CHAPTER IV

RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS

This chapter presents the analysis and interpretation of the data obtained from the

respondents. The results are discussed in the following areas: socio-demographic profile

of the respondents, their level of knowledge regarding the benefits and privileges under

the Primary Care Benefit 1 (PCB1) Package, their attitude towards it, and their utilization

and the relationship between the variables of the study.

Socio-Demographic Profile of the Respondents

The respondents’ profile is grouped according to age, sex, civil status, educational

attainment, average monthly family income and the distance of their residence from the

District Health Center. The data are presented in Table 1.

The data show that among the indigents and LGU sponsored program members

from Iloilo City, almost half (49. 1 percent) were 35-47 years old, one-third (33.8

percent) were to 21-34 years old, while less than one-fifth (17.1 percent) were 48 to 60

years old. This shows that majority of the indigents and LGU sponsored program

members were in their prime age. The mean age of the respondents is 39.58.

The study further reveal that majority of the respondents were males (70.3

percent). Less than one - third (29.7 percent) were females. This implies that majority of

the indigents and LGU sponsored members registered their head of the family as a

Philhealth member who is usually the father.

 47

The study further reveals that the married respondents consist of more than four-

fifth of the population (92.2 percent) followed by the widowed (4 percent) and the single

ones that comprise less than five percent of the respondents (3.8 percent).

Table 1 reveals that majority of the respondents attained a high school or

secondary level of education (66. 5 percent). A little more than one – fourth (26. 7

percent) were elementary educated, while only 6.8 percent had gone to college or tertiary

education. This affirms that the respondents were poor if education is considered.

As to the income earned per month the findings reveal that more than three-

fourths (80.4 percent) of the respondents were earning an average monthly family income

of PhP 5,000 to PhP 10,000, while a little less than one-fourth (19.6 percent) were

earning an income of less than PhP 5,000. Ideally it is stated in the constitutions of the

Philippines that every Filipino Citizens will be free from poverty, have gainful

employment and improved quality of life.

The study further reveals that a little more than one-half (53.4 percent) of the

respondents have residences located 1 km to 3 km from any of the health care facility

(District Health Center). A little less than one-third (31.5 percent) of the respondents

lived more than 3 km from the District Health Center. Moreover, roughly more than one-

eighth (15.1 percent) of the respondents lived not more than 1 km from the District

Health Center. This means that most of the respondents have easy access to the Health

Care Facility (HCF) but there are still about a third (32 percent) who may find it difficult

to come to HCF because of the distance away from their respective places.
 48

Table 1. Distribution of respondents according to their socio-demographic profile

Socio-Demographic Profile f %
Age (in years)
21 -34 years old 134 33.8
35-47 years old 195 49.1
48-60 years old 68 17.1
Total 397 100.0
Mean Age = 39.58
Sex
Male 279 70.3
Female 118 29.7
Total 397 100.0
Civil Status
Single 15 3.8
Married 366 92.2
Widowed/Separated 16 4.0
Total 397 100.0
Educational Attainment
Elementary 106 26.7
High School 264 66.5
College 27 6.8
Total 397 100.0
Monthly Family Income (in pesos)
Less than 5,000 78 19.6
5,000 to 10,000 319 80.4
Total 397 100.0
Mean Income = PhP 6,110
Distance From District Health Center (in km.)
Less than 1 km. 60 15.1
1 to 3 km. 212 53.4
More than 3 km. 125 31.5
Total 397 100.0
 49

Knowledge about the Benefits and Privileges under

the Primary Care Benefit 1 (PCB1) Package.

The knowledge of the respondents about the benefits and privileges was based on

the information stipulated in the Primary Care Benefit 1 (PCB 1) Package.

Table 2 shows the distribution of the respondents according to their knowledge

about specific benefits and privileges under the PCB 1 Package. The data reveal that all

(100 percent) of the respondents knew that indigents and LGU sponsored members are

covered in the PCB 1 Package. Moreover, all of them were aware that under the PCB 1

Package, drugs and medicines for asthma including nebulization services will be

provided by the district health center. Majority of them also knew that every indigents

and LGU sponsored member should be assigned to a Primary Care Benefit 1 Provider

and that member will only present their PhilHealth identification card or the Member

Data Record (MDR) or the 4P’s card to the PCB 1 facility (district health center) to avail

the services. The same proportion of the respondents knew that they don’t have to pay for

the services, such as blood pressure measurement every time they will have their

consultation at the district health centers (98. 5 percent, 99.7 percent, 99.7 percent

respectively). At most eight (8) in every ten (10) respondents knew that in case of death

of a member, the entitled benefits of his/ her dependents will not automatically be

forfeited. They were also aware that this package is applicable for government health care

facility only (72 percent and 80.4 percent respectively). The figures also revealed that

almost 60 percent of the respondents had an idea that indigents and LGU – sponsored

members and their qualified dependents can avail the consultation and other services

when they are not sick. Furthermore, they also knew that they can still avail of the
 50

package even if they had transferred their place of residence to another

province/city/municipality/district (59.2 percent and 57.7 percent respectively). It is sad

to note however that almost 85 percent of the respondents had no idea that diagnostic

examinations such as X-ray is included in the PCB 1 Package.

Table 2. Distribution of respondents according to their knowledge about the benefits

and privileges under the Primary Care Benefit 1 (PCB 1) Package.

Correct
Items
Answer f %
1. Indigent and LGU Sponsored Program Members are
covered in the PCB1 Package True 397 100.0
2. Under the PCB 1 Package drugs and medicines for Asthma
including nebulization services will be provided by the
True 397 100.0
District Health Center.
3. The Member will only present their PhilHealth ID card or
MDR or 4P’s ID card to the PCB 1 facility (District Health True 396 99.7
Center) to avail the services
4. I have to pay for the services such as BP Measurement
every time I visit the District Health Center for my False 396 99.7
consultation
5. Every Indigent and LGU Sponsored Program Member
should be assigned to a PCB 1 Provider True 391 98.5
6. The PCB 1 Package is applicable for both Private and
Government Health Care Facility False 319 80.4

7. In case of death of member, entitled benefits of his/her

False 286 72.0
dependents will automatically be forfeited.

8. Indigent and LGU Sponsored members and their qualified

dependents can avail the consultation and other services
True 235 59.2
even they don’t have any illness
9. I can no longer avail the PCB 1 Package if I transferred my
place of residence to another False 229 57.7
Province/City/Municipality/District.
10. Diagnostic Examination such as Chest X-ray is not
included in this PCB1 Package. False 60 15.1
 51

Overall Level of Knowledge of the Respondents on the Benefits

and Privileges of the Primary Care Benefit 1 (PCB1) Package.

Overall the level of knowledge of the respondents about their benefits and

privileges is generally good. Table 3 reveals that 64 percent of the respondents had a high

level of knowledge about the benefits and privileges of the PCB 1 Package. The findings

imply that despite the series of orientation, fora and seminars where information about

the PCB 1 Package have been disseminated, there are still a number whose understanding

of the benefits and privileges of the package is moderate or average.

Table 3. Distribution of respondents according to overall level of knowledge on the

benefits and privileges under the Primary Care Benefit 1 (PCB1) Package.

Level of Knowledge f %
High 254 64.0
Average 143 36.0
Total 397 100.0

Attitude towards the benefits and privileges under

the Primary Care Benefit 1 (PCB1) Package.

The attitude of the respondents towards the benefits and privileges under the

Primary Care Benefit 1 (PCB1) Package may or may not affect their utilization of

services provided for them. Table 4 shows the distribution of respondents according to

their attitude towards the PCB 1 Package.

The figures reveal that majority (82.6 percent) of the respondents agreed that they

feel that the benefits and privileges of the PCB 1 Package are supportive of their needs.
 52

Moreover, they also expressed a highly favorable attitude towards the program and more

than three-fourths (81.4 percent) agreed that as PhilHealth member they deserve to avail

of the services provided under the PCB 1 Package. Furthermore, almost two-thirds (62.5

percent) of the respondents also favored the introduction of PhilHealth PCB 1 Package to

the indigents and LGU-sponsored members.

Two-thirds (66.8 percent) of the respondents also express and favored the free

consultation services in the district health centers. Moreover, encouraging to note that

majority (94.2 percent) of the respondents also expressed that they want to know more

about the PCB 1 Package. Although the majority (71 percent) also expressed that the

provisions of the PCB 1 Package are enough to sustain their needs, there were still more

than one-fourth (28.5 percent) who though that the benefits of the PCB 1 Package are not

enough. On the other hand, almost all (91.4 percent) of the respondents agreed that it is

easier for them o avail of the services under the package at the district health center.

