You are on page 1of 12

Chapter 4

PRESENTATION, ANALYSIS AND INTERPRETATION OF DATA

This chapter discusses the results of the manipulation, interpretation and

analysis of data.

Table 1

Frequency and Percentage Distribution as to Age

The respondents were grouped according to their Age. It was divided into

3 groups; wherein the first group are aged 30 and below. The second aged 31 –

40. The third group consists of aged 41 and above.

Age Frequency Percentage Rank


30 and below 29 41.43 1
31 – 40 21 30 2
41 and above 20 28.57 3
Total 70 100

Table 1 shows that majority of the respondents for 29 out of 70

respondents with 41.43 percent are aged 30 years old and below. 21

respondents or 30 percent are aged 31-40, while the smallest group of 20

respondents for 28.57 percent are aged 41 years old and above.

Table 2

Frequency and Percentage Distribution as to Gender


The respondents were grouped according to their Gender. It was divided

into 2 groups; wherein the first group are Male. The second group are female.

Gender Frequency Percentage Rank


Male 27 38.57 2
Female 43 61.43 1
Total 70 100

Table 2 shows that 43 out of 70 respondents or 61.43 percent are female

and the remaining 38.57 percent are male.

Table 3

Frequency and Percentage Distribution as to Educational Attainment

The respondents were grouped according to their Educational Attainment.

It was divided into 4 groups; wherein the first group belongs to the elementary

level/graduate. The second group is belong to the high school level/graduate.

The third group belongs to the vocational and the last group are the college

graduates.

Educational Attainment Frequency Percentage Rank


Elementary 6 8.57 4
High school 27 38.57 2
Vocational 9 12.86 3
College 28 40 1
Total 70 100

Table 3 shows that the largest group of 28 respondents for 40 percent

finished college while the second largest group of 27 respondents for 38.57

percent finished High school. The third group consists of 9 respondents for 12.86
percent who have their vocational courses while the least group of respondents

consists of 6, with a percentage of 8.57 are elementary graduate.

Table 4

Frequency and Percentage Distribution as to Monthly Salary

The respondents were grouped according to their Monthly Salary. It was

divided into 3 groups; wherein the first group is belong to the respondents who

are earning 5,000 and below. The second group is belong to the respondents

who are earning 5,100 to 10, 000. The third group is belong to the respondents

who are earning 10,100 and above.

Monthly Salary Frequency Percentage Rank


5,000 and below 36 51.43 1
5,100 – 10, 000 21 30 2
10,100 and above 13 18.57 3
Total 70 100

As shown in table 4, the largest group of 36 respondents for 51.43 percent

earns less than P5,000 as monthly salary. Twenty One respondents or 30

percent earn 5,100-10,000 while the smallest group of 13 respondents for 18.57

percent earns more than P 10,100 as their monthly salary.

Table 5

Perception of patients on Generic Drugs: Efficacy

Indicators Weighted Verbal Rank


Mean Interpretation
1. Generic drugs are 2.93 Agree 2
effective.
2. The administration of the 3.17 Agree 1
drug affects its efficacy.
3. Generic drugs acts fast in 2.81 Agree 4
the body.
4. Generic drugs have same 2.91 Agree 3
effect with branded ones.
Average 2.94 Agree

As shown in table 5 the respondents agree that “The administration of the

drug affects its efficacy” with an obtained weighted mean of 3.17. They also

agree that “Generic drugs are effective” with an obtained weighted mean of 2.93

and that “Generic drugs have same effect with branded ones” which has a 2.91

weighted mean. The last was “Generic drugs acts fast in the body” with 2.81

weighted mean. The average weighted mean of 2.94 indicates that the

respondents agree to the efficacy as a factor that influenced their perception on

generic drugs. The respondents mostly agreed on the efficacy of the drug and

how it works.

From an article of The Manila Times (2008), the Bureau of Food and

Drugs (BFAD) states that generic drugs are identical or within an

acceptable bioequivalent range to the brand name counterpart with respect

to pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic properties.

