WEST AFRICAN JOURNAL OF PHYSICAL AND HEALTH EDUCATION.
Volume 9, No. 1 January, 2005
EDITORIAL BOARD
Editor-in-Chief
Professor J.A. Ajala
University of Ibadan, Ibadan
Managing Editor
B.O. Ogundele, Ph.D.,
Department of Human Kinetics and Health Education
University of Ibadan, Ibadan
Members
A.O. Adegbesan, Ph.D.,
Department of Human Kinetics and Health Education
University of Ibadan, Ibadan
K.O. Omolawon, PhD
Department of Human Kinetics
University of Ibadan, Ibadan
Editorial Advisers/Consultants
Professor Jimmy Colloway (Georgia)
Professor William Chen (Florida)
Professor Gudrum Doll-Tepper (Berlin)
Professor M. Kamil Ozer (Turkey)
Professor L. Zaichkowsky (Massachusetts)
Professor J.A. Ajala (Ibadan)
Professor E.O. Ojeme (Benin City)
Professor S.A. Adeyanju (Ile-Ife)
Professor L.O. Amusa (South Africa)
1
Editorial
This volume of the West African Journal of Physical and Health Education
(WAHOPHE) contains stimulating and illuminating articles in the areas of physical
and health education, recreation, sports and dance and related disciplines. I
want to place on record the unalloyed support of the current head of department
and editor-in-chief of the journal, Professor James A. Ajala, and members of the
editorial board in making the publication of this edition possible. Special thanks
also go to the various contributors for their educative articles and prompt
response to the corrected manuscripts.
B.O. Ogundele, Ph.D.,
Managing Editor
Content
Part 1: Human Kinetics
1.
The Use of Exercise in the Management of Coronary Heart Diseases
J.F. Babalola and P.O. Oyeniyi.
2.
Opinions of Athletes, Sports Administrators and Sports Philanthropists
on Privatization of Sports. K.O. Omolawon and T.O. Ibraheem.
3.
Effects of Dietary Fat on Metabolic Adjustment to Maximal V0 2 and
Endurance in Runners A.M. Adesola and M. Akin-Taylor.
4.
Multi-disciplinary Support: A Challenge to the Management of the
Handicapped in Lagos Metropolis M.A. Onwuama
5.
Correlate of Muscular and Cardio-respiratory Endurance of University
of Ilorin Basketball and Handball Male Players O.L. Dominic.
6.
An
Investigation
into
the
Influence
of Yoruba
Language
on
Achievement in Science among Senior Secondary School Students S.J.
Ogunkunle
2
7.
School as Enabling Factor of Students’ Illegal Absenteeism A.M.
Gesinde.
8.
Assessing Students’ Achievement in Internet-based Learning and
Traditional Teacher-directed Instruction-based Learning M.O. Raji and
O.B. Ayode.
9.
Counselling for Holistic Education. J.I. Odigie
Part 2: Health Education
10.
Environmental Health Curriculum Content Guide: A Design for
Teaching Primary/Secondary Students J.A. Adefila
11.
Epidemiological Study of Some Communicable Diseases in Ila Local
Government Area, Osun State A.I. Farounbi
12.
Population
and
Family
Life
Education
for
Health,
Sustainable
Democracy and Nation Building: The Nigerian Experience J.O.
Odebola.
13.
The Level of Dietary Protein Intake and Fitness Status of Nigerian Navy
Secondary School Students in Lagos State. A.V. Ogunleye and A.A.
Odetunde.
14.
Evaluation of Selected Cultural and Administrative Issues in Health
Care Delivery and Utilization in Ona-Ara Local Government, Oyo State,
Nigeria, S.O. Babatunde
15.
The Impact of Industries on Community Health: The Nigerian
Experience O.A. Olajide and J.O. Adeyeri.
16.
Sexuality Education as a Necessity for Health Living of Adolescents and
Young Adults J.E.F. Okpako.
17.
Smoking Patterns and Behaviour of Fresh and Graduating Physical and
Health Education Students in Tertiary Institutions in Kwara State, O.O.
Oyerinde
18.