It is interesting to know that nearly three-fourth (69.5 percent) of the respondents

agreed that the benefits and privileges of the PCB 1 Package is beneficial to them,

whether they get sick or not. However, the majority (97 percent) of them disagreed that

all indigents and LGU sponsored members have idea that this PCB 1 Package existed.

Remarkably, almost three-fourth (74.8 percent) of the respondents expressed that they

feel it is necessary to submit for a regular consultation under the PCB 1 Package

regardless if one has acquired illness or not. It is also interesting to know that a little more

than two-fifth (22.7 percent) of the respondents do not agree that regular consultation as

part of the PCB 1 Package is essential even if they don’t get sick.
 53

The date clearly show that the respondents appreciate the services rendered by the

PCB 1 Package and most of them agreed that these benefits and privileges will contribute

much for the betterment of people’s health. Improved access to affordable health care

will definitely be beneficial to the less privileges.

Table 4. Distribution of respondents according to their attitude towards the Primary

Care Benefit 1 (PCB1) Package.

Strongly Agree Disagree Strongly Total

Items Agree Disagree
f % f % f % f % f %
1. As a member of PhilHealth, I
deserve to avail the services 323 81.4 74 18.6 0 0 0 0 397 100
provided in the PCB 1 package.
2. In my opinion, the benefits and
privileges of this package is good 276 69.5 98 24.7 23 5.8 0 0 397 100
to all whether they got sick or not.
3. The free consultation services in
the District Health Center are in 265 66.8 129 32.5 3 0.8 0 0 397 100
favor to us.
4. It is good that PhilHealth has
introduced this PCB 1 Package
148 37.3 248 62.5 1 0.3 0 0 397 100
for the Indigent and LGU
sponsored members
5. I feel that the benefits and
services of this PhilHealth PCB 1
62 15.6 328 82.6 7 1.8 0 0 397 100
Package are supportive of my
needs
6. I feel that it is easy to avail this
package on the District Health 32 8.1 363 91.4 2 0.5 0 0 397 100
Center
7. I want to know more about this
22 5.5 374 94.2 1 0.3 0 0 397 100
PhilHealth PCB 1 Package
8. I feel that regular consultation as
part of the PCB1 package is 10 2.5 297 74.8 90 22.7 0 0 397 100
necessary even if I don’t get sick
9. I feel that all Indigent and
Sponsored Members have idea
5 1.3 3 0.8 385 97.0 4 1.0 397 100
that this PhilHealth PCB 1
Package exist.
10. In my opinion, the benefits of this
package are enough to sustain my 0 0 282 71.0 113 28.5 2 0.5 397 100
needs.
 54

Overall Attitude of the Respondents towards the Benefits and

Privileges under the Primary Care Benefit 1 (PCB1) Package

Table 5 presents the distribution of the respondents according to their overall

attitude towards the Primary Care Benefit 1 (PCB1) Package. The figures reveal that

nearly three-fourth (71.5 percent) of the respondents have highly favorable attitude

towards the package. On the other hand, the rest (28.5 percent) had favorable attitude

towards the PCB 1 Package. Surprisingly, none of the respondents expressed negative

attitude towards the PCB 1 Package.

The study findings suggest that most of the respondents have a highly favorable

attitude towards the implementation of the program and agreed that the benefits and

privileges of the PCB 1 Package can improve the health condition of the beneficiaries.

They may have realized that the government is working to promote their welfare and

want to give them these benefits to use. Even though some of them felt that there are

provisions that are not enough, yet they knew they are available and they can avail of

these if they wanted to.

Table 5. Distribution of respondents according to overall attitude towards the

benefits and privileges under the Primary Care Benefit 1 (PCB1) Package.

Attitude f %
284 71.5
Highly Favorable
113 28.5
Favorable
Total 397 100.0
 55

Health Related Characteristics of the Respondents

with regards to their Utilization of Health Services

Table 6 shows the distribution of the respondents according to their health-related

characteristics. The findings reveal that out of 397 respondents, almost three-fourths (74

percent) claimed that they have not gotten sick for the past six (6) months, while a little

more than one-fourth (26 percent) of them claimed they got sick. The data further reveal

that nearly one-half (40.5 percent) of their dependents got sick for the past six months.

The majority (76.4 percent of those who got sick were dependents of the

indigents/LGU-sponsored members. Nine (9) in every ten (90.2 percent) of the study

population got sick only once in the past six months. It is disturbing to note that three-

fourths (75 percent) of the population opted not to consult a doctor whenever they got

sick. The common reason for not consulting a medical professional was that they feel

they don’t need it (62.5 percent). They claimed that their body will just recover from any

illness without seeking for a medical intervention. This is explained by the common

behavior among Filipinos of managing illness at home especially if the illness is not that

serious. Nevertheless, it is good to know that almost (99.6 percent) of those who got sick

had their consultation at the district health center.

The study findings imply that respondents’ preferred for the government primary

health care facility to attend to their needs. This also indicate that they trust the services

of the local health care facilities.

 56

Table 6. Distribution of respondent’s according to their health-related

characteristics

Demographic f %
Sickness (Members only)
Got Sick 104 26
Never Got Sick 293 74
Total 397 100.0
Sickness (Dependents only)
Got Sick 336 40.5
Never Got Sick 493 59.5
Total 829 100.0
Sickness (Members and Dependents)
Got Sick 440 35.8
Never Got Sick 786 64.2
Total 1,226 100.0
Membership Type Who Got Sick
Member 104 23.6
Dependent 336 76.4
Total 440 100.0
Number of Times Got Sick
Once 397 90.2
Twice 40 9.1
Thrice 3 0.7
Total 440 100.0
Consultation (Members and Dependents)
Yes 298 24.3
No 928 75.7
Total 1,226 100.0
Place of Consultation
District Health Center 297 99.6
Private Facility 1 0.4
Total 298 100.0
Reason for No Consultation
No Need 578 62.2
Lazy 190 20.5
Far from house 106 11.5
No money 54 5.8
Total 928 100.0
 57

Presenting Signs and Symptoms and Diagnosis prior

to consultation on a Health Care Facility

Table 7 shows that the most common signs and symptoms observed by the

respondents and their qualified dependents which they sought consultation was fever

(78.1 percent). This was followed by cough (69.1 percent) and colds (63. 4 percent).

Almost one-fourth (24.8 percent) consulted about difficulty of breathing. Stomach ache

(8.4 percent) and diarrhea (8.7 percent) were the most uncommon signs and symptoms

which were consulted at the health care facility.

Diagnosis of Diabetes Mellitus II (1.3 percent) was rare. Statistics showed that the

incidence of diabetes is rising in the Philippines. The Bohol Standard reported in

November 2008 that one out of every five Filipinos living in the Philippines had diabetes.

Furthermore, a survey conducted by the Philippine Cardiovascular Outcome study on

Diabetes Mellitus in 2007 found that (20.6 percent of the adults aged 30 and above were

found to be diabetic.

These findings imply that the indigents and LGU-sponsored members nowadays

are health conscious, that they will seek consultation to have a better understanding of

what they are experiencing. It is also a good indicator that they are willing to subject

themselves for the management of their illness.

 58

Table 7. Distribution of respondent’s and their qualified dependents according to

their presenting signs and symptoms and diagnosis upon consultation

Symptoms (Multiple Response) f(N=298) %

Fever 214 71.8
Cough 206 69.1
Cold 189 63.4
Difficulty of Breathing 74 24.8
Dizziness 50 16.8
Diarrhea 26 8.7
Stomachache 25 8.4
Diagnosis
Flu/Fever 132 44.3
Asthma 52 17.4
Hypertension 41 13.8
Acute Gastroenteritis 31 10.4
Pulmonary Tuberculosis 14 4.7
Respiratory Tract Infection 13 4.4
Diabetes Mellitus II 4 1.3

Utilization of Primary Care Benefit 1 Package in terms of

its Promotive, Diagnostic and Curative Approach

Table 8 shows that all (100 percent) of the respondents and their qualified

dependents have availed of the free consultation at the district health centers. A little

more than three-fourth (67.34 percent) of them have availed of breastfeeding program

education and measurement of body mass index (79.5 percent). Only half (50.5 percent)

of the respondents availed of the regular blood pressure monitoring, while nearly one-half

(43.7) of them have availed of the medications for flu and fever. Moreover, a little more

than one-fourth (28. 3 percent) of the population claimed that they had been counsel

about smoking cessation. Only ten percent of them submitted themselves to visual

inspection with the use of acetic acid (10.4 percent). Almost the same proportions of the
 59

respondents have availed the clinical breast examination and counseling for lifestyle

modification (13. 8 percent and 16. 8 percent respectively).

