Response rate
Out of 500 study participants, only 449 participants participated in the study giving a response rate of 89.8%
Participants’ characteristics
Table 1 shows that among 449 participants, 54% were females and 46% male. The age distribution of participants ranged from 12 to 19 years, with majority of participants being 16-18 years (61%). Almost half of participants were from Form III and IV, with majority being Christians (73%) and day scholars (76%). Most of the participants had heard about the VCT service (93%) and had proper knowledge about the VCT service (96%).
Table 1: Participant’s characteristic distribution (n=449)
Variable
|
Value
|
No. (%)
|
Sex
|
Male
|
205 (45.7%)
|
|
Female
|
244 (54.3%)
|
Age (years)
|
|
|
|
Mean (±SD)
|
148 (±1.58)
|
|
12 to 15
|
130 (29%)
|
|
16 to 18
|
272 (60.6%)
|
|
19 to 24
|
47 (10.5%)
|
Education
|
|
|
|
Form I & II
|
167 (37.2%)
|
|
Form III & IV
|
217 (48.3%)
|
|
Form V & VI
|
65 (14.5%)
|
Type of school
|
|
|
|
Day
|
340 (75.7%)
|
|
Boarding
|
109 (24.3%)
|
Heard of VCT
|
|
|
|
Yes
|
416 (93%)
|
|
No
|
33 (7%)
|
Knowledge of VCT
|
Yes
|
429 (96%)
|
|
No
|
20 (4%)
|
VCT uptake among participants
Given the appropriate sample size of 449, majority of the adolescents had not tested for HIV (350, 78%) despite the fact that most of them had knowledge (429, 95%) and were willing to test for HIV (406, 90.6%). This is demonstrated in Table 2.
Table 2: Responders’ HIV testing status and willingness to test for HIV (n=449)
|
|
No.
|
%
|
Testing status for HIV
|
Yes
|
99
|
22
|
No
|
350
|
78
|
Willingness to Test for HIV
|
Yes
|
406
|
90.6
|
No
|
42
|
9.4
|
Descriptive statistics on relationship between the service marketing mix element, physical evidence and VCT uptake
Table 3 shows that physical evidence variables, modern looking equipment and appealing physical facilities were highly ranked priorities that could influence adolescents’ VCT uptake.
Table 6. 3: Descriptive statistics of variables under Physical Evidence (Service quality dimension Tangible) (n=449)
S/N
|
Statements
|
Mean
|
STD Deviation
|
Rank
|
1
|
Excellent Hospitals will have modern looking equipment
|
68
|
1.84
|
1
|
2
|
The physical facilities at excellent hospitals will be visually appealing
|
5.33
|
1.89
|
2
|
3
|
Personnel at excellent hospitals/ clinics will be neat in appearance
|
4.12
|
2.11
|
4
|
4
|
Materials associated with the service (such as pamphlets or statements) will be visually appealing in an excellent hospital/clinic
|
5
|
1.95
|
3
|
|
Average Physical evidence/ tangible SERVQUAL scores
|
5
|
1.37
|
5
|
Model summary of the fitted physical evidence
Results in Table 4 show that physical evidences included in the model contribute to 65% (Cox & Snell R Square) and 70% (Nagelkerke R Square) in explaining VCT uptake among adolescents with -2 Log likelihood of 442.987.
Table 4: Model summary of the fitted physical evidence
Step
|
-2 Log likelihood
|
Cox & Snell R Square
|
Nagelkerke R Square
|
1
|
442.987a
|
.650
|
.700
|
Modern equipment and VCT uptake among adolescents
This variable was found to have different results across all categories included. The results showed that, compared to those who responded with strongly disagree, those with disagree have beta of -0.887, odd ratio of 0.428 and p value of 0.141, those with neutral responses have beta of -0.747, odd ratio of 0.110 and p value of 0.385 while two categories, ‘agree’ and ‘strongly agree’ have significant influence with p value of 0.014 and 0.01 respectively. This means generally, compared to those who disagree with the fact that modern equipment is a determinant, those with agree responses are very significant and hence contribute to the VCT uptake among adolescents. It further means that, any attempt to improve modern equipment among those who agree and strongly agree will increase the VCT uptake among adolescents. On the other hand, the findings show that, the chances of up taking VCT is 5% (1.055) and 98% (1.982) among those who agree and strongly agree respectively. These findings are demonstrated in Table 5.
Correlation analysis between modern equipment and VCT uptake among adolescents
Pearson correlation analysis between modern equipment and VCT uptake among adolescents shows a positive correlation of 0.518 and significant value of 0.007 indicating that, increases in modern equipment means increasing VCT uptake among adolescents as shown in Table 6.
Physical facility and VCT uptake among adolescents
Physical facility was found to have significant relationship with ‘agree’ and ‘strongly agree’ categories with beta and p values of 1.295, 0.022 and 1.115, 0.007 respectively. This means that, those who agreed with physical facility had high odds of 1.745 (75%) and 1.891 (89%) of up- taking VCT than those who responded with disagree, which is shown in Table 5.
Correlation analysis between physical facilityand VCT uptake among adolescents
Pearson correlation analysis between physical facilities and VCT uptake among adolescents shows a positive correlation of 0.666 with p value of 0.016 indicating that, increases in physical facilities means increasing VCT uptake among adolescents.
Personnel and VCT uptake among adolescents
Personnel of the staff was another variable which was found to have likelihood of 1.531 (53%) and 1.523 (52%) for agree and strongly agree responses respectively on up-taking VCT than those who responded with disagree. This means that, the variable is determinant as it is significant with 0.011 and 0.029 p values respectively. On the other hand, the variable was found to have positive correlations for neutral, agree and strongly agree responses as shown in Table 5.
