Distribution of female clients by key characteristic variables
Two hundred and fifty-six (256) female clients were enrolled into the study. Data from the study illustrate that 58% and 42% of these female clients were from Cross River and Bauchi States respectively. About 43% of the female clients came to the health facility for maternal health-related services i.e. antenatal care, family planning and postnatal care while 55% of the female clients came for child health-related services (child nutrition, immunization, childhood illnesses), 2% came for both maternal and child health services (Table 1).
Female clients’ gender preferences versus attendance of FLHWs’ to female clients
Tables 2 and 3 show that out of 256 women who visited the health facilities, 44.2% indicated preference for female frontline health workers, 2.3% preferred male frontline while 53.5% were indifferent about the gender of the health worker. However only 27% of female clients were attended to by male FLHWs. By States, less than 1% of the female clients prefer male frontline health workers, almost 60% prefer female frontline health workers and around forty percent (39.8%) have no health worker gender preference in Bauchi State. For Cross River State, 3% of female clients preferred male frontline health workers, about one-third of the clients interviewed preferred female clients while over 60% stated that they had no frontline health worker gender preference. In Bauchi State, about two-third of the clients interviewed were attended to by a female health worker while in Cross River state, almost 80% of clients were attended to by female health workers.
Bivariate analysis
Fisher’s exact test was used during bivariate analysis and this was deemed most appropriate, based on the small number of responses across categorical variables. Table 4 presents the summary results of bivariate analysis between key characteristic variables and gender preferences of female clients from the study. The analysis suggests a relationship between location i.e. either Bauchi or Cross River State and female clients’ health worker gender preference (p<0.001). Similarly, bivariate analysis suggests a relationship between clients’ pregnancy status and their health worker gender preference (p<0.001) as well as a relationship between female clients’ health workers gender preference and the reason for visiting the primary healthcare facility either for the client’s self, her child or for both herself and her child (p<0.001). The results also suggest a relationship between the gender of health worker(s) working within the primary healthcare facility and female clients’ health workers gender preference (p<0.001).
Table 1: Socio-demographic characteristics of frontline health workers (N=114)
Characteristic
|
N
|
%
|
State
|
|
|
Bauchi
|
49
|
43.0
|
Cross River
|
65
|
57.0
|
Sex
Male
Female
Age
|
47
67
|
41.2
58.8
|
≤ 29yrs
|
15
|
13.2
|
30-39yrs
|
51
|
44.7
|
40yrs above
|
48
|
42.1
|
Marital Status
|
|
|
Married
|
104
|
91.2
|
Single/Widowed
|
10
|
8.8
|
Religion
|
|
|
Christianity
|
76
|
66.7
|
Islam
|
38
|
33.3
|
Education
|
|
|
Post-secondary school
|
112
|
98.2
|
University degree & above
|
2
|
1.8
|
Type of FLHW
|
|
|
JCHEW
|
51
|
44.7
|
CHEW
|
53
|
46.5
|
CHO
|
7
|
6.1
|
Nurse
|
1
|
0.9
|
Midwife
|
2
|
1.8
|
Years in PHC
|
|
|
<2 years
|
30
|
26.3
|
2-4 years
|
45
|
39.5
|
5yrs and above
|
39
|
34.2
|
Years in Current Position
|
|
|
<2 yrs
|
34
|
29.8
|
2-4yrs
|
49
|
43.0
|
5yrs and above
|
31
|
27.2
|
Table 2: Distribution of exit clients by key characteristic variables
|
Characteristic
|
(N)
|
Percentage (%)
|
State
Bauchi
Cross River
Reason for visiting the health facility
|
108
148
|
42.2
57.8
|
Myself
|
111
|
43.3
|
My Child
|
140
|
54.7
|
Myself and my child
|
5
|
2.0
|
Pregnancy status
|
|
|
Yes
|
99
|
38.7
|
No
|
157
|
61.3
|
*Purpose of visit for Self
|
|
|
ANC
|
96
|
37.5
|
Childbirth Care (neonate)
|
4
|
1.6
|
Delivery
|
3
|
1.2
|
Post-Partum/Post–Natal care
|
8
|
3.1
|
Family Planning
|
5
|
2.0
|
*Purpose of visit for the Child
|
|
|
Childbirth care (under 5yrs)
|
3
|
1.2
|
Post-Partum/Post-Natal care
|
11
|
4.3
|
Child Nutrition
|
1
|
0.4
|
Child Immunization
|
78
|
30.5
|
Childhood illness
|
52
|
20.3
|
Cadre of health care provider seen
|
|
|
JCHEWS
|
39
|
15.2
|
CHEWS
|
114
|
44.5
|
CHOs
|
26
|
10.2
|
Nurses
|
50
|
19.5
|
Midwives
|
5
|
2.0
|
Don’t know
|
22
|
8.6
|
Gender of health care provider seen
|
|
|
Male
|
68
|
26.6
|
Female
|
188
|
73.4
|
*Total frequency (N) i.e. ‘Purpose of visit for Self’ + ‘Purpose of visit for the Child’ was more than 256 due to multiple responses. Five female clients were attending the health facility for healthcare services for both themselves and their child.
