Table 1.
socio-demographics of study participants, comparing those who received intervention and those in the control group
| Characteristic (n=96) | Intervention n (%), (n=48) | Control n (%), (n=48) | P-value* |
|---|---|---|---|
| Age category | 0.306 | ||
| <20 | 9 (18.8) | 11 (22.9) | |
| 20-24 | 19 (39.6) | 13 (27.1) | |
| 25-29 | 11 (22.9) | 18 (37.5) | |
| 30-37 | 9 (18.8) | 6 (12.5) | |
| Address; Rural | 34 (70.8) | 24 (50.0) | 0.037 |
| Married | 47 (97.9) | 48 (100) | 0.315 |
| Education level | 0.492 | ||
| None | 6 (12.5) | 2 (4.2) | |
| Primary | 21 (43.8) | 21 (43.8) | |
| O'level | 15 (31.3) | 17 (35.4) | |
| Tertiary | 6 (12.5) | 8 (16.7) | |
| Occupation | 0.641 | ||
| Peasant farmer | 17 (35.4) | 20 (41.7) | |
| Business | 16 (33.3) | 17 (35.4) | |
| Professional | 15 (31.3) | 11 (22.9) | |
| Income <100000 | 29 (60.4) | 22 (45.8) | 0.152 |
| Partners factors | 0.797 | ||
| Education level | |||
| None | 3 (6.4) | 3 (6.3) | |
| Primary | 19 (40.4) | 17 (35.4) | |
| O'level | 18 (38.3) | 17 (35.4) | |
| Tertiary | 7 (14.9) | 11 (22.9) | |
| Occupation | 0.343 | ||
| Peasant farmer | 12 (25.5) | 7 (14.6) | |
| Business | 30 (63.8) | 33 (68.8) | |
| Professional | 5 (10.6) | 8 (16.7) | |
| Income | 0.331 | ||
| <100000UGX | 9 (19.2) | 5 (10.4) | |
| 100000-299999.99UGX | 24 (51.1) | 23 (47.9) | |
| ≥300000UGX | 14 (29.8) | 20 (41.7) | |
| Supportive partner | 46 (97.9) | 47 (97.9) | 0.988 |
| Primary caretaker | |||
| First degree relative | 30 (62.5) | 36 (75.0) | 0.310 |
| Other relatives | 13 (27.1) | 7 (14.6) | |
| Friends/ none | 5 (10.4) | 5 (10.4) |
O' level-ordinary secondary school education level; UGX-Uganda shillings