Physiotherapist as Health Promotion Practitioners in Primary Health Care (PHC) in Riyadh City
Theeb Naif S Alsalem1* and Turki Menwer J Almuhaid2
1Physiotherapist, King Abdulaziz Medical City, National Guard Health Affairs, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia
2Physiotherapist, Prince Mohammed Bin Abdulaziz Hospital, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia.
*Corresponding author: Theeb Naif S Alsalem, Physiotherapist, King Abdulaziz Medical City, National Guard Health Affairs, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia
Citation: Alsalem TNS, Almuhaid TMJ. (2023) Physiotherapist as Health Promotion Practitioners in Primary Health Care (PHC) in Riyadh City. Adv Clin Med Res. 4(1):1-48.
Received: Feberuary 27, 2023 | Published: March 13, 2023
Copyright© 2023 genesis pub by Alsalem TNS, et al. CC BY-NC-ND 4.0 DEED. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-No Derivatives 4.0 International License.,This allows others distribute, remix, tweak, and build upon the work, even commercially, as long as they credit the authors for the original creation.
DOI: https://doi.org/10.52793/ACMR.2023.4(1)-49
Abstract
Introduction
The role of physiotherapist is very important in the healthcare system of any country because the focus on the healthcare improvements is the main concern from the last few years. This work is based on the primary data analysis and the primary data have been collected from the participants through the Google form method. The questionnaire has been used to collect the data from the participants that related to physiotherapists and the total 362 respondents are participates in the online survey all of them are physiotherapist working in Riyadh City it lasts for about a month until reach 362 respondents.
Methodology
The Google form method is used for the collection of the data and 362 physiotherapists data have been collected by using the simple random sampling technique in the Riyadh City.
Results
The IBM SPSS and the Microsoft Excel have been used for the analysis of the data with the help of factor analysis and the principal components analysis, along with regression analysis and the correlation analysis. The practical implication of the study is that this work is contributed in the available literature by clearing the role of physiotherapist as health promotion practitioners. The findings are help to develop the effective polices in primary healthcare sector as far as the role of physiotherapist as the health promotion is concerned and it also helps the physiotherapy community to be part of Primary Health Care.
Conclusion
The originality of this research work is that it is one of the fewest and one of the earliest research projects works that conduct to clear the role of health promotion in the primary health care. The health promotion is concerning physiotherapy community as part of primary health care.
Keywords
Riyadh city; Physiotherapist; IBM SPSS; Primary health care; Saudi Arabia.
Variables Abbreviation
Introduction
Managerial Relevance
This research work is clear the picture associated with the role of the physiotherapists in the health care system. The findings of this study help the policymakers and the public to know the importance of physiotherapists as health promotion practitioners in the primary health care system in Riyadh city. Physiotherapists play a key role in primary health care; the role of physiotherapists in health promotion helps to maximize the quality of life. The physiotherapists help in the rehabilitation and the habilitation programs because they can motivate the patients to recover fast.
Review of Literature
The Methodology
Research Approach
Data Analysis
Cronbach’s Alpha
Principal Components Analysis
Correlation Matrix
Descriptive Statistics
Regression Analysis
Analysis and Result
|
N |
Minimum |
Maximum |
Mean |
Std. Deviation |
Variance |
Kurtosis |
|
Statistic |
Statistic |
Statistic |
Statistic |
Statistic |
Statistic |
Statistic |
Std. Error |
|
1. Age |
361 |
1 |
3 |
1.01 |
0.149 |
0.022 |
177.978 |
0.256 |
2. Gender |
357 |
1 |
2 |
1.54 |
0.499 |
0.249 |
-1.98 |
0.257 |
3. Marital status |
362 |
1 |
3 |
1.84 |
0.81 |
0.656 |
-1.414 |
0.256 |
4. Level of education |
362 |
1 |
2 |
1.31 |
0.462 |
0.213 |
-1.298 |
0.256 |
5. Occupation |
361 |
