Analyzing the equity of public primary care provision in Kenya: variation in facility characteristics by local poverty level

Table 5 Distribution of facilities across socioeconomic status (SES) quintiles, by facility type, province, and distance from main town

Categories		Total	SES Quintiles²					P-value³
		Total	Poorest 20%	2^nd quintile	3^rd quintile	4^th quintile	Least poor 20%
		N=248	n=68	n=65	n=30	n=38	n=47
		%	%	%	%	%	%
			[95% CI]	[95% CI]	[95% CI]	[95% CI]	[95% CI]
All facilities %		100	20.4	20.3	20.3	20.9	18.2
Facility type	Dispensaries	100	21.0	17.8	21.9	20.5	18.9	P = 0.16
	n=165	100	[11.1-36.2]	[10.8-27.8]	[12.8-34.8]	[9.9-37.8]	[10.8-30.8]
	Health centers	100	17.2	33.0	12.0	23.0	14.9
	n=83	100	[8.3-32.2]	[15.1-57.6]	[6.1-22.4]	[6.7-55.3]	[7.5-27.2]
Province	Central	100	0	7.9	0	7.4	84.7	P<0.01**
	n=33	100		[1.0-41.1]		[1.3-31.8]	[42.0-97.7]
	Coast	100	48.2	15.3	12.6	19.9	4.1
	n=28	100	[13.2-85.1]	[6.4-32.0]	[3.1-39.6]	[3.0-66.5]	[0.5-27.5]
	Eastern	100	37.4	17.9	21.5	10.4	12.7
	n=33	100	[10.5-75.2]	[13.0-24.1]	[10.7-38.5]	[4.4-22.8]	[2.7-43.1]
	North Eastern	100	64.9	32.0	0	0	3.0
	n=25	100	[18.2-93.9]	[6.3-76.6]			[0.4-19.3]
	Nyanza	100	27.1	8.9	38.3	25.7	0
	n=25	100	[2.5-84.5]	[0.6-60.9]	[9.7-78.1]	[7.2-60.6]
	Rift Valley	100	1.3	20.9	27.9	35.4	14.6
	n=32	100	[0.1-12.7]	[5.6-54.0]	[14.3-47.1]	[12.0-68.7]	[5.6-33.1]
	Western	100	33.9	51.6	8.4	6.2	0
	n=33	100	[14.7-60.3]	[18.4-83.4]	[1.7-33.0]	[1.2-26.9]
	Municipal¹	100	25.7	12.9	10.0	16.3	35.1
	n=39	100	[5.4-67.8]	[5.0-29.3]	[2.7-31.2]	[5.2-40.8]	[6.6-80.6]
Remoteness	Near	100	19.8	20.7	17.4	16.6	25.5	P=0.50
	n=80	100	[7.6-42.7]	[11.8-33.8]	[7.1-36.6]	[7.5-32.6]	[16.4-37.3]
	Average	100	24.3	18.6	17.7	25.5	13.8
	n=140	100	[13.9-38.9]	[7.0-41.3]	[10.6-28.0]	[7.1-60.4]	[6.1-28.6]
	Far	100	7.9	25.0	32.9	11.9	22.3
	n=28	100	[1.9-28.0]	[11.4-46.2]	[14.1-59.4]	[0.8-68.7]	[8.6-46.7]

¹ Municipal areas included districts of Kilindini (Coast province), Nairobi West (Nairobi province), and Kisumu East (Nyanza province).
² Weighted row percentage shown across SES quintiles. For example of dispensaries surveyed, 21.0% were in the poorest quintile of all facilities surveyed, and 18.9% were in the least poor quintile of facilities surveyed. The number of facilities per quintile is not equal as sampling weights are used in calculating the quintile cut-offs
³ Difference across groups tested using chi-squared test; *=p<0.05; **=p<0.01.

ISSN: 1475-9276