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 30 and below 31 – 40 41 and above Total

Frequency 29 21 20 70

Percentage 41.43 30 28.57 100

Rank 1 2 3

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.86 . wherein the first group are Male. It was divided into 4 groups. The third group consists of 9 respondents for 12.86 40 100 Rank 4 2 3 1 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 are male.43 percent are female and the remaining 38.57 61.43 100 Rank 2 1 Table 2 shows that 43 out of 70 respondents or 61.57 38.57 12. Table 3 Frequency and Percentage Distribution as to Educational Attainment The respondents were grouped according to their Educational Attainment. The second group are female. wherein the first group belongs to the elementary level/graduate. It was divided into 2 groups. Gender Male Female Total Frequency 27 43 70 Percentage 38. Educational Attainment Elementary High school Vocational College Total Frequency 6 27 9 28 70 Percentage 8. 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.57 percent finished High school.

100 – 10.000 while the smallest group of 13 respondents for 18.57 percent earns more than P 10.57 are elementary graduate. The second group is belong to the respondents who are earning 5.43 percent earns less than P5. The third group is belong to the respondents who are earning 10. wherein the first group is belong to the respondents who are earning 5.43 30 18. 000 10.100-10. Twenty One respondents or 30 percent earn 5. Table 4 Frequency and Percentage Distribution as to Monthly Salary The respondents were grouped according to their Monthly Salary.100 as their monthly salary.000 as monthly salary. with a percentage of 8. It was divided into 3 groups.100 to 10. Monthly Salary 5.100 and above.57 100 Rank 1 2 3 As shown in table 4.100 and above Total Frequency 36 21 13 70 Percentage 51.000 and below 5.000 and below.percent who have their vocational courses while the least group of respondents consists of 6. the largest group of 36 respondents for 51. Table 5 Perception of patients on Generic Drugs: Efficacy Indicators Weighted Verbal Rank . 000.

Generic drugs have same effect with branded ones. From an article of The Manila Times (2008). 3. They also agree that “Generic drugs are effective” with an obtained weighted mean of 2.17 2. Generic drugs acts fast in the body.93 and that “Generic drugs have same effect with branded ones” which has a 2.91 weighted mean.94 indicates that the respondents agree to the efficacy as a factor that influenced their perception on generic drugs. 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. The administration of the drug affects its efficacy. 4. Generic drugs are effective.81 weighted mean.94 Interpretation Agree Agree Agree Agree Agree 2 1 4 3 As shown in table 5 the respondents agree that “The administration of the drug affects its efficacy” with an obtained weighted mean of 3. The last was “Generic drugs acts fast in the body” with 2.81 2. Table 6 .17.91 2. The respondents mostly agreed on the efficacy of the drug and how it works. Average Mean 2. 2. The average weighted mean of 2.93 3.1.

Generic drugs can be substituted for a branded drug.20. Generic drugs have the same side-effects as the branded ones. The last was “Generic drugs have the same side-effects as the branded ones” with 2.06 Agree Agree Agree 2 1 2. 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. Average 3. 2.13 and that “Generic drugs can be substituted for a branded drug” which has a 3. the respondents agree that “Generic drugs are safe as branded ones” with an obtained weighted mean of 3. Generic drugs are safe as branded ones. The average weighted mean of 3. They also agree that “Generic drugs are well packed” with an obtained weighted mean of 3.81 Agree 4 Weighted Mean 3.81 weighted mean. Generic drugs are well packed.11 Verbal Interpretation Agree Rank 3 As shown in table 6. .13 3.20 3.06 indicates that the respondents agree to the safety as a factor that influenced their perception on generic drugs.11 weighted mean. 3.Perception of patients on Generic Drugs: Safety Indicators 1. 4.

Generic drugs are cheaper and affordable. In a study conducted by Jamshed. Generic drugs offer significant savings to consumers. 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.Table 7 Perception of patients on Generic Drugs: Affordability Indicators 1. al (2010). Average 3.43 3.41 Agree Agree 3 Weighted Mean 3. et. The local manufacturers are making low cost medicines which are easily affordable by masses of our country. It is known that Generic drugs are cheaper and affordable for all people. Generally clients ask for low-cost alternatives. cost is the deciding factor to dispense locally manufactured generic medicines to the patient/client. 2. Generic drugs have its reasonable price. They were also agree to the last which is “Generic drugs have its reasonable price” with an obtained weighted mean of 3. .46 Verbal Interpretation Agree Agree Rank 2 1 As shown in table 7.41 indicates that the respondents agree to affordability as a factor that influenced their perception on generic drugs.36.36 3. The average weighted mean of 3. 3.

