CHAPTER 4 DATA ANALYSIS, RESULT AND INTERPRETATION This chapter contains analyses of the data collected during the

field work which focused on the opinion of pregnant mothers on drug abuse and substance abuse during pregnancy in Ibadan North East Local Government health centre, Ibadan, Oyo state. The hypotheses stated at the end of chapter two were represented statistically and tested for level of significance and discussed with reference to each table using appropriate data. The research hypotheses are subjected to inferential statistic. This is done to measure the significant effect between two entities. The results are presented below. SECTION A DEMOGRAPHIC CHARACTERISTICS TABLE 1 showing frequency counts and percentages of the respondents according to their age Age
20-25years 26-30years 31-35years 36-40years Total Frequency 19 35 8 38 100 Percent 19.0 35.0 8.0 38.0 100.0

Table 1 reveals the distribution of the respondents by their age. The result shows that 19% of the respondents were within the age range of 20-25years, 36% of the respondents were within the age range of 26-30years, 8% of the respondents were within the age range of 31-35years while 38% of the respondents were 36-40years. TABLE 2 showing frequency counts and percentages of the respondents according to their marital status Marital status Frequency Percent
Single Married Total 9 91 100 9.0 91.0 100.0

Table 2 reveals the distribution of the respondents by their marital status. The result shows that 9% of the respondents were single whereas 91% of the respondents were married. TABLE 3 showing frequency counts and percentages of the respondents according to their educational status Education Frequency Percent
Primary Secondary Tertiary Total 7 4 89 100 7.0 4.0 89.0 100.0

Table 3 reveals the distribution of the respondents by their educational status. The result shows that 7% of the respondents had primary education, 4% of the respondents had secondary education while 89% of the respondents had tertiary education. TABLE 4 showing frequency counts and percentages of the respondents according to their religion Religion
Christianity Islam Total Frequency 52 48 100 Percent 52.0 48.0 100.0

Table 4 reveals the distribution of the respondents by their religion. The result shows that 52% of the respondents were Christians while 48% of the respondents were Muslim. TABLE 5 showing frequency counts and percentages of the respondents according to their tribe Tribe Frequency Percent
Yoruba Hausa Igbo Total 76 22 2 100 76.0 22.0 2.0 100.0

Table 5 reveals the distribution of the respondents by their tribe. The result shows that 76% of the respondents were Yoruba, 22% of the respondents were Hausa while only 2% of the respondents Igbo.

Research question 1:are the pregnant mother at IBNELG health centre involve in drug abuse during pregnancy
Strongly Disagree Disagree Agree Total Frequency 8 70 22 100 Percent 8.0 70.0 22.0 100.0

80 percentages 60 40 20 0 Strongly Disagree Disagree responses Agree

Table 1 and Figure 1 revealed that the pregnant mother at IBNELG health centre involve in drug abuse during pregnancy The result showed that 22% of the respondents agreed, 70% disagreed while only 8% of them strongly disagreed that pregnant mother at IBNELG health centre involve in drug abuse during pregnancy Research question 2: are the pregnant mother at IBNELG health centre aware of drugs and substances that can affect fetus-in-utero
Frequency 1 1 50 48 100 Percent 1 1 50 48 100 Degree

Strongly Disagree Disagree Agree Strongly Agree Total

3.6 3.6 180 172.8 360

3.6 3.6

Strongly Disagree 172.8 180 Disagree Agree Strongly Agree

Table 2 and Figure 2 revealed the pregnant mother at IBNELG health centre awareness of drugs and substances that can affect fetus-in-utero. The result showed that 48% of the respondents strongly agreed, 50% agreed, 26% disagreed while only 3.6% of them strongly disagreed that the drugs and substances abuse can affect fetus-in-utero.

