Article Sidebar
Article Details
Issue
Section
Articles
A. AFRICAN HEALTH SCIENCES OPEN ACCESS POLICY
While African Health Sciences has been freely accessible online there have been questions on whether it is Open Access or not. We wish to clearly state that indeed African Health Sciences is Open Access. There are key issues regarding Open Access needing clarification for avoidance of doubt:
- 1. Henceforth, papers in African Health Sciences will be published under the CC BY (Creative Commons Attribution License) 4.0 International. See details on https://creativecomons.org/)
- 2. The copyright owners or the authors grant the 3rd party (perpetually and in advance) the right to disseminate, reproduce, or use the research papers in part or in full, format/medium as long as:
- No substantive errors are introduced in the process
- Attribution of authorship and correct citation details are given
- The referencing details are not changed.
Should the papers be reproduced in part, this must be clearly stated.
- 3. The papers will be freely and universally accessible online in an easily readable format such as XML in at least one widely recognized open access repository such as PUBMED CENTRAL.
B. ABRIDGED LICENCE AGREEMENT BETWEEN AUTHORS AND African Health Sciences
I submitted my manuscript to African Health Sciences and would like to affirm that:
1.0 I am authorized by my co-authors to enter into these arrangements.
2.0 I guarantee, on behalf of self and co-authors:
- That the paper is original, and has not been published in any other peer-reviewed journal; nor is it under consideration by other journal (s). It does not infringe existing copyright or any other person’s rights
- That we are/I am the sole author(s) of the paper and with authority to enter into this agreement. My granting rights to African Health Sciences is not in breach of any other obligation
- That the paper contains nothing unlawful, or libelous. Nor anything that would constitute a breach of contract, confidence or commitment given to secrecy, if published
- That I/we have taken care to ensure the integrity of the article.
3.0 I and all co-authors, agree that the paper, if accepted for publication, shall be licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution License 4.0. (see https://creativecommons.org/)
Main Article Content
Intra-household differences in health seeking behaviour for orphans and non-orphans in an NGO-supported and non-supported subcounty of Luwero, Uganda
Abstract
Objective: Comparing healthcare dynamics among orphans and non-orphans in an NGO supported and a non-supported subcounty
so as to identify the level of equity.
Design and Methods: This was a cross-sectional unmatched case-control research. A sample of 98 orphans and 98 non-orphans in an NGO supported sub-county and a similar number in a control sub-county participated. For each child, a corresponding caregiver participated. Each respondent was interviewed. Analysis was comparative. Relationships between variables were ascertained using a X2.
Results: Fevers were the most common health problem. However, 14.3% of children reported an experience of diarrhoea in an NGO-supported sub-county as opposed to 85.7% in the control sub-county (p = 0.014). Twenty percent of children in the NGO supported sub-county reported skin infections compared to 80% in the control sub-county [p= 0.008]. When orphans fell sick, more caregivers in the supported sub-county consulted village clinics compared to self herbal-medication (p = 0.009). Majority of orphan caregivers compared to those for non-orphans in the control sub-county took their children to village clinics as opposed to health
centres (p = 0.002). In the control sub-county, fewer caregivers responded to children’s illness by buying medicines from drug-shops as opposed to taking them to village clinics [(p = 0.040).
Conclusion: There were some differences between orphans and non-orphans within each sub-county and between orphans in the
two sub-counties. NGO support is critical in cultivating equity, compassion and non-discrimination. The extended family system in Africa was managing orphan care although it displayed cracks in support systems.
so as to identify the level of equity.
Design and Methods: This was a cross-sectional unmatched case-control research. A sample of 98 orphans and 98 non-orphans in an NGO supported sub-county and a similar number in a control sub-county participated. For each child, a corresponding caregiver participated. Each respondent was interviewed. Analysis was comparative. Relationships between variables were ascertained using a X2.
Results: Fevers were the most common health problem. However, 14.3% of children reported an experience of diarrhoea in an NGO-supported sub-county as opposed to 85.7% in the control sub-county (p = 0.014). Twenty percent of children in the NGO supported sub-county reported skin infections compared to 80% in the control sub-county [p= 0.008]. When orphans fell sick, more caregivers in the supported sub-county consulted village clinics compared to self herbal-medication (p = 0.009). Majority of orphan caregivers compared to those for non-orphans in the control sub-county took their children to village clinics as opposed to health
centres (p = 0.002). In the control sub-county, fewer caregivers responded to children’s illness by buying medicines from drug-shops as opposed to taking them to village clinics [(p = 0.040).
Conclusion: There were some differences between orphans and non-orphans within each sub-county and between orphans in the
two sub-counties. NGO support is critical in cultivating equity, compassion and non-discrimination. The extended family system in Africa was managing orphan care although it displayed cracks in support systems.