1 |
2 |
1.2 |
0.402 |
0.162 |
0.218 |
0.256 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
6. Nationality |
361 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
0 |
0 |
. |
. |
7. Province of Residence |
362 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
0 |
0 |
. |
. |
Valid N (list wise) |
354 |
|
N |
Range |
Sum |
Mean |
Std. Deviation |
Variance |
Skewness |
|
||
Statistic |
Statistic |
Statistic |
Statistic |
Std. Error |
Statistic |
Statistic |
Statistic |
Std. Error |
|
|
1. Age |
361 |
2 |
365 |
1.01 |
0.008 |
0.149 |
0.022 |
13.379 |
0.128 |
|
2. Gender |
357 |
1 |
551 |
1.54 |
0.026 |
0.499 |
0.249 |
-0.175 |
0.129 |
|
3. Marital status |
362 |
2 |
666 |
1.84 |
0.043 |
0.81 |
0.656 |
0.3 |
0.128 |
|
4. Level of education |
362 |
1 |
473 |
1.31 |
0.024 |
0.462 |
0.213 |
0.842 |
0.128 |
|
5. Occupation |
361 |
1 |
434 |
1.2 |
0.021 |
0.402 |
0.162 |
1.489 |
0.128 |
|
6. Nationality |
361 |
0 |
361 |
1 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
. |
. |
|
7. Province of Residence |
362 |
0 |
362 |
1 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
. |
. |
|
Valid N (list wise) |
354 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The above mention table are consisting on the range of the variables as far as the demographic variables is concerned. Range values of all the variables are indicates the difference between the largest values to smallest value of the variable. On the other hand, the variance and the Skewness values are indicating that the data are diverse from the mean value because the value of the standard error are indicating that the sample size are not fully represent the population. The value of the standard deviation is indicating that the data are very close to the mean value of the variables.
|
N |
Minimum |
Maximum |
Mean |
Std. Deviation |
Variance |
Kurtosis |
||
Statistic |
Statistic |
Statistic |
Statistic |
Statistic |
Statistic |
Statistic |
Std. Error |
||
1. Physiotherapists have no role to play in the health promotion in Riyadh City? |
362 |
1 |
5 |
4.91 |
0.372 |
0.138 |
46.134 |
0.256 |
|
2. Physiotherapists working within district health system should include health promotion in their services in Riyadh City? |
362 |
1 |
5 |
1.73 |
0.644 |
0.415 |
2.807 |
0.256 |
|
3. Physiotherapists should responsible for the development of the health promotion polices in Riyadh City? |
362 |
1 |
5 |
1.4 |
0.619 |
0.384 |
5.6 |
0.256 |
|
4. There is a need for physiotherapists to shift from a biomedical approach to a model ensuring health promotion in Riyadh City? |
362 |
1 |
3 |
1.49 |
0.582 |
0.339 |
-0.488 |
0.256 |
|
5. The physiotherapists are responsible for the planning of a health promotion polices in Riyadh City? |
362 |
1 |
5 |
1.3 |
0.522 |
0.272 |
6.634 |
0.256 |
|
6. Physiotherapists as health promotion practitioners are responsible for evaluation and implementation of health promotion in Riyadh City? |
362 |
1 |
3 |
1.54 |
0.552 |
0.304 |
-0.953 |
0.256 |
|
7. Would physiotherapists educate people on ergonomics in community where you practice in Riyadh City? |
361 |
1 |
3 |
1.33 |
0.538 |
0.289 |
0.857 |
0.256 |
|
8. Would Physiotherapists play a part in arrive alive campaign of the 1 in Riyadh City? |
362 |
1 |
5 |
1.53 |
0.596 |
0.355 |
2.579 |
0.256 |
|
9. Would Physiotherapists educate all the clients on healthy diet and need for exercise in Riyadh City? |
362 |
1 |
5 |
1.34 |
0.571 |
0.326 |
5.444 |
0.256 |
|
10. Would physiotherapists participate in an advocacy activity to electrify households to reduce burns caused by the use of coal and paraffin in Riyadh City? |
361 |
1 |
4 |
1.53 |
0.553 |
0.305 |
-0.22 |
0.256 |
|
Valid N (listwise) |
361 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The above mention table are consisting on the summary of the first ten variables that have been used for the diffusion of the variables. The number of participants has been changed with the change in the questions, the mean value of the variables is indicating that the most of the participant are agree on the asked statement in the form of questions. The value of the standard error is indicating that the sample size is not fully represent the population. The variance and the standard deviation are indicating that the mean and the individual are different from each other.