Research question 3: are the pregnant mother at IBNELG health centre aware that adverse effect of drug abuse during pregnancy can include fetal growth retardation and low birth weight.
Frequency 6 26 59 9 100 Percent 6.0 26.0 59.0 9.0 100.0

Strongly Disagree Disagree Agree Strongly Agree Total

70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 Strongly Disagree Disagree Agree Strongly Agree

percentages

responses

Table 3 and Figure 3 revealed awareness of the pregnant mother at IBNELG health centre about the adverse effect of drug abuse during pregnancy which can include fetal growth retardation and low birth weight. The result showed that 9% of the respondents strongly agreed, 59% agreed, 26% disagreed while only 6% of them disagreed that adverse effect of drug abuse during pregnancy can lead to fetal growth retardation and low birth weight. Hypothesis 1: there is no significant difference between the knowledge of pregnant mother on substance abuse and its contribution to maternal complication.
Strongly Disagree 0 .5 1 .5 0 .1 1 1.0 Strongly Agree Agree Total 22 23 46 23.0 22.1 46.0 26 19 46 23.0 22.1 46.0 2 4.0 50 50.0 6 8 3.8 8.0 48 100 48.0 100.0

df calc

pvalue

remark

Disagree Agree Strongly Agree Total

fo fe fo fe fo fe fo fe

Disagree 1 .5 0 .5 0 .1 1 1.0

5.466

0.05

.486

Not signif

The result of the data collected was analyzed with the aid of chi-square statistics ( ) null hypothesis tested at 0.05 level of significance stated that there is no significant
4

difference between the knowledge of pregnant mother on substance abuse and its contribution to maternal complication. The observed value(s) is 5.466 and degree of freedom is 6. This is not significant since probability value is 0.486 is greater than 0.05 (P> 0.05). Therefore, the null hypothesis is accepted. This study therefore confirmed that there is no significant difference between the knowledge of pregnant mother on substance abuse and its contribution to maternal complication.

Hypothesis 2: attitude of pregnant mother towards drug use during pregnancy does not significantly explain congenital abnormality in newborn babies
Strongly Disagree Disagree Agree Total 0 1 0 1 .1 .7 .2 1.0 0 30 10 40 3.2 28.0 8.8 40.0 6 37 11 54 4.3 2 .4 8 8.0 37.8 2 3.5 70 70.0 11.9 54.0 1 5 1.1 5.0 22 100 22.0 100.0

calc

df

pvalue

remark

Strongly Disagree Disagree Agree Strongly Agree Total

fo fe fo fe fo fe fo fe fo fe

11.72

0.05

.068

Not signif

The result of the data collected was analyzed with the aid of chi-square statistics ( ) null hypothesis tested at 0.05 level of significance stated that attitude of pregnant mother towards drug use during pregnancy does not significantly explain congenital abnormality in newborn babies. The observed value(s) is 11.72 and degree of freedom is 6. This is not significant since probability value is 0.068 is greater than 0.05 (P> 0.05). Therefore, the null hypothesis is accepted. This study therefore confirmed that attitude of pregnant mother towards drug use during pregnancy does not significantly explain congenital abnormality in newborn babies.

Hypothesis 3: there is no significant difference between the educational status of pregnant mother and their involvement in drug abuse
Education Primary Secondar y Tertiary Total fo fe fo fe fo fe fo fe Strongly Disagree 4 .6 2 .3 2 7.1 8 8.0

df
Disagree 3 4.9 1 2.8 66 62.3 70 70.0 Agree Total 0 7 1.5 7.0 1 4 .9 4.0 21 19.6 22 22.0 89 89.0 100 100.0

pvalue

remar k

calc

37.41

.05

.000

The result of the data collected was analyzed with the aid of chi-square statistics ( ) null hypothesis tested at 0.05 level of significance stated that is no significant difference between the educational status of pregnant mother and their involvement in drug abuse. The observed value(s) is 37.41 and degree of freedom is 4. This is significant since probability value is 0.000 is LESS than 0.05 (P< 0.05). Therefore, the null hypothesis is rejected. This study therefore confirmed is no significant difference between the educational status of pregnant mother and their involvement in drug abuse.