Socio-economic Differences and Risk Factors among the People of
Kaduna State. R.A. Shehu and C.O. Adegbite.
3
NOTES ON CONTRIBUTORS
Part 1: Human Kinetics
1.
J.F. Babalola – Senior Lecturer at the Department of Human Kinetics
and Health Education, University of Ibadan, Nigeria.
2.
P.O. Oyeniyi – Graduate student of the Department of Human Kinetics
and Health Education, University of Ibadan, Nigeria.
3.
K.O. Omolawon – Lecturer at the Department of Human Kinetics and
Health Education, University of Ibadan, Nigeria.
4.
T.O. Ibraheem – Lecturer at the Department of Physical and Health
Education, University of Ilorin, Nigeria.
5.
A.M. Adesola – Lecturer at the Department of Physical and Health
Impaired, Federal College of Education (Special). Oyo, Nigeria.
6.
M. Akin-Taylor – Principal Lecturer at the Department of Physical and
Health Education, Federal College of Education (Special) Oyo, Nigeria.
7.
M.A.C Onwuama – Lecturer at the Department of Human Kinetics and
Health Education, University of Lagos, Nigeria.
8.
O.L. Dominic – Lecturer at the Department of Physical and Health
Education, University of Lagos, Nigeria.
9.
S.J. Ogunkunle – Senior Lecturer at the Federal College of Education
(Special) Oyo, Nigeria.
10.
A.M. Gesinde – Lecturer at the Federal College of Education (Special)
Oyo, Nigeria.
11.
M.O. Raji - Lecturer in the Computer Science Department, Oyo State
College of Education, Oyo, Nigeria.
12.
O.B. Ayoade - Lecturer in the Computer Science Department, Oyo
State College of Education, Oyo, Nigeria.
13.
J.L. Odigie – Lecturer at the Adeniran Ogunsanya College of Education,
Otto/Ijanikin, Lagos, Nigeria.
4
Part 2: Health Education
14.
J.A. Ajala – Professor in the Department of Human Kinetics and Health
Education. University of Ibadan, Nigeria.
15.
A.I. Farounbi – Lecturer in the Department of Biology, Osun State
College of Education, Ila-Orangin, Osun State, Nigeria.
16.
J.O. Odelola – Senior Lecturer in the Department of Physical and
Health Education, Osun State College of Education, Ila-Orangun, Osun
State, Nigeria.
17.
A.V. Ogunleye – Graduate Student of the Department of Human
Kinetics and Health Education, University of Ibadan, Nigeria.
18.
A.V. Odetunde – Graduate Student of the Department of Human
Kinetics and Health Education. University of Ibadan, Nigeria.
19.
S.O. Babatunde – Director, Oyo State Primary Education Board, Agodi,
Ibadan Nigeria.
20.
O.A. Olajide – Lecturer in the Department of Physical and Health
Education, Federal College of Education, Yola, Nigeria.
21.
J.O. Adeyeri – Lecturer in the Department of Physical and Health
Education, Federal College of Education, Yola, Nigeria.
22.
J.E.F. Okpako – Graduate student of the Department of Human
Kinetics and Health Education. University of Ibadan, Nigeria.
23.
O.O. Oyerinde – Senior lecturer in the Department of Physical and
Health Education, University of Ilorin, Nigeria.
24.
R.A. Shehu – Lecturer in the Department of Physical and Health
Education, University of Ilorin, Nigeria.
25.
C.O. Adegbite – Research fellow, Institute of Education, Ahmadu Bello
University, Zaria, Nigeria.
5
Preface to Volume 9, No. 1 2005
The primary objective of the West African Journal of Physical and Health
Education (WAJOPHE) is the dissemination of current and crucial information on
human kinetics and allied health education by publishing well-researched articles
relevant to the two disciplines. In performing this significant role, the editorial
board has continued to solicit quality research and review articles for publication
in WAJOPHE.
This edition is published in two separate parts – human kinetics and
health education. The first part covers such areas as exercise and coronary heart
diseases, correlates of muscular and cardio-respiratory endurance, counselling
for holistic education, postoperative management of amputees, and the effects
of interval training on body composition, just to mention a few.