The above mention table are indicating that the most of the participant are agree on the statement and the Skewness value indicates that the data is spread from the mean value which means that it is skewed in the both sides. On the other hand, the value of the standard error is indicating that sample are fully represent the whole population. The different statement has different participants because some people are not like to answers all the questions.
|
N |
Minimum |
Maximum |
Mean |
Std. Deviation |
Variance |
Kurtosis |
||
Statistic |
Statistic |
Statistic |
Statistic |
Std. Error |
Statistic |
Statistic |
Statistic |
Std. Error |
|
11. Would physiotherapists get involved in the efforts to improve the physical exercise for schoolchildren to reduce the prevalence of obesity and related diseases in Riyadh City? |
361 |
1 |
3 |
1.33 |
0.029 |
0.552 |
0.305 |
1.16 |
0.256 |
12. The physiotherapists advise others to make use of seatbelt to prevent serious injuries in Riyadh City? |
360 |
1 |
5 |
1.51 |
0.03 |
0.578 |
0.334 |
2.433 |
0.256 |
13. Are physiotherapists involved in providing ergonomically appropriate work environment at your workplace in Riyadh City? |
362 |
1 |
5 |
1.31 |
0.029 |
0.549 |
0.302 |
5.963 |
0.256 |
14. Are physiotherapists educating the clients on correct posture and the method of lifting heavy objects in Riyadh City? |
361 |
1 |
3 |
1.48 |
0.029 |
0.553 |
0.306 |
-0.767 |
0.256 |
15. Are physiotherapists educating the clients on not to use sweetened beverage in order to prevent diabetes in Riyadh City? |
361 |
1 |
4 |
1.38 |
0.029 |
0.545 |
0.297 |
0.96 |
0.256 |
16. Physiotherapist services include planning, organization, and the evaluation of health promotion activities in Riyadh City? |
361 |
1 |
3 |
1.47 |
0.029 |
0.548 |
0.3 |
-0.809 |
0.256 |
17. Physiotherapists Exercise are the only means of promoting health in all conditions treated in Riyadh City? |
359 |
1 |
3 |
1.33 |
0.028 |
0.533 |
0.284 |
0.775 |
0.257 |
18. Physiotherapists can facilitate access to the right level of care at the right time in Riyadh City? |
360 |
1 |
3 |
1.45 |
0.029 |
0.541 |
0.293 |
-0.779 |
0.256 |
19. Physiotherapists can minimize the duplication of service and the cost of services in Riyadh City? |
361 |
1 |
3 |
1.4 |
0.029 |
0.559 |
0.313 |
0.057 |
0.256 |
20. Physiotherapists can reduce the number of visits by increasing patient’s commitment and capacity to self-manage through education in Riyadh City? |
362 |
1 |
3 |
1.46 |
0.029 |
0.557 |
0.31 |
-0.589 |
0.256 |
Valid N (list wise) |
356 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The values of the kurtosis are indicating that the data are positively skewed which means that that most of the data are lies at the right side of the bell curve. The mean value of the most of the variables are indicates that the participant is agree and strongly agree on most of the statement because the mean in most of the causes are les between the one and two. The values of the standard deviation are indicating the data are diverse from the mean values of the most of the variables. The above mention table that consists on the results of the summary statistics are indicates that data of the 11 to 20 variables that have been measured with the help of Liker Scale questionnaire. The value of the range with respect to each question are indicates that the participant responses to the questions have been changed with question to question. The value of the Skewness is indicating the data are not too much divers and lies under the bell shaped in other words we can say that the data are normally distributed.
|
N |
Minimum |
Maximum |
Mean |
Std. Deviation |
Variance |
Kurtosis |
||
Statistic |
Statistic |
Statistic |
Statistic |
Std. Error |
Statistic |
Statistic |
Statistic |
Std. Error |
|
21. Physiotherapists can reduce wait times for medical specialists for patient who assessed and screened access have been already in orthopedics, rheumatology and neurosurgery in Riyadh City? |
361 |
1 |
3 |
1.38 |
0.028 |
0.53 |
0.281 |
-0.258 |
0.256 |
22. Physiotherapists can reduce avoidable admissions to hospital and residential care in Riyadh City? |
361 |
1 |
3 |
1.45 |
0.028 |
0.541 |
0.293 |
-0.789 |
0.256 |
23. Physiotherapists can optimize and maintain functioning of independence in those beginning to fail in Riyadh City? |
361 |
1 |
3 |
1.4 |
0.028 |
0.533 |
0.284 |
-0.391 |
0.256 |
24. Physiotherapists can facilitate early discharge in Riyadh City? |
361 |
1 |
3 |
1.38 |
0.027 |
0.52 |
0.27 |
-0.535 |
0.256 |
Valid N (listwise) |
359 |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
The summary statistics of the variables from 21 to 24 are indicates that the values of mean are lies between one to two which means that the majority of the participant are agree of strongly agree on the particular questions have been mention in the above mention table. The values of the variance and the standard deviation are indicating that data is not too much diverse and it close the mean value of the variables that have been measured with the help; of questions. The above table are indicating the value of the range and the Skewness of the data shows that the data is not too much diverse because the range of the variables are shows that the range of the values are extracting the form subtracting the small values from the large values.
