kills people more than any other infectious disease and about 80% of Nigerian population is exposed to malaria. Several factors influence the choices of households' treatment provider. This study examines the choices and determinants of malaria treatment seeking behaviour given the demographic characteristics of rural households. Household data were collected through a structured interviewer-administered questionnaire on 600 households selected from the three senatorial zones of Enugu state and analysed using frequencies and regression analysis. It was found that 43% of farmers, 44% of traders, 44% of skilled labourers and 30% of civil servants sourced treatment from 'chemists' while 12% of farmers, 20% of traders, 23% of skilled labourers and 40% of civil servants sourced treatment from hospital. Education level of household head, cost of treatment, severity and nearness to facility were found to statistically determine the choice of treatment provider (P < 0.005). The study concluded that educational attainment, distance to health facility, severity of illness and financial status of household head majorly determined the choice of malaria treatment and 'chemist' appeared the most-visited treatment provider.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

3.8
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据