Some of the articles on health education include environmental health, an
enormously critical issue facing our society today, epidemiological study of some
communicable diseases, dietary protein intake and fitness, sexuality education as
a necessity for healthy living of adolescents and young adults, and smoking
behaviour of university athletes in Nigeria.
Finally, a word of appreciation and thanks should be extended to the
authors, reviewers and editors, especially the managing editor, Dr. B.O.
Ogundele, for a job well done.
Contributors to this journal are hereby enjoined to always provide a
synopsis of the papers, as this will help the reader or researcher decide if the full
text of the article is of interest to them.
Thank you.
Professor J.A. Ajala
Editor-in-chief
Socio-economic Differences and Risk Factors among the People of
Kaduna State
R.A. Shehu and C.O. Adegbite**
6
Abstract
The study examined the influence of socio-economic status differences on the
adoption of lifestyles/risk factors. This study is important from the public health
point of view, if lifestyle factors would explain the association between socioeconomic status and incidence of obesity, hypertension, diabetes, heart failures,
stroke, malnutrition, HIV/AIDS, cardiovascular diseases and others. The
population consisted of individuals aged 18 and above living in Kaduna State as
at the time of the study. The descriptive research design was adopted for the
study; a total of 1350 respondents were randomly selected from the three
senatorial districts of Kaduna State through a multi-stage cluster sampling
technique. A questionnaire developed and designed by the researchers was used
to collect relevant information for the study. The data collected were analysed
using Kruskal-Wallis one-way analysis of variance. The results showed that
significant
differences
exist
between
the
socio-economic
status
groups/differences and their adopted lifestyles/risk factors of smoking, sedentary
lifestyle, alcoholic lifestyles and sexual behaviour. The authors recommended,
among others, that public health education on the changes in lifestyles/risk
factors is important to reduce the incidence of diseases due to socio-economic
differences.
7
Introduction
Socio-economic status (SES) is difficult to assess, particularly across
countries or communities with different cultural habits, it is believed to be a
significant factor in the determination of an individual’s lifestyle. The importance
of socio-economic status in physical activity, smoking, heavy use of alcohol and,
in particular, in high intensity activities during leisure time has been identified in
numerous studies (Stephens et al., 1985; Ford et al 1991: Mensik et al., 1997).
Different reasons can be given for this. People with lower socio-economic status
are more likely to have manual jobs, with a higher physical demand. Also, access
to some recreational activities may be limited due to their costs. Hence, they
result in the intake of stimulants (drugs and alcohol) to increase their physical
strength for the required energy dispensing. Their counterparts with high socioeconomic status have money and other influences to enjoy themselves. Cases of
obesity, liver cirrhosis, HIV/AIDS, hypertension and other cardiovascular diseases
are rampant among this social group, due to their sedentary lifestyle, high
consumption of alcohol, poor nutritional habits, drug abuse and unsafe sexual
practice or casual sex.
The health of individuals is affected by their social class position. Socioeconomic status positively correlates with understanding health education
information, making informed decision about health and health care, access to
health care services, health maintenance and healthier lifestyles (Adler et al.,
1993; Borg and Kristensen, 2000). These factors contribute to better health and
healthy lifestyle of those with higher socio-economic status. On the other hand,
the social production of health shows that psychosocial factors, such as social
support, economic liability, chronic diseases and stressful events, influence the
health and lifestyle of an individual. For instance, low levels of social integration
and socio-economic status can gravely influence a person’s moral adjustment
and, hence, his mental and physical health (Mildred, 1990; Rowe and Kahn,
1998). This may be a serious determinant or impetus for the use of alcohol,
8
tobacco, drugs, physical inactivity, poor nutritional habits and indiscriminate
sexual practices.
In terms of the psycho-social determinants of health, it is assumed that
social support has a positive influence on health in later life, since a person with
social support has someone to confide in, get advice from and depend on
financially. People who receive less social support are more likely to experience
depression and mental illness, pregnancy risk (women) and chronic disability
(Mildred, 1990). Good social relation can reduce the adverse effect of stress
related to a social group (high social-economic group), which ensures that
people are cared for, loved and valued. For example, an alcoholic member of an
affluent family probably exhibits a different set of behaviour as a result of the
protectiveness of his environment, than does the back alley derelict that has
been rejected or alienated from family support. But these differences are
superficial, compared to the commonalities which exist as a result of their
compulsion to drink.