Results of Correlation Matrix
|
1.PRPHR |
2.PHPSR |
3. PSRPR |
4. PBMHPRC |
5. PRPHRC |
6. PRPHRC |
|
1.PRPHR |
Pearson Correlation |
1 |
-0.046 |
-.396** |
-0.085 |
-.301** |
-0.083 |
Sig. (2-tailed) |
|
0.378 |
0 |
0.105 |
0 |
0.116 |
|
N |
362 |
362 |
362 |
362 |
362 |
362 |
|
2.PHPSR |
Pearson Correlation |
-0.046 |
1 |
.292** |
.251** |
.196** |
.238** |
Sig. (2-tailed) |
0.378 |
|
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
|
N |
362 |
362 |
362 |
362 |
362 |
362 |
|
3. PSRPR |
Pearson Correlation |
-.396** |
.292** |
1 |
.248** |
.454** |
.167** |
Sig. (2-tailed) |
0 |
0 |
|
0 |
0 |
0.001 |
|
N |
362 |
362 |
362 |
362 |
362 |
362 |
|
4. PBMHPRC |
Pearson Correlation |
-0.085 |
.251** |
.248** |
1 |
.174** |
.432** |
Sig. (2-tailed) |
0.105 |
0 |
0 |
|
0.001 |
0 |
|
N |
362 |
362 |
362 |
362 |
362 |
362 |
|
5. PRPHRC |
Pearson Correlation |
-.301** |
.196** |
.454** |
.174** |
1 |
.183** |
Sig. (2-tailed) |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0.001 |
|
0 |
|
N |
362 |
362 |
362 |
362 |
362 |
362 |
|
6. PRPHRC |
Pearson Correlation |
-0.083 |
.238** |
.167** |
.432** |
.183** |
1 |
Sig. (2-tailed) |
0.116 |
0 |
0.001 |
0 |
0 |
|
|
N |
362 |
362 |
362 |
362 |
362 |
362 |
|
**. Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed). |
Table 6: Correlations (1 to 6 Variables).
|
7. WPECPR |
8. WPACGR |
9. WPCHER |
10. WPEHBUR |
11. WPPODR |
12. PASPIR |
|
7. WPECPR |
Pearson Correlation |
1 |
.198** |
.334** |
.173** |
.306** |
0.09 |
Sig. (2-tailed) |
|
0 |
0 |
0.001 |
0 |
0.09 |
|
N |
361 |
361 |
361 |
361 |
360 |
360 |
|
8. WPACGR |
Pearson Correlation |
.198** |
1 |
.105* |
.320** |
0.096 |
.306** |
Sig. (2-tailed) |
0 |
|
0.046 |
0 |
0.068 |
0 |
|
N |
361 |
362 |
362 |
361 |
361 |
360 |
|
9. WPCHER |
Pearson Correlation |
.334** |
.105* |
1 |
.181** |
.453** |
.222** |
Sig. (2-tailed) |
0 |
0.046 |
|
0.001 |
0 |
0 |
|
N |
361 |
362 |
362 |
361 |
361 |
360 |
|
10. WPEHBUR |
Pearson Correlation |
.173** |
.320** |
.181** |
1 |
.163** |
.566** |
Sig. (2-tailed) |
0.001 |
0 |
0.001 |
|
0.002 |
0 |
|
N |
361 |
361 |
361 |
361 |
360 |
360 |
|
11. WPPODR |
Pearson Correlation |
.306** |
0.096 |
.453** |
.163** |
1 |
.158** |
Sig. (2-tailed) |
0 |
0.068 |
0 |
0.002 |
|
0.003 |
|
N |
360 |
361 |
361 |
360 |
361 |
359 |
|
12. PASPIR |
Pearson Correlation |
0.09 |
.306** |
.222** |
.566** |
.158** |
1 |
Sig. (2-tailed) |
0.09 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0.003 |
|
|
N |
360 |
360 |
360 |
360 |
359 |
360 |
|
**. Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed). |
|||||||
*. Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed). |
Table 7: Correlations (7 to 12 Variables).
