Locus of control and use of health services: Case of school attending adolescents in Nigeria

Figures & data

Table 1. Descriptive statistics of study variables

	Per cent
Age
Early adolescence	378 (12.3)
Middle adolescent	2,062 (67.3)
Late adolescent	417 (13.6)
Missing	208 (6.8)
Awareness of reproductive health service centres
Yes	1,892 (61.7)
No	1,173 (38.3)
Utilisation of reproductive health service
Yes	884 (28.8)
No	2,156 (70.3)

Table 2. Bivariate correlations of key variables

		1	2	3	4	5	6
1.	Age
s2.	Awareness	−.05*	1
3.	Visit	−.03	.60**	1
4.	LOC	.05**	.15**	.08**	1
5.	Parents
	Work status	−.04*	.16**	.08**	.21**	1
6.	Rep. use	−.03	.31**	.25**	.24**	.29**	1
	Mean	2.01	.38	.22	21.5	.85	7.0
	SD	.53	.47	.41	5.37	.68	5.32

Notes: Rep. use = Reproductive health use; LOC = Locus of control.

* p < .05.

** p < .01.

Table 3. Linear regression showing some covariates to service use

R	.420^a
R^2	.176
Standard error of the estimate	4.81721
Regression	14,161.417
Residual	66,158.951
Total	80,320.369

^a Constant

Table 4. Table showing the variables and significant contribution

	Standardised coefficients	t	sig
	(Beta)
Constant		3.55	.000
Age	−.018	−1.06	.289
Awareness	.179	8.25	.000
Visit	.119	5.56	.000
PWS	.223	12.73	.000
LOC	.133	7.61	.000

Notes: PWS = parents work status; LOC = locus of control.

Table 5. Difference in internal and external locus of control and use of service group statistics

	LOC	N	Mean	SD	Std. error mean
Rep. use	Internal	770	5.89	5.35	.19
	External	2,294	7.39	5.26	.11

Table 6. Independent samples test scores

Levene’s test for equality of variances				t-test for equality of means					95% confidence interval of the difference
		F	Sig.	t	df	Sig. (2-tailed)	M.D	S.E diff	Lower	Upper
Rep. use	EVA	16.174	.000	−6.84	3,062	.000	−1.51	.220	−1.94	−1.07

Notes: M.D = mean difference; S.E diff = Std. error difference; EVA = Equal variances assumed.