Purpose of the Study
The aim of this study was to examine the influence of socio-economic
status on the adoption of risk factors like smoking, drug habit, sedentary
lifestyle, nutritional habits, indiscriminate sexual practices and the use of alcohol
among the people of Kaduna State.
Research Questions
What influence do the socio-economic differences of the people of Kaduna
State have on the adopted lifestyle/risk factors?
Hypotheses
The main hypothesis for this study was that there is no significant
difference between the adopted lifestyle/risk factor and socio-economic
differences that exists among the respondents in Kaduna State. The study
specifically tested the following sub-hypotheses.
a. A significant difference does not exist between the socio-economic status
groups of the respondents and their smoking habit.
9
b. A significant difference does not exist between the socio-economic status
groups of the respondents and their alcoholic lifestyle.
c. A significant difference does not exist between the socio-economic status
groups of the respondents and their sedentary lifestyle.
d. A significant difference does not exist between the socio-economic status
groups of the respondents and their nutritional habit.
e. A significant difference does not exist between the socio-economic status
groups of the respondents and their drug habit.
f. A significant difference does not exist between the socio-economic status
groups of the respondent s and their sexual behaviour.
Methodology
The descriptive research design was adopted for this study and the
population consisted of all individuals from age 18 and above living in both rural
and urban areas of Kaduna States. The respondents were selected through a
multi-stage cluster random sampling technique: a total of 1350 respondents
were randomly selected form the three senatorial districts in Kaduna State. A
structured research instrument tagged ‘questionnaire on socio-economic
differences and risk factors among people of Kaduna
State (QSDRKS)’ was
develop and pilot tested to collect relevant information for the study. The
questionnaire administration was done by the researchers and four research
assistants and interpreters who were fluent in the existing local languages in the
State.
The individual’s estimated level of income or earning was used to measure
or classify the respondents into different socio-economic status groups. Based on
this, the respondents were classified into five groups:
1. Group 1: Individuals earning above N1 million per annum (n=49)
2. Group 2: Individuals earning between N500.000 and N999.000 per
annum(n=119)
3. Group 3: Individuals earning between N100,000 and N499,000 per annum
(n=247)
10
4. Group 4: Individuals earning between N50,000 and N49,000 per annum
(n=338)
5. Group 5: Individuals earning less than N49,000 per annum (n=447)
6. Group 0: No response (n=150)
Results
The data were analyzed using appropriate descriptive and inferential
statistics of Kruskal- Wallis one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA).
A careful examination of table 1 shows that the F-calculated for smoking
(5.50) alcoholic lifestyle (7.41) sedentary lifestyle (8. 02), nutritional habit
(15.61), drug habit (11.66) and sexual behaviour were greater than the
critical value of 2.21 with a degree of freedom of 5 at 0.05 alpha level of
significance. Therefore, the null hypotheses that say there are no significant
differences in the adopted lifestyles/risk factors of smoking, alcoholic lifestyle,
sedentary lifestyle, nutritional lifestyle, drug habit and sexual behaviour of the
respondents and their socio-economic differences were rejected. This means
that significant differences exist between the socio-economic status
groups/differences and their adopted lifestyles/risk factors. The interpretation
of this is that socio-economic status group of an individual influences his/her
adoption of lifestyle/risk factors like smoking, alcohol consumption, sedentary
lifestyle, nutritional habit, drug habit and sexual behaviour.