The findings of the study indicate that there are still a number of respondents who

have not availed of the benefits and privileges of the PCB 1 Package. There are other

factors that may also affect the utilization of the preventive benefits offered under the

PCB 1 Package. Among the reasons why preventive and promotive aspects of the

package were poorly utilized was that, respondents waived their right to avail of such

obligated services like visual inspection with the use of acetic acid or what we called the

pap smear, clinical breast examination for females and digital rectal examination for

males because they do not find the need to.

In terms of diagnostic examinations, almost one-third of the population had

undergone complete blood count (CBC) and urinalysis (37. 4 percent and 32. 9 percent).

Nearly one-fourth had availed of the fecalysis and Chest X-ray services (24.9 and 20.2

percent). While less than two-fifths availed of sputum analysis, fasting blood sugar, and

lipid profile test. As to the medications that had been utilized, the data reveal that nearly

half of the population had been given remedy such as medicines for flu and fever.

Medicines for diabetes mellitus and pulmonary tuberculosis (43. 7 percent, 1.3 percent

and 4.7 percent respectively).

The study findings reveled a low percentage of utilization of the benefits and

privileges of the respondents as to promotive, preventive, and curative aspect of PCB 1

Packages. This implies that even though the respondents have an average to high level of

knowledge and a high highly favorable attitude, still there are other factors that may

present their utilization of their benefits and privileges.

 60

Table 8. Distribution of the respondent’s and their qualified dependents who have
consulted with the district health center according to their utilization of
PCB1 Package.

Promotive f (N=297) %
Free Consultation 297 100.0
Vital signs taking 297 100.0
Body Measurements (Height, Weight, BMI) 236 79.5
Breastfeeding Program Education 200 67.34
Regular Blood Pressure talking 150 50.5
Counseling for Smoking Cessation 84 28.3
Counseling for Lifestyle Modification 50 16.8
Visual Inspection with Acetic Acid (Female Only) 23 10.4
Digital Rectal Examination (Male Only)
Diagnostic
Complete Blood Count (CBC) 111 37.4
Urinalysis 98 32.9
Fecalysis 74 24.9
Chest X-ray 60 20.2
Fasting Blood Sugar (FBS) 49 16.4
Lipid Profile 40 13.4
Sputum Analysis 27 9
Medications for
Flu and Fever 130 43.7
Asthma with Nebulization 50 16.8
Hypertension 40 13.4
Acute Gastroenteritis 26 8.75
Pulmonary Tuberculosis 14 4.7
Respiratory Tract Infection 13 4.4

Episodes and frequency of consultation at the District Health Center

Table 9 shows that the majority (67.4 percent) of the respondents who got sick

went one time for consultation when they experienced the signs and symptoms. Whereas,

almost all (99.2 percent) of those who got sick thrice in the past 6 months did not submit

themselves for consultation. On the other hand, majority of the respondents regardless of

the frequency of illness had consulted the district health center (67.4 percent).
 61

The findings of the study imply that almost all of the respondents who got sick for

the past six months had their consultation in the district health center. It also revealed that

majority (76.5 percent) of the population have not consulted a medical doctor even

though they were experiencing signs and symptoms of an illness. This can be attributed

to other factors such as the attitude of the respondents. On the other hand, it is good to

know that the indigents and LGU-sponsored members prefer to go to the district health

center for their health needs more than the private facility.

Table 9. Distribution of the respondent’s according to their episodes of consultation

and frequency they have consulted at the district health center

Consultation Total
Number of Times Got Sick Yes No
f % f % f %
Once 246 67.4 119 32. 6 365 100.0
Twice 48 11.1 382 30.1 430 100.0
Thrice 4 0.8 467 99.2 471 100.0
Total 298 23.5 968 76.5 1,266 100.0
Place of Consultation
District Health Private Total
Number of Times Got Sick Center
f % f % f %
Once 246 67.4 1 0.27 365 100.0
Twice 48 11.2 0 0 430 100.0
Thrice 4 1.6 0 0 471 100.0
298 23.5 968 76.5 1,266 100.0

Overall extent of utilization of the benefits and privileges of the Primary Care
Benefit 1 (PCB1) Package of the respondents who got sick

Table 10 shows that a little more than half (51.9 percent) of the respondents who

got sick had a high utilization of their benefit and privileges of the PCB 1 Package. It

revealed that the indigents and the LGU sponsored program members have not fully
 62

utilized the services intended for them especially when they got sick and when they

consulted the district health center. They are supposed to maximize their utilization of

their benefits and privileges under the PCB 1 Package.

There are many possible factors that prevent them from utilizing their benefits,

even then they got sick. The figures indicate that the PCB 1 Package is still underutilized

by the recipients who need them the most.

Table 10. Distribution of respondents who got sick according to their overall
utilization of PCB 1 Package

Extent of Utilization f %
54 51.9
High
50 48.1
Low
Total 104 100.0

Overall extent of utilization of the benefits and privileges of the Primary Care
Benefit 1 (PCB1) Package of the respondents both who got sick and not

Table 11 reveal that majority (86.6 percent) of the respondents had a low extent of

utilization of their benefits and privileges under the PCB 1 Package. It is interesting to

note that only more than one-eight (13. 4 percent) of the respondents had a high extent of

utilization of their benefits and privileges. This suggest that the benefits and privileges of

the PCB 1 Package are underutilized. There are varied reasons for the underutilization of

the benefits and privileges. This imply that there is still lack of understanding about the

Primary Care Benefit 1 Package and how to avail it.

 63

Other factors which can affect their level of utilization are the level of educational

attainment and there are of residence. Those who live near the district health center may

have easier access to the benefits and privileges than those who live farther from health

center.

Table 11. Distribution of respondents according to overall extent of utilization of the

benefits and privileges of the Primary Care Benefit 1 (PCB 1) Package
both who got sick and not

Extent of Utilization f %
53 13.4
High
344 86.6
Low
Total 397 100.0

Relationship between socio-demographic profile and the level of knowledge of the

respondents on the Primary Care Benefit 1 (PCB1)

This section presents the finding on the relationship analysis between the personal

profile of the respondents according to age, sex, civil status, educational attainment,

average monthly family income, and the distance of their place of residence from the

District Health Centers and their level of Knowledge about the Primary Care Benefit 1

(PCB1) Package. The data are presented in Table 12.

 64

Age and Level of Knowledge

The figures reveal that an equal proportions of the respondents who were 21 to 34

and those who were 35 to 47 years old have a high level of knowledge about the benefits

and privileges offered by the PCB 1 Package. (65. 7 percent and 65. 1 percent

respectively). A similar observation was noted among the 21 to 34 and those of 35 to 47

years old, their average level of knowledge were 34. 3 percent and 34. 9 percent

respectively. For the age group 48 to 60, there is a slightly higher proportion (57. 4

percent) with the high level of knowledge compared to those with average level of

knowledge (42. 6 percent).

The Gamma value of 0.086 (p value of 0.341) indicate that knowledge is not

significantly associated with the age of the respondents. This implies that their

knowledge on the benefits and privileges of the PCB 1 Package does not vary according

to age. The result of this study corroborates the findings of Cortel (2007) among nurses at

Capiz Emmnuel Hospital which showed no significant relationship between age and level

of knowledge. However, it debunk the findings of Palmes (2010) among the faculty of

West Visayas State University which showed that age of the respondents has a significant

bearing on their level of knowledge.

Sex and Level of Knowledge

The study further reveal that among the males, a slightly higher proportion with

high level of knowledge (64.2 percent) than the females (63.6 percent). Inversely, there

were slightly more female respondents than the male with average level of knowledge

(36. 4 percent and 35. 8 percent respectively) about the benefits and privileges of the
 65

PCB 1 Package. The differences in proportions however were so small to yield a

significant results.

The results of the Cramer’s V test for relationship did not reach a significant

level. Thus, there is no significant relationship between sex and level of knowledge

(Cramer’s V = 0.006, p value = 0.910). This implies that respondents’ sex has no bearing

on the level of knowledge. The findings of the studies corroborate the findings of Italia

(2012) among the senior citizens. Though, the study of Macato (2013) on the utilization

of child health services in Roxas City and that of Ciudad (2009) among nursing aides

revealed a significant relationship between sex and the level of knowledge.

