Table 6.
SES differences in use of OOPS for respondents and other household members
| Respondents n (%) | Other household members n (%) | |
|---|---|---|
| Abakiliki | N (%) | N (%) |
| Q1 (most poor) | 47 (22) | 52 (20) |
| Q2 (very poor) | 60 (29) | 61 (22) |
| Q3 (poor) | 45 (21) | 76 (29) |
| Q4 (least poor) | 58 (28) | 76 (29) |
| Chi-square | 7.16* | 24.21*** |
| Poor-rich ratio | 0.81 | 0.68 |
| Concentration index | 0.03 | 0.10 |
| Ezilo | ||
| Q1 (most poor) | 46 (22) | 42 (20) |
| Q2 (very poor) | 48 (23) | 48 (24) |
| Q3 (poor) | 59 (29) | 57 (28) |
| Q4 (least poor) | 52 (26) | 57 (28) |
| Chi-square | 4.25 | 7.32* |
| Poor-rich ratio | 0.88 | 0.74 |
| Concentration index | 0.04 | 0.06 |
| Nkalagu | ||
| Q1 (most poor) | 65(24) | 63 (20) |
| Q2 (very poor) | 61 (22) | 76 (25) |
| Q3 (poor) | 73 (27) | 83 (27) |
| Q4 (least poor) | 74 (27) | 86 (28) |
| Chi-square | 6.35* | 22.55*** |
| Poor-rich ratio | 0.88 | 0.73 |
| Concentration index | 0.04 | 0.06 |
| Eke-na-ene | ||
| Q1 (most poor) | 43 (23) | 33 (21) |
| Q2 (very poor) | 45 (25) | 33 (21) |
| Q3 (poor) | 51 (27) | 47 (30) |
| Q4 (least poor) | 45 (25) | 44 (28) |
| Chi-square | 2.35 | 9.38 |
| Poor-rich ratio | 0.50 | 0.03** |
| Concentration index | 0.01 | 0.03 |
| Enugu | ||
| Q1 (most poor) | 74 (24) | 64 (22) |
| Q2 (very poor) | 80 (26) | 74 (25) |
| Q3 (poor) | 78 (25) | 76 (25) |
| Q4 (least poor) | 78 (25) | 83 (28) |
| Chi-square | 2.66 | 16.14*** |
| Poor-rich ratio | 0.9 | 0.77 |
| Concentration index | 0.01 | 0.05 |
| Udi | ||
| Q1 (most poor) | 32 (28) | 24 (20) |
| Q2 (very poor) | 26 (23) | 22 (19) |
| Q3 (poor) | 30 (27) | 34 (29) |
| Q4 (least poor) | 25 (22) | 38 (32) |
| Chi-square | 0.90 | 10.00** |
| Poor-rich ratio | 1.28 | 0.63 |
| Concentration index | -0.02 | 0.13 |
Note: * = p < 0.10; ** = p < 0.05; and ***p < 0.01