Table 6
Perception of patients on Generic Drugs: Safety

Indicators Weighted Verbal Rank


Mean Interpretation
1. Generic drugs can be 3.11 Agree 3
substituted for a branded
drug.
2. Generic drugs have the 2.81 Agree 4
same side-effects as the
branded ones.
3. Generic drugs are well 3.13 Agree 2
packed.
4. Generic drugs are safe as 3.20 Agree 1
branded ones.
Average 3.06 Agree

As shown in table 6, the respondents agree that “Generic drugs are safe

as branded ones” with an obtained weighted mean of 3.20. They also agree that

“Generic drugs are well packed” with an obtained weighted mean of 3.13 and

that “Generic drugs can be substituted for a branded drug” which has a 3.11

weighted mean. The last was “Generic drugs have the same side-effects as the

branded ones” with 2.81 weighted mean. The average weighted mean of 3.06

indicates that the respondents agree to the safety as a factor that influenced their

perception on generic drugs.

An article written by Josh L Mckinley about the efficacy of generic drugs

emphasized that all medications in the market go through a series of

examinations to ensure that they're safe for human consumption.


Table 7

Perception of patients on Generic Drugs: Affordability

Indicators Weighted Verbal Rank


Mean Interpretation
1. Generic drugs are cheaper 3.43 Agree 2
and affordable.
2. Generic drugs offer 3.46 Agree 1
significant savings to
consumers.
3. Generic drugs have its 3.36 Agree 3
reasonable price.
Average 3.41 Agree

As shown in table 7, the respondents agree that “Generic drugs offer

significant savings to consumers” with an obtained weighted mean of 3.46 and

that “Generic drugs are cheaper and affordable” with an obtained weighted mean

of 3.43. They were also agree to the last which is “Generic drugs have its

reasonable price” with an obtained weighted mean of 3.36. The average

weighted mean of 3.41 indicates that the respondents agree to affordability as a

factor that influenced their perception on generic drugs.

It is known that Generic drugs are cheaper and affordable for all people. In

a study conducted by Jamshed, et. al (2010), cost is the deciding factor to

dispense locally manufactured generic medicines to the patient/client. Generally

clients ask for low-cost alternatives. The local manufacturers are making low cost

medicines which are easily affordable by masses of our country.


Table 8

Relationship between the Age of the respondents and their Perception on

Generic drugs

Critical t value = 1.9973


Level of significance = 0.10

As shown in table 8, for the relationship between Age and Efficacy, a

pearson r value of -0.01008 was obtained which is interpreted as low correlation.

A computed t value of 0.835 was obtained which is lower than the t critical value

of 1.9973 at a 0.10 level of significance. This shows that there is no significant

relationship between age and efficacy.

For the relationship between Age and Safety, a pearson r value of 0.0674

was obtained which is interpreted as negligible correlation. A computed t value of

0.557 was obtained which is lower than the t critical value. This shows that there

is no significant relationship between age and safety.

For the relationship between Age and Affordability, a pearson r value of

0.0470 was obtained which is interpreted as negligible correlation. A computed t

value of 0.388 was obtained which is lower than the t critical value of 1.9973 at a

0.10 level of significance. This shows that there is no significant relationship


Indicators Pearson r Remarks t Computed Interpretation
value
Efficacy -0.01008 Low correlation 0.835 Not Significant
Safety 0.0674 Negligible 0.557 Not Significant

correlation
Affordability 0.0470 Negligible 0.388 Not Significant

correlation
between age and affordability.
Table 9

Relationship between the Educational Attainment of the respondents and

their Perception on Generic drugs

Critical t value = 1.9973


Level of significance = 0.10

As shown in table 9, for the relationship between the educational

attainment of the patient to Efficacy of generic drug, a pearson r value of -0.2615

was obtained which is interpreted as low correlation. A computed t value of 2.234

was obtained which is higher than the t critical value of 1.9973 at a 0.10 level of

significance. This shows that there is a significant relationship between

educational attainment and efficacy.

For the relationship between the educational attainment of the patient to

safety of generic drugs, a pearson r value of -0.1708 was obtained which is

interpreted as low correlation. A computed t value of 1.429 was obtained which is

lower than the t critical value. This shows that there is no significant relationship

between educational attainment and safety.