10 level of significance.557 0. t Computed 0.557 was obtained which is lower than the t critical value.0470 was obtained which is interpreted as negligible correlation. For the relationship between Age and Safety. A computed t value of 0.01008 0.10 As shown in table 8. This shows that there is no significant relationship between age and safety.9973 at a 0.Table 8 Relationship between the Age of the respondents and their Perception on Generic drugs Critical t value = 1. This shows that there is no significant relationship between age and efficacy. a pearson r value of 0.9973 Level of significance = 0.388 was obtained which is lower than the t critical value of 1.835 0. a pearson r value of -0.01008 was obtained which is interpreted as low correlation.10 level of significance.9973 at a 0. A computed t value of 0.0674 0.0674 was obtained which is interpreted as negligible correlation. for the relationship between Age and Efficacy.835 was obtained which is lower than the t critical value of 1.0470 Remarks Low correlation Negligible correlation Negligible correlation between age and affordability. For the relationship between Age and Affordability. This shows that there is no significant relationship Indicators Efficacy Safety Affordability Pearson r value -0. A computed t value of 0. a pearson r value of 0.388 Interpretation Not Significant Not Significant Not Significant .

1117 was obtained which is interpreted as low correlation.429 was obtained which is lower than the t critical value.10 As shown in table 9. This shows Indicators Efficacy Safety Affordability Pearson r value -0. This shows that there is no significant relationship between educational attainment and safety. a pearson r value of -0.1708 was obtained which is interpreted as low correlation.429 0.2615 was obtained which is interpreted as low correlation. A computed t value of 0. A computed t value of 1.Table 9 Relationship between the Educational Attainment of the respondents and their Perception on Generic drugs Critical t value = 1.10 level of significance. For the relationship between the educational attainment of the patient to affordability of generic drugs. a pearson r value of -0. For the relationship between the educational attainment of the patient to safety of generic drugs. This shows that there is a significant relationship between educational attainment and efficacy.9973 Level of significance = 0.2615 -0.927 Interpretation Significant Not Significant Not Significant .1117 Remarks Low correlation Low correlation Low correlation t Computed 2.10 level of significance.9973 at a 0. for the relationship between the educational attainment of the patient to Efficacy of generic drug.9973 at a 0.234 was obtained which is higher than the t critical value of 1. a pearson r value of -0.1708 -0.927 was obtained which is lower than the t critical value of 1. A computed t value of 2.234 1.

0789 Remarks Low correlation Low correlation Low correlation t Computed 2.9973 Level of significance = 0.that there is no significant relationship between educational attainment and affordability. 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 computed t value of 1. a pearson r value of -0.10 level of significance.667 0. A computed t value of 2.648 1.1982 -0.10 As shown in table 10.653 Interpretation Significant Not Significant Not Significant Table 10 Relationship between the Monthly Salary of the respondents and their Perception on Generic drugs Critical t value = 1. for the relationship between the monthly salary of the patient to Efficacy of generic drug. Indicators Efficacy Safety Affordability Pearson r value -0. a pearson r value of -0.9973 at a 0.3057 -0.648 was obtained which is higher than the t critical value of 1.3057 was obtained which is interpreted as low correlation.667 was obtained which is lower than .1982 was obtained which is interpreted as low correlation.

0457 x2 critical 5. In efficacy. a computed chi-square value of 0.991 5. Table 11 Relationship between the Gender of the respondents and their Perception on Generic drugs Indicators Efficacy Safety Affordability x2 computed 0. In safety.9973 at a 0. therefore.991. This shows that there is no significant relationship between monthly salary and affordability.9098 was obtained which is less than the chi-square critical of 5.1935 0. there is no significant .9098 1. therefore. A computed t value of 0.0789 was obtained which is interpreted as low correlation.10 level of significance. safety and affordability. a computed chi-square value of 0. This shows that there is no significant relationship between monthly salary and safety.991 Interpretation Not Significant Not Significant Not Significant Table 11 shows the relationship between the gender and the perception on Generic drugs in terms of efficacy.991 5.653 was obtained which is lower than the t critical value of 1. a pearson r value of -0. For the relationship between the monthly salary of the patient to affordability of generic drugs.1935 was obtained which is less than the chi-square critical of 5. there is no significant relationship between the gender of the respondents to their perception on generic drugs’ efficacy.the t critical value.991.

86 3. a computed chi-square value of 1.991.29 3.11 3.44 3. In affordability.000 and below Monthly Salary P5.03 3. Efficacy 30 and below Age 31 – 40 41 and above Male Gender Female Elementary Educational Attainment High school Vocational College P5.23 VI Agree Agree Agree Agree Agree Agree Agree Agree Agree Agree Agree Agree .45 3. there is no significant relationship between the gender of the respondents to their perception on generic drugs’ affordability.99 3.36 3.16 2.69 2.12 3.86 2.relationship between the gender of the respondents to their perception on generic drugs’ safety.12 2.15 3. therefore.24 3.09 2.100 above 2.000 P10.99 2.10010.88 2.92 3.47 3.25 3.97 2.47 2.0457 was obtained which is less than the chi-square critical of 5.93 VI Agree Agree Agree Agree Agree Agree Agree Agree Agree Agree Agree Agree Affordability 3.16 2.66 3.44 3.04 3.95 3.21 2.45 3.27 3.08 3.88 VI Agree Agree Agree Agree Agree Agree Agree Agree Agree Agree Agree DA Safety 2.29 3.

Affordability .Table 12 Perception of Patients on Generic drugs as to Efficacy. Safety.