11
Table 1: Summary of Kruskal Wallis one way ANOVA on the
difference between adopted lifestyles and
socio-economic status groups
Lifestyle factors
Smoking and SES groups
Source
DF
SS
MS
Between
5
3.584
7.168
Within
1344
1.753
1.304
Total
1349
1.789
Alcoholic lifestyle and SES
Between
5
5.219
1.042
groups
Within
1344
1.890
1.406
Total
1349
Sedentary lifestyle and SES
Between
5
5.838
1.168
groups
Within
1344
1.956
1.455
Total
1349
2.015
Nutritional habit and SES
Between
5
3.425
1.721
groups
Within
1344
1.947
1.449
Total
1349
Between
5
8.178
1.636
Within
1344
1.885
1.403
Total
1349
Sexual behaviour and SES
Between
5
2.040
4.081
groups
Within
1344
2.017
1.501
Total
1349
2.017
Drug habit and SES groups
F.
P.
Ratio
Value
5.50
0.000
Remark
Sign
1
7.41
0.000
Sign
0
8.02
0.000
Sign
0
15.61
0.000
Sign
0
11.66
0.000
Sign
0
2.72
0.018
Sign
8
Df = K –1 6 = 5, f = critical = 2.21. P <0.05
= N – 6 = 1350 – 6 1344, SES = socio-economic status
12
Table 2:
The difference in the socio-economic status groups and
the mean ranks of the adopted lifestyles
Socio-
Sample
Mean
Mean
Mean
Mean rank
Mean
Mean
economic
size
rank for
rank for
rank for
for
rank for
rank for
smoking
alcoholic
sedentary
nutritional
drug
behaviour
status
groups
No
habit
150
567.5
525.7
556.7
547.3
523.1
605.9
49
722.5
669.3
788.7
413.1
715.4
755.9
792.0
761.2
645.8
655.9
810.9
747.8
675.9
638.7
689.0
677.6
594.0
670.9
338
689.0
695.5
691.4
667.4
704.4
699.2
447
665.2
708.9
647.2
757.5
709.4
655.4
1350
675.5
675.5
675.5
675.5
675.5
675.5
response
Above N1
million
N500,000- 119
N999,000
N100,000- 247
N499
N50,000N99,000
Less than
N49,000
Total
Discussion
The findings that the socio-economic status of the respondents is
significantly related to alcoholic lifestyle, smoking, sedentary lifestyles, nutritional
and drug habits are in conformity with the studies of Stephens et al. (1985) and
Mensik et al (1997) which reported the influence of socio-economic status on the
use of tobacco, alcohol, refined diets and stimulant drugs. According to them,
cases of obesity, liver cirrhosis, HIV/AIDS, hypertension and other cardiovascular
diseases are more rampant among high socio-economic status groups due to
13
their sedentary lifestyle, high consumption of alcohol, poor nutritional habits and
indiscriminate sexual behaviour.
Table 2 shows that individuals within socio-economic status group 2
(N500,000 – N999,000, n = 119) possessed a high mean rank of 792.0. This
implies that the group tends to smoker more than the other groups. The table
also reveals a high rate of alcohol consumption among the same socio-economic
group. However, the socio-economic status group 5 (less than N49,000, n =
447) were also found to be significant in the way they consume alcohol,
especially the locally brewed burukutu. A high mean rank of 708.5 is a pointer in
this direction.
Also, individuals within socio-economic status group 1 (above N1 million, n
= 49) are more sedentary than other groups. This group does not involve much
in physical activities that are intensive. They engage in pleasure because of their
wealth.
The significant difference observed in the nutritional habit and socioeconomic groups of the respondent was further confirmed in the way the mean
ranks of the groups were sparsely spread with, high mean (757.5) found among
the respondents in socio-economic status group 5 (n = 447) and the lowest
mean rank (413.1) found among individuals in socio-economic status group 1 (n
= 49). This significant difference should be interpreted very carefully because
socio-economic difference should be interpreted very carefully because socioeconomic difference can only explain about one percent variance in the
nutritional habit of the respondents in the study area.
Socio-economic groups/differences of the respondents were found to
influence the way and manner in which they abused and misused drugs. Table 2
shows the rate of drug use, along the line of socio-economic status, to be a Vshape model in which the rate of drug abuse was higher among the privileged
and rich individuals, declining at the socio-economic status group 3, and again
increasing among the less privileged individuals (group 4 and 5).
14
Table 2 further shows that individuals within socio-economic status groups
1 and 2 were significantly different in their sexual behaviour (n – 49, mean rank
755.9 and n = 119, mean rank 747.8 respectively).