For the relationship between the educational attainment of the patient to

affordability of generic drugs, a pearson r value of -0.1117 was obtained which is

interpreted as low correlation. A computed t value of 0.927 was obtained which is

lower than the t critical value of 1.9973 at a 0.10 level of significance. This shows

Indicators Pearson r Remarks t Computed Interpretation


value
Efficacy -0.2615 Low correlation 2.234 Significant
Safety -0.1708 Low correlation 1.429 Not Significant
Affordability -0.1117 Low correlation 0.927 Not Significant
that there is no significant relationship between educational attainment and

affordability.

Indicators Pearson r Remarks t Computed Interpretation


value
Efficacy -0.3057 Low correlation 2.648 Significant
Safety -0.1982 Low correlation 1.667 Not Significant
Affordability -0.0789 Low correlation 0.653 Not Significant

Table 10

Relationship between the Monthly Salary of the respondents and their

Perception on Generic drugs

Critical t value = 1.9973


Level of significance = 0.10

As shown in table 10, for the relationship between the monthly salary of

the patient to Efficacy of generic drug, a pearson r value of -0.3057 was obtained

which is interpreted as low correlation. A computed t value of 2.648 was obtained

which is higher than the t critical value of 1.9973 at a 0.10 level of significance.

This shows that there is a significant relationship between monthly salary and

efficacy.

For the relationship between the monthly salary of the patient to safety of

generic drugs, a pearson r value of -0.1982 was obtained which is interpreted as

low correlation. A computed t value of 1.667 was obtained which is lower than
the t critical value. This shows that there is no significant relationship between

monthly salary and safety.

For the relationship between the monthly salary of the patient to

affordability of generic drugs, a pearson r value of -0.0789 was obtained which is

interpreted as low correlation. A computed t value of 0.653 was obtained which is

lower than the t critical value of 1.9973 at a 0.10 level of significance. This shows

that there is no significant relationship between monthly salary and affordability.

Table 11

Relationship between the Gender of the respondents and their Perception

on Generic drugs

Indicators x2 computed x2 critical Interpretation


Efficacy 0.1935 5.991 Not Significant
Safety 0.9098 5.991 Not Significant
Affordability 1.0457 5.991 Not Significant

Table 11 shows the relationship between the gender and the perception

on Generic drugs in terms of efficacy, safety and affordability.

In efficacy, a computed chi-square value of 0.1935 was obtained which is

less than the chi-square critical of 5.991; therefore, there is no significant

relationship between the gender of the respondents to their perception on

generic drugs’ efficacy.

In safety, a computed chi-square value of 0.9098 was obtained which is

less than the chi-square critical of 5.991; therefore, there is no significant


relationship between the gender of the respondents to their perception on

generic drugs’ safety.

In affordability, a computed chi-square value of 1.0457 was obtained

which is less than the chi-square critical of 5.991; therefore, there is no significant

relationship between the gender of the respondents to their perception on

generic drugs’ affordability.

Efficacy VI Safety VI Affordability VI

30 and
2.99 Agree 2.86 Agree 3.45 Agree
below

31 – 40 3.12 Agree 3.04 Agree 3.27 Agree


Age

41 and
2.86 Agree 3.15 Agree 3.45 Agree
above

Male 2.88 Agree 3.11 Agree 3.24 Agree

Gender
Female 2.92 Agree 3.03 Agree 3.36 Agree

Elementary 3.12 Agree 3.08 Agree 3.44 Agree

High
Educational 3.09 Agree 3.21 Agree 3.25 Agree
school
Attainment

Vocational 2.99 Agree 2.88 Agree 3.44 Agree

Agree
College 2.66 Agree 2.95 Agree 3.29

P5,000
3.16 Agree 3.16 Agree 3.47 Agree
and below
Monthly
P5,100-
Salary 2.69 Agree 2.97 Agree 3.29 Agree
10,000
P10,100 Agree Agree
2.47 DA 2.93 3.23
above
Table 12

Perception of Patients on Generic drugs as to Efficacy, Safety, Affordability