Indicator 5 4 3 2 1 WM

1 Explain the taking of medicines like vitamins and what is that for. 20 0 0 0 0 5.00
Give the necessary medicines, explain the possible effect and
instruct me to come back any time if there are some unto wards
2 incidence upon taking those given medicines 0 6 2 2 10 2.20
3 Midwives administered maternal immunization 3 13 4 0 0 3.95
My husband experienced to buy medical supply outside like
4 dextrose, syringe, plaster and obstetrical medicine 0 5 3 1 11 2.10
5 Giving Folic Acid to prevent neural tube defect 5 5 9 1 0 3.70
6 Giving extra ferrous sulfate to correct anemia deficiency 9 9 2 0 0 4.35
7 No available medicine/ vitamin 1 0 2 1 16 1.45
8 Explain the different adverse reaction of prescribed medicine. 20 0 0 0 0S 5.00
9 Birthing center follow the scheduled of prenatal check-up. 18 2 0 0 0 4.90
10 Poor health teaching regarding the diet intake during pregnancy. 16 3 1 0 0 4.75
Conduct home visit if I cannot come for check up due to the
11 distance of our house to birthing home. 0 1 3 1 15 1.50
Cannot able to schedule me on time because there were many
12 patients to attend due to lack of midwives. 0 2 2 2 14 1.60
13 The examining room is sanitized and clean. 8 10 2 0 0 4.30
Observed aseptic technique during the cleaning of my
14 episioraphy 20 0 0 0 0 5.00
15 Poor instruction regarding schedule of my next prenatal care. 18 2 0 0 0 4.90
16 Encourage immediate exclusive breastfeeding 5 11 4 0 0 4.05
17 Proper personal hygiene to postpartum mothers 16 4 0 0 0 4.80
18 Assess for signs of postpartum bleeding 15 5 0 0 0 4.75
19 Poor monitoring of vital sign 20 0 0 0 0 5.00
20 Poor counseling on the importance of breastfeeding 0 2 1 6 11 1.70
Identification and management of problems in mothers within
21 twenty four hours 20 0 0 0 0 5.00
22 Using standard machine in performing procedures 19 1 0 0 0 4.95
23 Provide counseling on a range of option for Family Planning 0 1 1 7 11 1.60
24 Follow up home visit if I cannot come for my schedule follow up 12 7 1 0 0 4.55
TAWM 3.80
 A. AGE:

SUMMARY
Groups Mean Rank
20-25 3.604167 4
26-30 3.841667 2
31-35 3.833333 3
36-ABOVE 3.895833 1

F 0.5 = F crit (2.70) DECISION: HO ACCEPTED

*THE COMPUTATION ANALYSIS VARIANCE YIELDED AN F VALUE (0.19) WHICH IS

LESSER THAN THE F crit VALUE OF (2.70) AT 0.05 LEVEL OF SIGNIFANCE. THUS THE
NULL HYPOTHESIS IS ACCEPTED.

* THEREFORE, THERE IS NO SIGNIFICANT DIFFERENCE ON THE REASON OF

AVAILING SERVICE IN THE RHU AS TO AGE GROUP.

B. RELIGIOUS AFFILIATION

SUMMARY
Groups Mean Rank
R.C 3.825758 2
ANGLICAN 3.645833 3
OTHERS 3.988907 1

F 0.5 = F crit (3.13) DECISION: HO ACCEPTED

*THE COMPUTATION ANALYSIS VARIANCE YIELDED AN F VALUE (0.37) WHICH IS

LESSER THAN THE F crit VALUE OF (3.13) AT 0.05 LEVEL OF SIGNIFANCE. THUS THE
NULL HYPOTHESIS IS ACCEPTED.

* THEREFORE, THERE IS NO SIGNIFICANT DIFFERENCE ON THE REASON OF

AVAILING SERVICE IN THE RHU AS TO RELIGIOUS AFFILIATION GROUP.
 C. SOCIO-ECONOMIC INCOME PER MONTH

SUMMARY
Groups Mean Rank
BELOW 5K 3.708333 3
5-10K 3.77381 2
10 K
ABOVE 3.869048 1

F 0.5 = F crit (3.13) DECISION: HO ACCEPTED

*THE COMPUTATION ANALYSIS VARIANCE YIELDED AN F VALUE (0.07) WHICH IS

LESSER THAN THE F crit VALUE OF (3.13) AT 0.05 LEVEL OF SIGNIFANCE. THUS THE
NULL HYPOTHESIS IS ACCEPTED.

* THEREFORE, THERE IS NO SIGNIFICANT DIFFERENCE ON THE REASON OF

AVAILING SERVICE IN THE RHU AS TO SOCIO-ECONOMIC INCOME PER MONTH
GROUP.

D. HIGHEST EDUCATIONAL ATTAINTMENT

SUMMARY
Groups Mean Rank
ELEM. GRADUATE 3.791667 1
HS. GRAD 3.625 4
COLLEGE LEVEL 3.786458 2
COLLEGE
GRADUATE 3.783333 3

F 0.5 = F crit (2.70) DECISION: HO ACCEPTED

*THE COMPUTATION ANALYSIS VARIANCE YIELDED AN F VALUE (0.08) WHICH IS

LESSER THAN THE F crit VALUE OF (2.70) AT 0.05 LEVEL OF SIGNIFANCE. THUS THE
NULL HYPOTHESIS IS ACCEPTED.

* THEREFORE, THERE IS NO SIGNIFICANT DIFFERENCE ON THE REASON OF

AVAILING SERVICE IN THE RHU AS TO HIGHEST EDUCATIONAL ATTAINTMENT
GROUP.
 A.