Table 3: Gender distribution pattern of frontline health workers in Bauchi and Cross River states
State
|
N
|
%
|
Bauchi
Female
Male
Total
Cross River
Female
Male
Total
|
17
32
49
50
15
65
|
34.7
65.3
100%
76.9
23.1
100%
|
Table 4a: Clients’ frontline health worker gender preference (N=256)
|
N
|
%
|
Clients frontline health worker gender preference
|
|
|
Client preference for Male
|
6
|
2.3
|
Client preference for Female
|
113
|
44.2
|
No gender preference
|
137
|
53.5
|
Total
|
256
|
100%
|
Table 4b: Frontline health workers’ attendance to clients (N=256)
|
N
|
%
|
Frontline health workers’ attendance to clients
|
|
|
Client attended by male FLHW
|
68
|
27
|
Client attended by a female FLHW
|
188
|
73
|
Total
|
256
|
100%
|
Table 5a: Clients’ frontline health worker gender preference by states (N=256)
|
Bauchi
|
Cross River
|
|
N
|
%
|
N
|
%
|
Client preference for Male
|
1
|
0.9
|
5
|
3.4
|
Client preference for Female
|
64
|
59.3
|
49
|
33.1
|
No gender preference
|
43
|
39.8
|
94
|
63.5
|
Total
|
108
|
100%
|
148
|
100%
|
Table 5b: Frontline health workers’ attendance to clients by states (N=256)
|
Bauchi
|
Cross River
|
|
N
|
%
|
N
|
%
|
Client attended by male FLHW
|
37
|
34.3
|
31
|
20.9
|
Client attended by a female FLHW
|
71
|
65.7
|
117
|
79.1
|
Total
|
108
|
100%
|
148
|
100%
|
Table 6: Bivariate analysis of key characteristic variables against client’s FLHW gender preference
Key characteristic variables
|
Male health care provider
|
Female health care provider
|
Doesn’t Matter
|
P-value
|
|
|
|
|
|
State
Bauchi
Cross River
Reason for visiting the health facility
|
0.9%
3.4%
|
59.3%
33.1%
|
39.8%
63.5%
|
.000
.000
|
Myself
|
0.0%
|
58.6%
|
41.4%
|
|
My Child
|
4.3%
|
32.1%
|
63.6%
|
|
Myself and my child
|
0.0%
|
60.0%
|
40.0%
|
|
Pregnancy status
|
|
|
|
.000
|
Yes
|
0.0%
|
59.6%
|
40.4%
|
|
No
|
3.8%
|
34.4%
|
61.8%
|
|
Purpose of visit for MNCH services
|
|
|
|
.124
|
ANC
|
0.0%
|
60.4%
|
39.6%
|
|
Childbirth Care
|
0.0%
|
75.0%
|
25.0%
|
|
Delivery
|
0.0%
|
0.0%
|
100.0%
|
|
Post-Partum/Post –Natal care
|
0.0%
|
37.5%
|
62.5%
|
|
Family Planning
|
0.0%
|
80.0%
|
20.0%
|
|
Cadre of healthcare worker seen
|
|
|
|
.105
|
JCHEWs
|
0.0%
|
38.5%
|
61.5%
|
|
CHEWs
|
2.6%
|
49.1%
|
48.2%
|
|
CHOs
|
3.8%
|
30.8%
|
65.4%
|
|
Nurses
|
4.0%
|
32.0%
|
64.0%
|
|
Midwives
|
0.0%
|
40.0%
|
60.0%
|
|
Don’t know
|
0.0%
|
72.7%
|
27.3%
|
|
Gender of healthcare worker seen
Male
Female
|
4.4%
1.6%
|
23.5%
51.6%
|
72.1%
46.8%
|
0.000
|