Civil Status and Level of Knowledge

With regards to the relationship between the civil status and level of knowledge,

the study revealed that there is a higher proportion of those widowed/separated (81.2

percent) than those who were single and married (73.3 percent and 62.8 percent

respectively) who had a high level of knowledge. However, those with average level of

knowledge among the married respondents, there was slightly higher (37.2 percent) than

those who were single (26.7 percent) and those who were widowed/separated (18.8

percent).

The Cramer’s V value however yielded a value which is not significant at 0.05

level (Cramer’s V = 0.085, p value = 0.241). This means that there is no significant

relationship between the civil status and the level of knowledge of the respondents. The

study findings agree with the results of the study of Ciudad (2009) which revealed that

marital status of the nursing aides was not associated with the level of knowledge on the
 66

use of personal protective equipment. However, this was contradicted by the study of

Cortel (2007) among nurses at Capiz Emmanuel Hospital which found that civil status is

significantly related to the level of knowledge. This imply that respondent’s knowledge

on the PCB 1 Package will not be affected regardless of the respondents’ marital status.

Educational Attainment and Level of Knowledge

The data further reveal a significant relationship between educational attainment

and level of knowledge of the respondents. The highest percentage of those who had a

high level of knowledge were those who had attained college education. (74. 1 percent),

followed by those with high school level of education (66. 3percent). Among those with

elementary education, a little more than one-half (55. 7 percent) of the respondents had

high level of knowledge. Of those with the average level of knowledge, almost one-half

(44.3 percent) were elementary educated, followed by those with high school education

(33. 7 percent), and the lowest percentage were those with college level of education (25.

9 percent).

The Gamma value of 0.227 is significant at 0.05 level (p = 0.026) which indicates

that the level of education has significant bearing on the respondents’ level of knowledge.

This findings confirms the findings of Palmes (2010) among the faculty of West Visayas

State University and those of Italia (2012) among senior citizens in the municipality of

Leganes. Both studies found that educational attainment is significantly associated with

their level of knowledge. On the contrary, studies of Cortel (2007) among nurses at Capiz

Emmanuel Hospital and that of Marañon (2008) revealed that the level of education of
 67

the respondents did not influence their decisions to utilize the screening for prostate

cancer.

Average Monthly Family Income and Level of Knowledge

The data on income and level of knowledge reveal that there is a small difference

in the proportions of respondents with high level of knowledge between those who were

earning monthly family income of less than PhP 5,000 (61.5 percent) when compared to

those who were earning an income of PhP 5,000 to PhP 10,000 (64.6 percent). Among

those with average level of knowledge, there is a slight difference between the

respondents whose income were less than PhP 5,000 (38.5 percent) compared to those

with an income of PhP 5,000 to PhP 10,000 (35.4 percent).

The Gamma test for relationship yielded a value of 0.024 and a p value of 0.620

which is not significant at 0.05 level indicating that income does not have a significant

influence on the level of knowledge of the respondents. The findings of the study is

consistent with the findings of Palmes (2010) among faculty members of West Visayas

State University and Italia (2012) among senior citizens on the Municipality of Leganes,

Iloilo revealed that income of the respondents has no significant bearing on their level of

knowledge. The study of Diaz (2008) however among fathers in child health care and the

study of Dadivas (2010) among caregivers in selected hospitals in Iloilo and Roxas City

reveled that income influenced the level of knowledge.

Distance from the District Health Center and Level of Knowledge

As to the distance of the residence of the respondents from the District Health

Center in relation to their level of knowledge, the data reveal that a little more than two-
 68

third (67 percent) of the respondents who have a high level of knowledge resides with a

distance of 1 km to 3 km from the district health center, not far from the percentage were

those who were living more than 3 km (62. 4 percent) followed by those respondents

living 1 km to 3 km (56.7 percent). On the average level of knowledge, those who resides

less than 1 km from the district health center have a higher level of knowledge (43. 3

percent) compared to those who lived more than 3 km (37.6 percent) and to those who

resides 1 km to 3 km from the district health center (33 percent).

The Gamma reveal a result of 0.024 with a significance value of 0.794 which is

greater than α = 0.05 indicating that there is no significant relationship between the

distance from the district health center and their level of knowledge. It imply that

regardless of the distance where the respondents reside still they acquired knowledge on

the Primary Care Benefit 1 (PCB1) Package. The result of the study conforms to the

study conducted of Lutz (2008) on the Health Care Attitudes and service utilization

among African-Americans which revealed that distance from the heath care facilities and

level of knowledge was not significantly related with one another.

On the basis of results obtained from test of relationship between the respondents

profile and their level of knowledge of the benefits and privileges in the Primary Care

Benefit 1 (PCB1) Package, the result reveal that respondents’ level of knowledge on the

Package is not significantly associated with age, sex, civil status, average monthly

income and distance from any of the district health center, but it is significantly related to

level of knowledge.

The findings imply that the higher the educational achievement of the

respondents, the better is their knowledge about the PCB 1 Package. This is consistent
 69

with the idea that education with the idea that education applied wisely improves a

person’s intellect and understanding.

Table 12. Distribution of respondents according to socio-demographic profile and

level of knowledge regarding the benefits and privileges under the
Primary Care Benefit 1 (PCB 1) Package

Knowledge
High Average Total
Personal Characteristics
f % f % f %
Age (in years)
21 to 34 88 65.7 36 34.3 134 100.0
35 to 47 127 65.1 68 34.9 195 100.0
48 to 60 39 57.4 29 42.6 68 100.0
Total 254 64.0 143 36.0 397 100.0
Gamma= 0.086 p value= 0.341
Sex
Male 179 64.2 100 35.8 279 100.0
Female 75 63.6 43 36.4 118 100.0
Total 254 64.0 143 36.0 397 100.0
Cramer’s V= 0.006 p value= 0.910
Civil Status
Single 11 73.3 4 26.7 15 100.0
Married 230 62.8 136 37.2 366 100.0
Widowed/Separated 13 81.2 3 18.8 16 100.0
Total 254 64.0 143 36.0 397 100.0
Cramer’s V= 0.085 p value= 0.241
Educational Attainment
Elementary 59 55.7 47 44.3 106 100.0
High School 175 66.3 89 33.7 264 100.0
College 20 74.1 7 25.9 27 100.0
Total 254 64.0 143 36.0 397 100.0
Gamma= 0.227 p value= 0.026
Monthly Family Income
Less than 5,000 41 61.5 30 38.5 78 100.0
5,000 to 10,000 206 64.6 113 35.4 319 100.0
Total 254 64.0 143 36.0 397 100.0
Gamma= 0.065 p value= 0.620
Distance From District Health
Center
34 56.7 26 43.3 60 100.0
Less than 1 km.
142 67.0 70 33 212 100.0
1 to 3 km.
78 62.4 47 37.6 125 100.0
More than 3 km.
Total 254 64.0 143 36.0 397 100.0
Gamma= 0.024 p value= 0.794
 70

Relationship between Socio-Demographic Profile of the Respondents and the

Attitude towards the Benefits and Privileges of the Primary Care Benefit 1 (PCB1)

The findings on the relationship analysis between the personal characteristics of

the respondents and their attitudes towards the benefits and privileges of Primary Care

Benefit 1 (PCB 1) Package are presented in Table 13.

Age and Attitude

The data reveal that there are almost equal proportions of respondents who were

21 to 34 and those who were 35 to 47 years old (70.9 percent and 74. 4 percent

respectively) who had a highly favorable attitude towards the PCB 1 Package. Almost the

same findings was noted among those with favorable attitude of the 21 to 34 and among

the 35 to 47 age group (29.1 percent and 25.6 percent respectively). Amongst the 48 to 60

years old respondents, those with highly favorable attitude (64. 7 percent) dominated

those with favorable attitude (35. 3 percent).

The Gamma value for the test of relationship was 0. 047 with a significance value

of 0.630 which is not significant at 0.05 level. This means that the relationship between

age and attitude is not significant. Result of the study substantiate the findings of Italia

(2012) among senior citizens. However the studies of Lutz (2008) on Health Care

Attitudes and Service Utilization among African-Americans and that of Nagoya (2010)

found that age is significantly related to attitude of women in Kham District,

Xiengkhouang Province, Lao PDR.

 71

Sex and Attitude

As to sex and attitude, the study revealed that there were more males than females

who had a highly favorable attitude towards the PCB 1 Package (76 percent and 61

percent respectively). Inversely, there were more females than males respondents who

had a favorable attitude towards the package (39 percent and 24 percent respectively).

