Rationale

y Researchers as part and are entitled to uplift the standards of care on a research based improvements. y The Gestalt principle of being equal and belonging together or the relatedness of situation to distinguish positive outcome y The interacting system of a human being by Kings theory on interpersonal relationship that bestows the goal attainment of the person. y The researchers felt that to cater pure and holistic care, a tool used for such a procedure must be validated and evaluated with reference to the DOH recommendations.

 Contingency Tables 1.1Health Record during Pregnancy; Scoreboard Simple Percentage 1.2Present P=F/N X 100 HYPOTHESIS Pregnancy; Where: 1.3 is no Pregnancy; P = Percentagesignificant relationship There Instruction on the Warning Signs of 100 = Constant F = Frequency between the quality of prenatal care N = 1.4 Pastin prenatal care quality and Number of Birth Rating and Present Illness/Health Problems; Weights in each category. rendered by different institutions to 1.5 Immunization Weighted Mean Record;

Hospital Health Center pregnant women and the birth Birthing f2 (2)+ f1 (1)+ f0 (0) Clinic 1.6 Treatment and other services; fx = f5 (5) + f4 (4)+ f3 (3)+
weight of their newborns.
N 1.7 Health Chi Square Maintenance; and
2

1.8 Health Teachings? X = (Observed frequency Expected frequency) Expected frequency

CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK

Data Gathering
Permission letters to conduct the study were prepared by the researchers with the signatures of the Dean of the College of Nursing and Research Adviser. It was personally handled to the head of the research environments for due approval. As soon as the permissions were granted, the researchers searched for subjects who fit the criteria. The researchers interviewed the subjects from the hospital while the records of the samples from the health center and birthing center were reviewed, and utilized the prenatal care checklists. The scores from the checklists and the birth weights were placed on the contingency table for each facility. The summary of the gathered data in the contingency table were tallied in the scoreboard. The researchers tabulated the data, analyzed the statistical results and interpreted the data.

PRESENTATION, ANALYSIS and INTERPRETATION OF DATA

PRENATAL CARE QUALITY CHECKLIST
CATEGORIES:
1. Health Record during Pregnancy 2. Present Pregnancy 3. Instruction on the Warning Signs of Pregnancy 4. Past and Present Illness/Health Problems 5. Immunization Record 6. Treatment and other services 7. Health Maintenance 8. Health Teachings 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 1. Health Record during Pregnancy 60 91 80

4. Past and 6. Treatment 5. 8. Health 7. Health Present and other Immunization Illness/Health Teachings Maintenance services Record Problems Birthing Center Health Center Hospital 62 40 61 93 100 90 40 48 49 80 100 100 81 72 92

3. Instruction on the 2. Present Warning Pregnancy Signs of Pregnancy 82 81 92 81 79 87

1. DOH-BASED PRENATAL CARE QUALITY COMPLIANCE

Hospital
Unsatisfactory 0% Poor 0% Satisfactory 20% Excellent 20%

Unsatisfactory 0%

Health Center
Poor 0%

Excellent 0%

Satisfactory 40%

Very Satisfactory 60%

Very Satisfactory 60%

Unsatisfactory 0%

Birthing Center Poor

0% Excellent 5%

Satisfactory 55%

Very Satisfactory 40%

Figure 2.1-2.3Quality of prenatal care per institution.

Extremely Low Birth Weight 0%

Hospital
Low Birth Weight 19%

Very Low Birth Weght 0%

Health Center Extremely Low

Birth Weight 0% Very Low Birth Large Birth Weght Weight 15% 20% Low Birth Weight 25%

Large Birth Weight 29%

Normal Birth Weight 52%

Normal Birth Weight 40%

Extremely Low Birth Weight 0%

Birthing Center

Very Low Birth Weght 0%

Large Birth Weight Low Birth Weight 15% 20%

Normal Birth Weight 65%

Figure 3.1-3.3. Birth Weight of the newborns per institution

HOSPITAL Quality of Prenatal Care Excellent Very Satisfactory Satisfactory Unsatisfactory Poor TOTAL

HEALTH CENTER

BIRTHING FACILITY

20 % 60 % 20 % 0 0 100 %

0 60 % 40 % 0 0 100 %

5% 40 % 55 % 0 0 100 %

Birth Weights Extremely Low Birth Weight Very Low Birth Weight Low Birth Weight Normal Birth Weight Large Birth Weight TOTAL

0 0 20 % 55 % 25 % 100 %

0 15 % 25 % 40 % 20 % 100 %

0 0 15 % 65 % 20 % 100 %

Table 4 Scoreboard of Prenatal Care Quality and Birth Weights (Percentage)

FACILITY Hospital Health Center

Weighted Mean 4.0 3.6

Interpretation Very Satisfactory Very Satisfactory

Birthing Center 3.5 Very Satisfactory Table 5. Average Grade of Prenatal Care Quality for each facility
Facility Hospital X2 18.591 df 16 cv 26.296 Decision Failed to reject the null hypothesis. Reject the null hypothesis Interpretation There is no significant relationship between prenatal care and birth weight. There is a significant relationship between prenatal care and birth weight. Birthing Center 21.0168 16 26.296 Failed to reject the null hypothesis. There is no significant relationship between prenatal care and birth weight.

Health Center

27.172

16

26.296

4. Relationship between Prenatal Care Quality and Birth Weights

Conclusions
y There is a significant relationship between quality of prenatal care and birth weight the Health Centers. y The relationship between prenatal care on primigravida mothers and birth weight of newborns can be assessed using DOH recommendations on proper prenatal care. y The quality of prenatal care by the different health care providers (Hospital, Health Centers and Birthing Centers) can be evaluated and validated using DOH recommendations. y The quality of healthcare provider-primigravida mothers interactions can be appraised using Imogene Kings Interacting Systems Framework and Goal-Attainment Theory.