Correlation analysis between personnel and VCT uptake among adolescents
Pearson correlation analysis between personnel and VCT uptake among adolescents shows a positive correlation of 0.424 with p value of 0.012 indicating that, improvement in personnel will improve VCT uptake among adolescents. The details are shown in Table 6.
Material and VCT uptake among adolescents
As shown in Table 5, materials evidence was analyzed to have a direct and significant correlation with VCT up – taking. The results show that, the likelihood of up taking VCT with respect to material is 225 with p value of 0.002 for strongly agree response and likelihood of 217 with p value of 0.016 for agree response. This means that, improving material will positively increase up taking of VCT by 1. 829 and 2.923 for strongly agree and agree responses respectively compared tothose who responded as disagree.
Correlation analysis between material and VCT uptake among adolescents
The results in Pearson correlation analysis between material and VCT uptake among adolescents shows a positive correlation of 0.381 with p value of 0.036 indicating that, improvement of materials in the hospital will significantly improve VCT uptake among adolescents.
Results of the findings revealed that, generally, physical evidencecontributes significantly to the VCT uptake among adolescents as shown in Table 6.
Table 5: Binary logistic regression results of the physical evidences of VCT uptake among adolescents
|
B
|
S.E.
|
Wald
|
d.f
|
Sig.
|
Exp(B)
|
95% C.I. for EXP(B)
|
Lower
|
Upper
|
Step 1a
|
Modern Equip (Strongly dis)
|
|
|
3.301
|
4
|
.770
|
|
|
|
Modern Equip (Disagree)
|
-.887
|
.602
|
2.171
|
1
|
.141
|
.428
|
.746
|
7.904
|
Modern Equip (Neutral)
|
-.747
|
.860
|
.755
|
1
|
.385
|
.110
|
.391
|
11.379
|
Modern Equip (Agree)
|
.053
|
.495
|
.012
|
1
|
.014
|
1.055
|
.400
|
2.783
|
Modern Equip (Strongly ag)
|
.019
|
.489
|
.001
|
1
|
.010
|
1.982
|
.376
|
2.561
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Phys facility (Strongly dis)
|
|
|
7.480
|
4
|
.279
|
|
|
|
Phys facility (Disagree)
|
-1.135
|
.495
|
5.264
|
1
|
.106
|
.322
|
.122
|
.848
|
Phys facility (Neutral)
|
-1.140
|
.706
|
2.608
|
1
|
.550
|
.320
|
.080
|
1.276
|
Phys facility (Agree)
|
1.295
|
.493
|
.357
|
1
|
.022
|
1.745
|
.283
|
1.957
|
Phys facility (Strongly ag)
|
1.115
|
.430
|
.072
|
1
|
.007
|
1.891
|
.384
|
2.069
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Personnel (Strongly dis)
|
|
|
7.447
|
4
|
.281
|
|
|
|
Personnel (Disagree)
|
-.164
|
.410
|
.160
|
1
|
.009
|
.849
|
.380
|
1.896
|
Personnel (Neutral)
|
.233
|
.507
|
.212
|
1
|
.045
|
1.792
|
.293
|
2.139
|
Personnel (Agree)
|
.632
|
.451
|
1.963
|
1
|
.011
|
1.531
|
.219
|
1.287
|
Personnel (Strongly ag)
|
.647
|
.426
|
2.306
|
1
|
.029
|
1.523
|
.227
|
1.207
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Materials (Strongly dis)
|
|
|
13.112
|
4
|
.227
|
|
|
|
Materials (Disagree)
|
1.632
|
.524
|
1.457
|
1
|
.027
|
1.881
|
.674
|
5.250
|
Materials (Neutral)
|
1.832
|
.557
|
2.229
|
1
|
.035
|
2.297
|
.771
|
6.843
|
Materials (Agree)
|
2.923
|
.521
|
3.140
|
1
|
.016
|
2.517
|
.907
|
6.988
|
Materials (Strongly ag)
|
1.829
|
.583
|
9.835
|
1
|
.002
|
225
|
1.985
|
19.518
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Constant
|
1.158
|
.270
|
18.409
|
1
|
.000
|
3.184
|
|
|
|
Table 6: Correlation analysis between modern equipment, physical facility, personnel,material and VCT uptake among adolescents
|
Test for HIV
|
Variable
|
Test for HIV
|
Pearson Correlation
|
1
|
.518*
|
Sig. (2-tailed)
|
|
.007
|
N
|
449
|
449
|
Modern equipment
|
Pearson Correlation
|
.518*
|
1
|
Sig. (2-tailed)
|
.007
|
|
N
|
449
|
449
|
Test for HIV
|
Pearson Correlation
|
1
|
.666*
|
Sig. (2-tailed)
|
|
.016
|
N
|
449
|
449
|
Physical facilities
|
Pearson Correlation
|
.666*
|
1
|
Sig. (2-tailed)
|
.016
|
|
N
|
449
|
449
|
Test for HIV
|
Pearson Correlation
|
1
|
.424*
|
Sig. (2-tailed)
|
|
.012
|
N
|
449
|
449
|
Personnel
|
Pearson Correlation
|
.424*
|
1
|
Sig. (2-tailed)
|
.012
|
|
N
|
449
|
449
|
Test for HIV
|
Pearson Correlation
|
1
|
.381*
|
Sig. (2-tailed)
|
|
.036
|
N
|
449
|
449
|
Materials
|
Pearson Correlation
|
.381*
|
1
|
Sig. (2-tailed)
|
.036
|
|
N
|
449
|
449
|
|
|
|
|
|
|