The test of relationship between the two variables yielded a value of 0.152 with a

significance value of 0.003. This indicates that sex is significantly related to the attitude

of the respondents. The result of the study corroborates the findings of Dieta (2010) in

her study on newly hired nurses’ attitude and competence which revealed that sex was

significantly associated with their attitude. However, it contradicts the study of Charles

(2010) about the Socio-Cultural factors affecting attitude and behavior, regarding

population and family issues in Nigeria which revealed that sex was not significantly

related with the attitude of the respondents. The results of this study imply that the

attitude of the respondents towards Primary Care Benefit 1 (PCB 1) Package of the

respondents is affected by their gender.

Civil Status and Attitude

When grouped according to civil status, the figures revealed that there was a

higher percentage of married respondents with highly favorable attitude towards the PCB

1 package compared to those who were single (73 percent and 60 percent respectively).

The proportion of the married respondents with a favorable attitude constitute only of 27

percent. Remarkably, there was an almost equal proportions of widowed/separated

 72

respondents with highly favorable attitude (50 percent) and those with favorable attitude

(50 percent) towards the PCB 1 Package.

The Cramer’s V test revealed a value of 0.112 with a significance value of 0.083

which indicates that the relationship between civil status and attitude towards the PCB1

Package is not significant. Results of the study support the findings of Palmes (2010)

among faculty members of West Visayas State University which also revealed that civil

status and attitude are not significantly related with one another.

On the other hand, the study of Lutz (2008) on the health care attitude of African-

Americans revealed that married individuals have positive attitudes and likewise seek

consultation and avail of health services in health centers. The findings of the study imply

that regardless of the marital status of the respondents it has no bearing and will not affect

the attitudes of the respondents towards the PCB 1 Package

Educational Attainment and Attitude

In terms of educational attainment, the data reveal a slight difference in

proportions of those with highly favorable attitude among those who have attended

elementary level (65.1 percent), high school level (74.6 percent), and that of college level

(66.7 percent). Parallel findings was noted on the favorable attitude among respondents

with elementary, high school and college levels of education (34.9 percent, 25.4 percent

and 33.3 percent respectively).

The Gamma test yielded a value of 0.133 and a p value of 0.232 which is not

significant at 0.05 level of significance. This indicates that there is no significant

relationship the educational attainment and the attitude of the respondents towards the
 73

PCB 1 Package. The study findings imply that educational attainment has no bearing on

the respondent’s attitudes towards the package.

The study supports the finding of Bautista and Yap (2009) among diabetic clients

and that of Alvaro (2013) among women of reproductive age. Both revealed that there is

no significant relationship between the educational attainment and the respondent’s

attitude towards the PCB 1 Package. On the contrary, the study of Italia (2012) among

senior citizens and Diaz (2008) among fathers in child-healthcare revealed that

educational attainment is related to respondent’s attitudes.

Average Monthly Family Income and Attitude

When grouped according to average monthly income, the results revealed that

nearly three-fourths (73. 4 percent) of the respondents who had very favorable attitude

towards the PCB 1 Package belong to those who were earning an average monthly

income of PhP 5,000 to PhP 10,000. On the other hand, the respondents who were

earning less than PhP 5,000.00 dominated the proportions of respondents with income of

PhP 5,000 to PhP 10,000 with 35.9 percent among those with favorable attitude.

The Gamma test revealed a value of 0.213 with a significance value of 0.124

which is higher than α = 0.05. This indicates that the relationship between average

monthly income and attitude is not significant. The study findings confirm the findings of

Italia (2012) among senior citizens and those of Alvaro (2013) among women in

reproductive age. Both studies revealed that income is not significantly related to attitude.

However the study of Diaz (2008) among fathers doing the child care revealed that

regardless of their income their attitude towards the child health care were favorable.
 74

Distance from the District Health Center and Attitude

As to the place of residence from the district health center, the study findings

revealed that a higher percentage (80 percent) of the respondents with highly favorable

attitude resides in areas less than 1 km from the district health center as compared to

those who were living more than 3km (70. 4 percent) away and those who were living

1km to 3km from the district health center. Of those with favorable attitude, proportions

of those who were living 1 km to 3 km from the district health center (30. 2 percent) is

greater than those place of residence are located less than 1 km (20 percent) and those

living more than 3 km away from the district health center.

The Gamma test revealed a value of 0.099 with a significance value of 0.302

which is far higher than α = 0.05. This indicates that there is no significant relationship

between distance form district health center and attitudes towards the PCB 1 Package.

This is supported by the study of Macato (2013) on the extent of utilization of the child

health services in the Main Barangay Health Stations in Roxas City and that of Ingalla

(2013) among senior citizen which revealed no significant relationship between distances

from health facility to attitudes of the respondents. Findings of Lutz (2008) among

African-American health care attitude towards utilization and those of Nagoya (2010)

revealed that the attitude of the respondents were affected by the distance of their

residence from the health care facility.

On the basis of results obtained from the test of relationships between the

respondents’ socio-demographic profile and attitude towards the Primary Care Benefit 1

Package the null hypothesis that there is no significant relationship between the socio-

demographic profile of the respondents such as age, civil status, educational attainment,
 75

average monthly income, and distance from the district health center cannot be rejected.

However, in relation to the sex, attitude was found to be significantly related.

Table 13. Distribution of the respondents according to socio-demographic profile

and attitude towards the benefits and privileges of the Primary Care
Benefit 1 (PCB1) Package.

Attitude
Personal Characteristics Highly Favorable Favorable Total
f % f % f %
Age (in years)
21 to 34 95 70.9 39 29.1 134 100.0
35 to 47 145 74.4 50 25.6 195 100.0
48 to 60 44 64.7 24 35.3 68 100.0
Total 113 28.5 284 71.5 397 100.0
Gamma= 0.047 p value= 0.630
Sex
Male 212 76.0 67 24.0 279 100.0
Female 72 61.0 46 39.0 118 100.0
Total 113 28.5 284 71.5 397 100.0
Cramer’s V= 0.152 p value= 0.003
Civil Status
Single 9 60.0 6 40.0 15 100.0
Married 267 73.0 99 27.0 366 100.0
Widowed/Separated 8 50.0 8 50.0 16 100.0
Total 113 28.5 284 71.5 397 100.0
Cramer’s V= 0.112 p value= 0.083
Educational Attainment
Elementary 69 65.1 37 34.9 106 100.0
High School 197 74.6 67 25.4 264 100.0
College 18 66.7 9 33.3 27 100.0
Total 113 28.5 284 71.5 397 100.0
Gamma= 0.133 p value= 0.232
Monthly Family Income
Less than 5,000 50 64.1 28 35.9 78 100.0
5,000 to 10,000 234 73.4 85 26.6 319 100.0
Total 113 28.5 284 71.5 397 100.0
Gamma= 0.213 p value= 0.124
Distance From District Health
Center 48 80.0 12 20.0 60 100.0
Less than 1 km. 148 69.8 64 30.2 212 100.0
1 to 3 km. 88 70.4 37 28.6 125 100.0
More than 3 km.
Total 113 28.5 284 71.5 397 100.0
Gamma= 0.099 p value= 0.302
 76

Relationship between Socio-Demographic Profile of the Respondents and

Utilization of the Benefits and Privileges of the Primary Care Benefit 1 (PCB1)
Regardless they have gotten sick or not

This section presents the finding on the relationship analysis between the socio-

demographic profile of the respondents according to age, sex, civil status, educational

attainment, average monthly family income, and the distance of their place of residence

from the District Health Centers and their utilization of the benefits and privileges of

Primary Care Benefit 1 (PCB1) Package. The data are presented in Table 14.

Age and Utilization

When the respondents were grouped according to age, the data reveal that a

higher percentage of respondents who were 48 to 60 years old had a high level of

utilization of the PCB 1 Package (44.1 percent) than those who were 35 to 47 years old

(8.7 percent) and 21 to 34 years old (4. 5 percent). On the other hand, a small difference

in proportions was noted between the 21 to 34 years old and the 35 to 47 years old (95. 5

percent and 92. 3 percent respectively), who had a low utilization of the package.

The Gamma test results revealed a value of 0.693 with a significance value of

0.000, indicating a significant relationship between age and the utilization of the benefits

and privileges of Primary Care Benefit 1 (PCB 1) Package. The results of the study is

congruent with the findings of Macato (2013) in her study on extent of utilization of child

health services. Her study revealed that the older the individual the more they are

experienced and knowledgeable about the health care services and this improves their

access and utilization of the services.