Wealth, affluence and
dignity attract opposite sex to individuals within these socio-economic status
groups, thereby influencing their sexual behaviours negatively.
The results of this study are in concordance with the results of other
studies, in which lifestyles/risk factors have been found to only partly explain the
socio-economic differences in obesity and other cardiovascular diseases and
obesity prevalence is that higher socio-economic status subject may, to a great
extent, deliberately control their weight. A recent study among British adults
(Jeffery and French, 1996) found that especially high socio-economic status
women had lower levels of perceived overweight, monitored their weight more
closely and were more likely to try to lose weight than did low socio-economic
status women.
The contribution of lifestyle/risk factors, such as smoking, physical
inactivity, poor nutritional habit, heavy alcohol consumption, drug use and
indiscriminate sexual behaviour, to socio-economic differences is very important,
from a public health point of view. If lifestyle factors would explain a large part
of the association between socio-economic status and incidences of obesity,
hypertension,
diabetes,
heart
failures,
HIV/AIDS,
criminal
tendencies,
cardiovascular diseases and others, changes in lifestyle would be important for
reducing stress, physical and psychological implications, economic lost, and
untimely death due to socio-economic differences. That means that changes in
lifestyle factors are important for reducing the socio-economic differences in the
consequences of these diseases.
In conclusion, since the contribution of lifestyle factors, such as physical
inactivity, smoking, heavy alcohol use and poor nutritional habits, seems to be
limited, other factors should be, at least, as important as lifestyle factors when
trying to reduce the incidence of diseases due to socio-economic differences.
15
Summary of Findings
The study found that socio-economic status groups/differences of an
individual influences his adoption of lifestyle/risk factors, such as smoking,
alcohol consumption, sedentary lifestyle, nutritional habit, drug habit and sexual
behaviour, thus, contributing significantly to the incidence of diseases and
diseases conditions in the society.
Recommendations
On the basis of the findings of the study, the following recommendations
are made:
1. Since socio-economic status influences people’s lifestyles, the government
should endeavour to improve the socio-economic levels of the people
as well as provide opportunities for people to enhance their socioeconomic levels through education and empowerment initiatives.
2. Pubic health education on the changes in lifestyles/risk factors is
important to reduce the incidence of disease due to socio-economic
differences.
3. Socio-economic status groups/individuals should be encourage to desist
from lifestyle factors, such as inactivity, excessive consumption of
alcohol, smoking, poor nutritional habits and indiscriminate sexual
behaviour, that would make them prone to diseases and other
infirmities..
16
References
Adler N., Boyce, W. and Chesney, M. (1993). Socio-economic inequality in
health: No easy solution. Journal of American Medical Association 24: 314315.
Borg, V. and Kristensen, T. (2000). Social class and self-rated health: Can the
gradient be explained by difference in lifestyle or work environment?
Social Science and Medicine 75 (12): 1038-1040.
Ford, E.S., Meritt, R.K. and Health. G.W. (1991). Physical activity behaviour in
lower and higher socio-economic populations. American Journal of
Epidemiology 133:1246-1246-1256.
Jeffery, R.W., French, S.A. Forester, J.L. and Spry, V.M. (1991). Socio-economic
Status Differences in Health Behaviours Related to Obesity: The Healthy
Worker Project. International Journal of Obesity 15:689-696.
Mensik, G.B.M., Loose, N. and Oomen, C.M. (1997). Physical Activity and its
Association With Other Lifestyle Factors. European Journal of Public Health
13:711-778.
Mildred, B. (1990). Health and Lifestyles. New York: Routledge.
Rowe, J and Kahn, R. (1998). Successful Aging. New York: Pantheon Books.
Shehu, R.A. (2005). Relationship Between Demographic Factors and Lifestyles of
the People of Kaduna State. Unpublished Ph. D .Thesis, Ahmadu Bello
University, Zaria.
Stephens T. Jacobs, D.R. (Jr.) and White, C.C. (1985). A Descriptive
Epidemiology of Leisure Time Physical Activity. Public Health Report
100:147-185.
17