APPENDIX
q6 Frequency 1 1 50 48 100 Percent 1.0 1.0 50.0 48.0 100.0 q7 Frequency 1 6 63 30 100 Percent 1.0 6.0 63.0 30.0 100.0 q8 Frequency 6 26 59 9 100 Percent 6.0 26.0 59.0 9.0 100.0 q9 Frequency 1 40 54 5 100 Percent 1.0 40.0 54.0 5.0 100.0 Valid Percent 1.0 40.0 54.0 5.0 100.0 Cumulative Percent 1.0 41.0 95.0 100.0 Valid Percent 6.0 26.0 59.0 9.0 100.0 Cumulative Percent 6.0 32.0 91.0 100.0 Valid Percent 1.0 6.0 63.0 30.0 100.0 Cumulative Percent 1.0 7.0 70.0 100.0 Valid Percent 1.0 1.0 50.0 48.0 100.0 Cumulative Percent 1.0 2.0 52.0 100.0

Valid

Strongly Disagree Disagree Agree Strongly Agree Total

Valid

Strongly Disagree Disagree Agree Strongly Agree Total

Valid

Strongly Disagree Disagree Agree Strongly Agree Total

Valid

Strongly Disagree Disagree Agree Strongly Agree Total

q10 Frequency 1 67 27 5 100 Percent 1.0 67.0 27.0 5.0 100.0 Valid Percent 1.0 67.0 27.0 5.0 100.0 Cumulative Percent 1.0 68.0 95.0 100.0

Valid

Strongly Disagree Disagree Agree Strongly Agree Total

q11

Valid

Strongly Disagree Disagree Agree Strongly Agree Total

Frequency 1 21 71 7 100

Percent 1.0 21.0 71.0 7.0 100.0

Valid Percent 1.0 21.0 71.0 7.0 100.0

Cumulative Percent 1.0 22.0 93.0 100.0

q12 Frequency 46 46 8 100 Percent 46.0 46.0 8.0 100.0 q13 Frequency 2 59 33 6 100 q14 Frequency 6 86 8 100 Percent 6.0 86.0 8.0 100.0 q15 Frequency 5 82 13 100 Percent 5.0 82.0 13.0 100.0 q16 Frequency 1 74 18 7 100 Percent 1.0 74.0 18.0 7.0 100.0 Valid Percent 1.0 74.0 18.0 7.0 100.0 Cumulative Percent 1.0 75.0 93.0 100.0 Valid Percent 5.0 82.0 13.0 100.0 Cumulative Percent 5.0 87.0 100.0 Valid Percent 6.0 86.0 8.0 100.0 Cumulative Percent 6.0 92.0 100.0 Percent 2.0 59.0 33.0 6.0 100.0 Valid Percent 2.0 59.0 33.0 6.0 100.0 Cumulative Percent 2.0 61.0 94.0 100.0 Valid Percent 46.0 46.0 8.0 100.0 Cumulative Percent 46.0 92.0 100.0

Valid

Disagree Agree Strongly Agree Total

Valid

Strongly Disagree Disagree Agree Strongly Agree Total

Valid

Disagree Agree Strongly Agree Total

Valid

Disagree Agree Strongly Agree Total

Valid

Strongly Disagree Disagree Agree Strongly Agree Total

q17 Frequency 8 70 22 100 Percent 8.0 70.0 22.0 100.0 Valid Percent 8.0 70.0 22.0 100.0 Cumulative Percent 8.0 78.0 100.0

Valid

Strongly Disagree Disagree Agree Total

q18 Frequency 1 6 86 7 100 Percent 1.0 6.0 86.0 7.0 100.0 Valid Percent 1.0 6.0 86.0 7.0 100.0 Cumulative Percent 1.0 7.0 93.0 100.0

Valid

Strongly Disagree Disagree Agree Strongly Agree Total

q19 Frequency 51 48 1 100 Percent 51.0 48.0 1.0 100.0 Valid Percent 51.0 48.0 1.0 100.0 Cumulative Percent 51.0 99.0 100.0

Valid

Disagree Agree Strongly Agree Total

q20 Frequency 50 42 8 100 Percent 50.0 42.0 8.0 100.0 Valid Percent 50.0 42.0 8.0 100.0 Cumulative Percent 50.0 92.0 100.0

Valid

Disagree Agree Strongly Agree Total