 77

On contrary, the findings debunked the findings of Starrette (2004) among

Mexican-American elderly which revealed that the age of an individual is not

significantly related to utilization of health services. It imply that as the older the

respondents become, they will have better understanding of their benefits and privileges

of the Primary Care benefit 1 (PCB1) Package, and the more likely they will develop a

positive attitude and will eventually lead to the utilization of the services.

Sex and Utilization

The data further reveal that there were more female than male respondents who

had a high utilization (25.4 percent and 8. 2 percent respectively). Inversely, there were

more who reported poor utilization of the PCB 1 Package (91.8 percent and 74.6 percent

respectively)

The Cramer’s V test revealed a value of 0.231 which is significant at 0.05 level of

significance (p=0.000). This indicates that there is significant relationship between sex

and extent of utilization of the benefits and privileges.

The study findings of this study are congruent with the findings of Fitzpatrick

(2004). In her study on barriers to health care access, she reported that gender plays a

vital role in role in determining the respondents decide to utilize the health care services

intended for them. However the study of Bolivar (2011) among the college students of

Iloilo Doctors College revealed that sex and utilization are not significantly related,
 78

Civil Status and Utilization

The data further reveal that on-half (50 percent) of the respondents who were

widowed/separated had high extent of utilization, while only 13. 3 percent of those who

were single (13. 3 percent) and 11. 7 percent who were married highly utilized the PCB 1

Package. The majority of the single and married respondents reported low utilization of

the PCB 1 Package. (86. 7 percent and 88.3 percent respectively).

The Cramer’s V test revealed a value of 0.158 with a significance value of 0.001

which indicates that civil status is significantly related with extent of utilization of the

PCB 1 Package. These findings are congruent with the findings of Lutz (2008) which

also revealed that married women were more likely to utilize the services offered in the

health care facility than their single counterparts. However, the study of Italia (2012)

among senior citizens revealed that the civil status of the respondents has no significant

bearing on their utilization of benefits and privileges of the PCB 1 Package.

Educational Attainment and Utilization

As to the relationship between the educational attainment and the utilization, the

data show that there were more respondents who had attained elementary education (25.

5 percent) had high extent of utilization of PCB 1 Package than those with high school

and college education (8.3 percent and 14. 8 percent respectively). The highest proportion

of respondents with low extent of utilization was among the high school educated

respondents followed by the college education (85. 2 percent) then by those with

elementary education (74.5 percent).

 79

The Gamma test result yielded a value of 0.422 which is significant at 0.5 level (p

value of 0.003). This indicates a significant relationship between educational attainment

and extent of utilization. These findings are similar to those of Charles (2010) in his study

on socio-demographic characteristics affecting the attitude and behavior of the

respondents regarding population and family issues in Nigeria which revealed that

individual with low educational attainment were less likely to use the preventive services

in the health center and more likely to report poor health status than individual with

college education. This imply that the higher the academic achievement, the greater the

chances of utilizing their benefits and privileges. The findings of Ingalla (2013) among

senior citizens in Aklan, revealed that educational attainment of the respondents has no

direct effect on the use of health and social services.

Average Monthly Family Income and Utilization

The data further reveal that there were more respondents who were earning a

monthly income of less PhP 5,000 (28.2 percent) than those who were earning a monthly

income of PhP 5,000 to PhP 10,000 (9.7 percent) who have a high level of utilization of

the benefits and privileges of the PCB 1 Package. On the other hand, there were more

respondents who were earning PhP 5,000 to PhP 10,000 (90.3 percent) than those who

had a monthly income of less than PhP 5,000 (71.8 percent) who had a low utilization of

the package.

The Gamma test yielded a value of 0.555 with a significance value of 0.001. This

indicates that there is a significant relationship between monthly income of the

respondents and the level of their utilization of the benefits and privileges of the PCB 1
 80

Package. This implies that the higher their income the higher the chance that they will

utilize the benefits and their privileges under the PCB 1 Package. These finding is in

agreement with findings of Alvaro (2013) among women with reproductive age and of

Ingalla (2013) among senior citizens in Aklan. Both studies revealed a significant

relationship between income and utilization.

This implies that poverty does not exclude people from the benefits of health care

system, but also restricts them from participating in decisions that affect their health,

resulting in greater health inequities. However, this finding negates the findings of

Penaflor (2009) among breast cancer survivors in Iloilo City which revealed that monthly

income of the respondents had no significant bearing on the use of complementary and

alternative medicines.

Distance from the District Health Center and Utilization

As to the relationship between the distance of the place of residence of the

respondents from the district health center and utilization, the data reveal a higher

percentage of respondents were living within a distance of 1 km to 3 km from the district

health center (15.6 percent) than those who were residing less than 1 km (13.3 percent)

and to those living more than 3 km (9.6 percent) from the district health center who had

high utilization of the package. On the other hand, there were more respondents living

within a distance of more than 3 km (90.4 percent) from the district health center than

those who were living less than 1 km (86.7 percent) and to those living within 1 km to 3

km (84.4 percent) who had a low utilization of the PCB 1 Package.

 81

The Gamma test results revealed a value of 0.142 with a p value of 0.242, which

is not significant at 0.05 level. This indicates that there is no significant relationship

between the two variables. The findings imply that regardless of the distance of the

respondents’ house from the district health center, their level of utilization is still low.

The results of the study contradicts the findings of Pe (2012) on the utilization of prenatal

services among pregnant women in Bugasong, Antique which revealed that regardless of

the distance of their residence from the health care facility, the respondents were eager to

utilize prenatal services such as prenatal care that is intended for them. The findings of

Ingalla (2013) among senior citizens in Aklan, however revealed that utilization of

services varies according to their place of residence.

In summary, the null hypothesis that there is no significant relationship between

the socio-demographic profile such as age, sex, civil status, educational attainment and

monthly family income of the indigents and LGU-sponsored members is rejected. Only

distance of residence from the health care facility was found to be not significantly

related to the respondents’ extent of utilization of the benefits and privileges of the

Primary Care Benefit 1 (PCB 1) Package.

 82

Table 14. Distribution of the respondents according to socio-demographic profile

and utilization of the benefits and privileges of the Primary Care Benefit 1
(PCB1) Package for both who got sick and not

Utilization
Personal Characteristics High Low Total
f % f % f %
Age (in years)
21 to 34 6 4.5 128 95.5 134 100.0
35 to 47 17 8.7 178 91.3 195 100.0
48 to 60 30 44.1 38 55.9 68 100.0
Total 53 13.4 344 86.6 397 100.0
Gamma = 0.693 p = 0.000
Sex
Male 23 8.2 256 91.8 279 100.0
Female 30 25.4 88 74.6 118 100.0
Total 53 13.4 344 86.6 397 100.0
Cramer’s V = 0.231 p = 0.000
Civil Status
Single 2 13.3 13 86.7 15 100.0
Married 43 11.7 323 88.3 366 100.0
Widowed/Separated 8 50.0 8 50.0 16 100.0
Total 53 13.4 344 86.6 397 100.0
Cramer’s V = 0.158 p = 0.001
Educational Attainment
Elementary 27 25.5 79 74.5 106 100.0
High School 22 8.3 242 91.7 264 100.0
College 4 14.8 23 85.2 27 100.0
Total 53 13.4 344 86.6 397 100.0
Gamma = 0.422 p = 0.003
Monthly Family Income (in pesos)
Less than 5,000 22 28.2 56 71.8 78 100.0
5,000 to 10,000 31 9.7 288 90.3 319 100.0
Total 53 13.4 344 86.6 397 100.0
Gamma = 0.555 p = 0.001
Distance From District Health Center
Less than 1 km. 8 13.3 52 86.7 60 100.0
1 to 3 km. 33 15.6 179 84.4 212 100.0
More than 3 km. 12 9.6 113 90.4 125 100.0
Total 53 13.4 344 86.6 397 100.0
Gamma = 0.142 p = 0.242
 83

Relationship between Socio-Demographic Profile of the Respondents who got sick

and Utilization of the Benefits and Privileges of the Primary Care Benefit 1 (PCB 1)

Table 15 shows that among those who got sick, the majority and about the same

proportions of those who were 21 to 34 years old and 48 to 60 years old had a high extent

of utilization of the benefits and privileges of the PCB 1 Package. (54. 5 percent and 55. 6

percent respectively). Whereas only 46. 2 percent of those who were 35 to 47 years old

registered the same level of utilization of the PCB 1 Package. The Gamma test yielded a

value of 0.107 with a p value of 0.540 which is not significant at 0.05 level. This means

that regardless of age, their extent of utilization of the benefits and privileges of the

package is neither high nor low.