Indicator 5 4 3 2 1 WM
The midwives are very accommodating despite on my
1 economic status whether I am rich or poor 15 4 1 0 0 4.70
2 The midwives explains things in an understandable way 16 4 0 0 0 4.80
I experienced being humiliated by the staff in front of my co
3 patients during the coarse of labor 0 0 0 7 13 1.35
4 Midwives were not good in explaining the taking of medicines 0 2 0 2 16 1.40
I experienced ignored from the midwives when contraction of
5 my uterus occur 0 0 0 2 18 1.10
Midwives give information in an understandable way
6 regarding the signs of true labor 14 5 1 0 0 4.65
The midwives treat me with respect during the process of
7 labor and delivery 12 8 0 0 0 4.60
8 Midwives are competent and well trained 12 8 0 0 0 4.60
I don't usually experienced notices when they performed a
9 procedure to me 0 6 2 6 6 2.40
Midwives get mad at me when I call their attention regarding
10 my labor 0 0 3 4 13 1.50
11 They explain to me very well the progress of my labor 12 4 4 0 0 4.40
TAWM 35.5
SUMMARY
Groups Mean Rank
20-25 3.022727273 4
26-30 3.309090909 2
31-35 3.181818182 3
36-ABOVE 3.318181818 1

F 0.5 = F crit (2.84) DECISION: HO ACCEPTED

* THE COMPUTATION ANALYSIS VARIANCE YIELDED AN F VALUE (0.07) WHICH IS

LESSER THAN THE F crit VALUE OF (2.84) AT 0.05 LEVEL OF SIGNIFANCE. THUS THE
NULL HYPOTHESIS IS ACCEPTED.

* THEREFORE, THERE IS NO SIGNIFICANT DIFFERENCE ON THE LEVEL OF

SATISFACTION ON THE HEALTH SERVICES PROVIDED BY MIDWIVES IN THE
DIFFERENT RHU'S IN TABUK CITY, KALINGA AS TO AGE GROUP.

B. RELIGIOUS AFFILIATION

SUMMARY
Groups Mean Rank
R.C 3.239669 1
 ANGLICAN 3.136364 3
OTHERS 3.142857 2

F 0.5 = F crit (3.32) DECISION: HO ACCEPTED

*THE COMPUTATION ANALYSIS VARIANCE YIELDED AN F VALUE (0.014) WHICH IS

LESSER THAN THE F crit VALUE OF (3.32) AT 0.05 LEVEL OF SIGNIFANCE. THUS THE
NULL HYPOTHESIS IS ACCEPTED.

* THEREFORE, THERE IS NO SIGNIFICANT DIFFERENCE ON THE LEVEL OF

SATISFACTION ON THE HEALTH SERVICES PROVIDED BY MIDWIVES IN THE
DIFFERENT RHU'S IN TABUK CITY, KALINGA AS TO RELIGIOUS AFFILIATION
GROUP.

C. SOCIO-ECONOMIC INCOME PER MONTH

SUMMARY
Groups Mean Rank
BELOW 5K 3.015152 3
5-10K 3.25974 2
10K-
ABOVE 3.324675 1

F 0.5 = F crit (3.32) DECISION: HO ACCEPTED

*THE COMPUTATION ANALYSIS VARIANCE YIELDED AN F VALUE (0.11) WHICH IS

LESSER THAN THE F crit VALUE OF (3.32) AT 0.05 LEVEL OF SIGNIFANCE. THUS THE
NULL HYPOTHESIS IS ACCEPTED.

* THEREFORE, THERE IS NO SIGNIFICANT DIFFERENCE ON THE LEVEL OF

SATISFACTION ON THE HEALTH SERVICES PROVIDED BY MIDWIVES IN THE
DIFFERENT RHU'S IN TABUK CITY, KALINGA AS TO SOCIO-ECONOMIC INCOME PER
MONTH GROUP.

D. HIGHEST EDUCATIONAL ATTAINTMENT

SUMMARY
Groups Mean Rank
ELEM. GRAD 3.090909 4
H.S. GRAD 3.204545 3
 COLLEGE
LEVEL 3.215909 2
COLLEGE
GRAD. 3.272727 1

F 0.5 = F crit (2.84) DECISION: HO ACCEPTED

*THE COMPUTATION ANALYSIS VARIANCE YIELDED AN F VALUE (0.23) WHICH IS

LESSER THAN THE F crit VALUE OF (2.84) AT 0.05 LEVEL OF SIGNIFANCE. THUS THE
NULL HYPOTHESIS IS ACCEPTED.

* THEREFORE, THERE IS NO SIGNIFICANT DIFFERENCE ON THE LEVEL OF

SATISFACTION ON THE HEALTH SERVICES PROVIDED BY MIDWIVES IN THE
DIFFERENT RHU'S IN TABUK CITY, KALINGA AS TO AGE HIGHEST EDUCATIONAL
ATTAINTMENT GROUP.

KALINGA STATE UNIVERSITY

COLLEGE OF HEALTH AND NATURAL SCIENCES

BACHELOR OF SCIENCE IN MIDWIFERY

 BIOSTATISTICS

SUBMITTED TO:

LALIN ABBACAN-TUGUIC

SUBMITTED BY:

SORIANO, SHAMYR A. (TL)

COMDANG, CRISAMEL

DAGSON, JUNITA JOY

PENGTECOSTES, JOHN MICHALE

MABANTA, BERNADETTE

BARUZO, JAYNEVA

WIGAN, MINERVA