The data also show that there were more female respondents who have a high

extent of utilization of the PCB 1 Package (90.9 percent) than male respondents (33.8

percent). The Cramer’s V test yielded a value of 0.532 which is significant (p value =

0.000) at 0.05 level, indicating a significant relationship between sex and extent of

utilization of the PCB 1 Package. This imply that sex has a significant bearing on the

extent of utilization of the benefits and privileges under the PCB 1 Package.

The biggest proportion (80 percent) of the respondents who got sick who had a

high utilization were the widowed/separated. There were about the same proportion of

single and married respondents with extent of utilization (40 percent and 49.4 percent).

Among those with low extent of utilization, the single respondents (60 percent)

dominated the married (50.6 percent) and the widowed (20 percent) respondents. The

Cramer’s V test yielded a value of 0.188 with a p value of 0.160 which is not significant

at 0.05 level. This indicates a no significant relationship between the respondents’ civil
 84

status and their extent of utilization of the package. This suggest that marital status has no

significant bearing on their extent of utilization of the benefits and privileges of the PCB

1 Package.

As to educational attainment, there were more respondents who attended college

(80 percent) who had a high level of utilization compared to those who attended primary

and secondary education (45.9 percent and 57.9 percent respectively). Whereas, a higher

proportion of respondents who had attended primary education (54.1 percent) with low

extent of utilization than those with higher education. The Gamma test yielded a value of

0.299 with a p value of 0.102, which indicates that educational attainment has no

significant bearing on the respondents’ extent of utilization of their benefits and

privileges under the PCB 1 Package. This implies that level of education of the

respondents does not affect their extent of utilization of the PCB 1 Package.

The analysis of the of the relationship between family income and utilization of

the PCB 1 Package revealed that a slightly higher proportion of those earning a monthly

income of less than PhP 5,000 had a high utilization of the PCB 1 Package (56.1 percent)

than those earning a monthly income between PhP 5,000 to PhP 10,000 (49.2 percent).

The Gamma test yielded a value of 0.138 with a p value of 0.490 which indicates no

significant relationship between income and extent of utilization of the PCB 1 package.

The finding implies that income earned by respondents, does not have a significant

bearing on extent of utilization of the PCB 1 Package.

With regards to the extent of utilization of the PCB 1 Package in relation to the

respondents’ place of residence to the health center, the data revealed that a higher

proportion of those residing within 1 km to 3 km from the district health center (60
 85

percent) had high extent of utilization than those living farther from the health center

(38.2 percent). On the other hand, the highest proportions of those with low utilization

resides more than 3km from the district health center. The Gamma test yielded a value of

0.261 with a p value of 0.119 indicating that there is no significant relationship between

distance from the district health center and extent of utilization of the PCB 1 Package.

In summary, only sex among the various socio-demographic characteristics of the

respondents was found to be significantly related to extent of utilization of the benefits

and privileges of the PCB 1 Package. All the other characteristic namely age, civil status,

educational attainment, monthly family income, and distance from the health center were

found to have no significant bearing on the extent of utilization of the PCB 1 Package.
 86

Table 15. Distribution of respondents who got sick according to their socio-
demographic profile and extent of utilization of PCB 1 Package.

Utilization
Personal Characteristics High Low Total
f % f % f %
Age (in years)
21 to 34 6 54.5 5 45.5 11 100.0
35 to 47 18 46.2 21 53.8 39 100.0
48 to 60 30 55.6 24 44.4 54 100.0
Total 54 51.9 50 48.1 104 100.0
Gamma= 0.107 p=0.540
Sex
Male 24 33.8 47 66.2 71 100.0
Female 30 90.9 3 9.1 33 100.0
Total 54 51.9 50 48.1 104 100.0
Cramer’s V= 0.532 p=0.000
Civil Status
Single 2 40.0 3 60.0 5 100.0
Married 44 49.4 45 50.6 89 100.0
Widowed/Separated 8 80.0 2 20.0 10 100.0
Total 54 51.9 50 48.1 104 100.0
Cramer’s V= 0.188 p=0.160
Educational Attainment
Elementary 28 45.9 33 54.1 61 100.0
High School 22 57.9 16 42.1 38 100.0
College 4 80.0 1 20.0 5 100.0
Total 54 51.9 50 48.1 104 100.0
Gamma= 0.299 p=0.102
Monthly Family Income Less than
5,000 23 56.1 18 43.9 41 100.0
5,000 to 10,000 31 49.2 32 50.8 63 100.0
Total 54 51.9 50 48.1 104 100.0
Gamma= 0.138 p=0.490
Distance From District Health
Center
Less than 1 km. 8 53.3 7 46.7 15 100.0
1 to 3 km. 33 60.0 22 40.0 55 100.0
More than 3 km. 13 38.2 21 61.8 34 100.0
Total 54 51.9 50 48.1 104 100.0
Gamma= 0.261 p=0.119
 87

Relationship between knowledge and attitudes of the respondents towards the

Primary Care Benefit 1 (PCB1) Package for those respondents who got sick and not

Table 16 shows the result of analysis of the relationship between knowledge about

and attitude towards the benefits and privileges of the PCB 1 Package. The study

revealed that there was a slightly higher proportion (73.6 percent) of the respondents with

high level of knowledge who had highly favorable attitude compared to those with high

level of knowledge and had a favorable attitude (67.8 percent). On the other hand, a

higher proportion of respondents with average level of knowledge had favorable attitude

compared to those with average level of knowledge who had a highly favorable attitude.

(32.2 percent and 26.4 percent respectively).

The result of the Gamma test yielded a value of 0.139 with a p value of 0.277

which shows that despite the differences on proportions on level of knowledge, there is

no significant relationship between level of knowledge and attitudes towards the benefits

and privileges of the PCB 1 Package.

The findings of the study corresponds to the findings of Cortel (2007) and

Maranon (2008) among elderly which revealed that knowledge was not significantly

associated with the respondents’ attitude. However, the findings of Bautista and Yap

(2009) refutes the findings of this study which revealed that knowledge is a predictor of

attitudes.
 88

Table 16. Distribution of respondents both who got sick and not according to their
level of knowledge and attitudes towards the benefits and privileges under
the Primary Care Benefit Package (PCB1) Package.

Knowledge
Attitude High Average Total
f % f % f %

Favorable 97 67.8 46 32.2 143 100.0

Highly Favorable 187 73.6 67 26.4 254 100.0

Total 113 28.5 284 71.5 397 100.0
Gamma= 0.139 p value= 0.277

Relationship between Attitude towards and Extent of Utilization of the Benefits and
Privileges of the Primary Care Benefit 1 (PCB1) Package for
those respondents who got sick and not

Table 17 shows the result of the analysis of the relationship between attitude

towards and extent of utilization of the benefits and privileges of the PCB 1 Package. The

figures reveal that there were more respondents with favorable attitude who had high

extent of utilization (20.4 percent) than those with highly favorable attitude (10.6

percent). It is interesting to note that the majority of both those with favorable and those

with highly favorable attitude towards the PCB 1 Package had a low extent of utilization

(79.6 percent and 89.4 percent respectively).

The result of the Gamma test revealed a value of 0.364 with a p value of 0.020

which is significant at 0.05 level. The relationship is negative though the findings of the

study confirms the Theory of Reasoned Action which says that when attitude and
 89

subjective norm of a person is favorable there is a stronger intention to perform that

certain behavior.

Table 17. Distribution of respondents according to attitude towards and extent of

utilization of the benefits and privileges of the Primary Care Benefit 1
(PCB 1) Package for those who got sick and not

Utilization
Attitude High Low Total
f % f % f %

Highly Favorable 30 10.6 254 89.4 284 100.0

Favorable 23 20.4 90 79.6 113 100.0

Total 53 13.4 344 86.6 397 100.0
Gamma= 0.364 p value= 0.020

Relationship between Attitude towards and Extent of Utilization of the Benefits and
Privileges of the Primary Care Benefit 1 (PCB 1) Package
for those respondents who got sick.

Table 18 shows the result of the analysis of the relationship between attitude

towards and extent of utilization of the benefits and privileges of the Primary Care

Benefit 1 (PCB 1) Package for those respondents who got sick. The figures reveal that

there were more respondents with a favorable attitude who had a high extent of utilization

(63.2 percent) than those respondents with highly favorable attitude and high extent of

utilization. (45.5 percent). Interesting to note that there were more respondents with a

highly favorable attitude who had low in utilization (54.5 percent), than those

respondents with favorable attitude who had low utilization (36.8 percent) of the benefits

and privileges of the PCB 1 Package.

 90

The result of the Gamma test revealed a value of 0.456 with a p value of 0.076

which indicates that there is no significant relationship between the respondents’ attitude

and the extent of their utilization. The findings of the study discredits the Theory of

Reasoned Action which says that when attitude and subjective norm of a person is

favorable there is a stronger intention to perform that certain behavior.

Table 18. Distribution of Respondents Who Got Sick According to their Overall
Attitude towards and Utilization of the Benefits and Privileges of PCB 1
Package

Utilization
Attitude High Low Total
f % f % f %

Highly Favorable 30 45.5 36 54.5 66 100.0

Favorable 24 63.2 14 36.8 38 100.0

Total 54 51.9 50 48.1 104 100.0
Gamma= 0.456 p value= 0.076

Relationship between Level of Knowledge and Extent of Utilization of the Benefits

and Privileges of the Primary Care Benefit 1 (PCB1) Package
for both respondents who got sick and not.

Table 19 shows the result of analysis of the relationship between the level of

knowledge of the respondents and the extent of utilization of the benefits and privileges

of the Primary Care Benefit 1 (PCB1) Package. The data reveal that the proportion of

respondents with high extent of utilization of their benefits and privileges is slightly

higher among those with average level of knowledge compared to those with high level

of knowledge (14.7 percent and 12.6 percent respectively). Inversely, there were more
 91

respondents with high level of knowledge who had a low extent of utilization than those

with average level of knowledge who had a low utilization of their benefits and privileges

of the PCB 1 Package. (87.4 percent and 85.3 percent respectively).

The Gamma for the test of relationship is 0.087 with p value of 0.565 which is not

significant at 0.05 level. This indicates no significant relationship between level of

knowledge and extent of utilization of the benefits and privileges of the PCB 1 Package.

The findings of the study agreed with the findings of Starrette et al (2004) on the

utilization of social services among Mexican-American elderly which revealed that

knowledge had no significant bearing on the use of social services. On the other hand, the

findings of Italia (2012) revealed that knowledge was significantly associated with how

the senior citizens utilized their benefits and privileges.

Table 19. Distribution of respondents according to level of knowledge and extent of

utilization of the benefits and privileges of the Primary Care Benefit 1
(PCB1) Package for those who got sick and not.

Utilization
Knowledge High Low Total
f % f % f %

Average 23 14.7 122 85.3 143 100.0

High 30 12.6 222 87.4 254 100.0

Total 53 13.4 344 86.6 397 100.0
Gamma= 0.087 p value= 0.565
 92

Relationship between Level of Knowledge and Extent of Utilization

of the Benefits and Privileges of the Primary Care Benefit 1
(PCB1) Package for those respondents who got sick.

Table 20 shows the result of analysis of the relationship between the level of

knowledge of the respondents and the extent of utilization of the benefits and privileges

of the Primary Care Benefit 1 (PCB1) Package for those respondents who got sick. The

data reveal that reveal that the proportion of respondents with high extent of utilization of

their benefits and privileges is slightly higher among those with high level of knowledge

compared to those with average level of knowledge (54.2 percent and 48.9 percent

respectively). Inversely, there were more respondents with average level of knowledge

who had a low extent of utilization than those with high level of knowledge who had a

low utilization of their benefits and privileges of the PCB 1 Package. (51.1 percent and

45.5 percent respectively).

The results of the Gamma test revealed a value of 0.107 with a p value of 0.588

which indicates no significant relationship between knowledge and utilization. The

findings of the study agreed with the study of Makato (2013) on the utilization of child

health services which revealed that knowledge had no significant bearing on the use of

social services. On the other hand, the findings of Italia (2012) revealed that knowledge

was significantly associated with how the senior citizens utilized their benefits and

privileges.
 93

Table 20. Distribution of respondents who got sick according to their level of
knowledge and extent of utilization of the benefits and privileges of the
Primary Care Benefit 1 (PCB1) Package

Utilization
Knowledge High Low Total
f % f % f %

Average 22 48.9 23 51.1 45 100.0

High 32 54.2 27 45.8 59 100.0

Total 54 51.9 50 48.1 104 100.0
Gamma= 0.107 p value= 0.588

Relationship between Level of Knowledge and Extent of Utilization of the Benefits

and Privileges of the Primary Care Benefit 1 (PCB1) Package with Attitude
Controlling for those respondents who got sick

Table 21 shows the result of analysis of the relationship between the level of

knowledge of the respondents and the extent of utilization of the benefits and privileges

of the Primary Care Benefit 1 (PCB1) Package for those respondents who got sick when

attitude is controlled. The data reveal that among those with favorable attitude, the

majority (72.2 percent) had average level of knowledge with high extent of utilization of

the benefits and privileges of the package. The Gamma test revealed a value of 0.360

with a p value of 0.262 which indicates that knowledge is not significantly related to

utilization even among those with favorable attitudes towards the benefits and privileges

of the Primary Care Benefit 1 (PCB1) Package.

Remarkably, two-thirds (66.7 percent) of those respondents’ with a highly

favorable attitude are also those with low level of utilization with an average level of

knowledge. The Gamma test revealed a result of 0.400 with a p value of 0.9107 which
 94

indicates that knowledge has no significant bearing on their extent of utilization among

those who have highly favorable attitude. This implies that no significant association

exists between knowledge and utilization. The findings of the study revealed that the

relationship between the level of knowledge and utilization was not influenced by the

individual’s attitude.

Table 21. Distribution of respondents according to relationship between level of

knowledge and extent of utilization of the Primary Care Benefit 1 (PCB 1)
Package when attitude is controlled for those who got sick

Utilization
Attitude High Low Total
f % f % f %
Average 13 72.2 5 27.8 18 100.0
Favorable Knowledge High 11 55.0 9 45.0 20 100.0
Total 54 51.9 50 48.1 104 100.0
Highly Average 9 33.3 18 66.7 27 100.0
Favorable Knowledge High 21 53.8 18 46.2 39 100.0
Total 54 51.9 50 48.1 104 100.0
Favorable Attitude: Gamma= 0.360 p=0.262
Highly Favorable Attitude: Gamma= 0.400 p=0.910

Relationship between Level of Knowledge and Extent of Utilization of the Benefits

and Privileges of the Primary Care Benefit 1 (PCB1) Package with Attitude
Controlling both respondents who got sick and not

Table 22 shows the result of the analysis of the relationship between the level of

knowledge of the respondents and the extent of utilization of the benefits and privileges

of the Primary Care Benefit 1 (PCB1) Package when attitude is controlled both

respondents’ who got sick and not. The data reveal that among those with favorable

attitude, the majority (83. 6 percent) had high level of knowledge, but low in utilization
 95

of the benefits and privileges of the package. The Gamma test revealed a value of 0.310

with a p value of 0.190 which indicates that knowledge is not significantly related to

utilization even among those with favorable attitudes towards the benefits and privileges

of the PCB 1 Package.

Surprisingly, a high percentage (90.7 percent) of those respondents’ with a highly

favorable attitude are also those with low level of utilization with an average level of

knowledge. The Gamma test revealed a result of 0.114 with a p value of 0.567 which

indicates that knowledge has no significant bearing on their extent of utilization among

those who have highly favorable attitude. This implies that no significant association

exists between knowledge and utilization. The findings of the study revealed that the

relationship between the level of knowledge and utilization was not influenced by the

individual’s attitude.

Table 22. Distribution of respondents according to level of knowledge and extent of

utilization of the benefits and privileges of the Primary Care Benefit 1
(PCB 1) Package when attitude is controlled for both who got sick and not

Utilization
Attitude High Low Total
f % f % f %
Average 12 26.0 34 73.9 46 100.0
Favorable Knowledge High 11 16.4 56 83.6 67 100.0
Total 23 20.4 90 79.6 113 100.0
Highly Average 9 9.27 88 90.7 97 100.0
Favorable Knowledge High 21 5.2 166 88.8 187 100.0
Total 30 10.6 254 89.4 284 100.0
Favorable Attitude: Gamma = 0.301 p= 0.190
Highly Favorable Attitude: Gamma = 0.114 p= 0.567