13. PIEAWR |
14. PEPMOR |
15. PCBPR |
16. PSPOEHPR |
17. PEPHCTR |
18. PFRLR |
||
13. PIEAWR |
Pearson Correlation |
1 |
0.088 |
.390** |
0.078 |
.412** |
0.051 |
Sig. (2-tailed) |
0.097 |
0 |
0.138 |
0 |
0.332 |
||
N |
362 |
361 |
361 |
361 |
359 |
360 |
|
14. PEPMOR |
Pearson Correlation |
0.088 |
1 |
.118* |
.381** |
.194** |
.346** |
Sig. (2-tailed) |
0.097 |
0.025 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
||
N |
361 |
361 |
360 |
361 |
358 |
360 |
|
15. PCBPR |
Pearson Correlation |
.390** |
.118* |
1 |
.232** |
.352** |
.120* |
Sig. (2-tailed) |
0 |
0.025 |
0 |
0 |
0.024 |
||
N |
361 |
360 |
361 |
360 |
359 |
359 |
|
16. PSPOEHPR |
Pearson Correlation |
0.078 |
.381** |
.232** |
1 |
.321** |
.352** |
Sig. (2-tailed) |
0.138 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
||
N |
361 |
361 |
360 |
361 |
358 |
360 |
|
17. PEPHCTR |
Pearson Correlation |
.412** |
.194** |
.352** |
.321** |
1 |
.199** |
Sig. (2-tailed) |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
||
N |
359 |
358 |
359 |
358 |
359 |
357 |
|
18. PFRLR |
Pearson Correlation |
0.051 |
.346** |
.120* |
.352** |
.199** |
1 |
Sig. (2-tailed) |
0.332 |
0 |
0.024 |
0 |
0 |
||
N |
360 |
360 |
359 |
360 |
357 |
360 |
|
**. Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed). |
|||||||
*. Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed). |
- |
|||||||
19. PMDSR |
20. PRNICR |
21. PTMSAN |
22. PRAHRC |
23. POMFTBR |
24. PFEDR |
||
19. PMDSR |
Pearson Correlation |
1 |
.128* |
.387** |
0.055 |
.413** |
.209** |
Sig. (2-tailed) |
0.015 |
0 |
0.298 |
0 |
0 |
||
N |
361 |
361 |
360 |
361 |
360 |
360 |
|
20. PRNICR |
Pearson Correlation |
.128* |
1 |
.227** |
.356** |
.148** |
.184** |
Sig. (2-tailed) |
0.015 |
- |
0 |
0 |
0.005 |
0 |
|
N |
361 |
362 |
361 |
361 |
361 |
361 |
|
21. PTMSAN |
Pearson Correlation |
.387** |
.227** |
1 |
.189** |
.298** |
.167** |
Sig. (2-tailed) |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0.002 |
||
N |
360 |
361 |
361 |
360 |
361 |
360 |
|
22. PRAHRC |
Pearson Correlation |
0.055 |
.356** |
.189** |
1 |
.166** |
.282** |
Sig. (2-tailed) |
0.298 |
0 |
0 |
0.002 |
0 |
||
N |
361 |
361 |
360 |
361 |
360 |
360 |
|
23. POMFTBR |
Pearson Correlation |
.413** |
.148** |
.298** |
.166** |
1 |
.297** |
Sig. (2-tailed) |
0 |
0.005 |
0 |
0.002 |
0 |
||
N |
360 |
361 |
361 |
360 |
361 |
360 |
|
24. PFEDR |
Pearson Correlation |
.209** |
.184** |
.167** |
.282** |
.297** |
1 |
Sig. (2-tailed) |
0 |
0 |
0.002 |
0 |
0 |
||
N |
360 |
361 |
360 |
360 |
360 |
361 |
|
*. Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed). |
|||||||
**. Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed). |
The above mention tables, 6, 7, 8, and 9 are shows the degree and the strength of the relationship between the observed variables. The first six variables have been used to extract the association between these variables because the all-variables summary about the correlation are not possible to mention in just one table. The negative association between the two variables means that they are moves in the different direction and increase in the value of one variable are leads to increase the value of the other variables. The Pearson correlation test are also examining the significance of the relationship between the variables. The value of Pearson test is indicating that the if it is less than 0.05 which means that there is significant relationship between the variables while if it is greater than 0.05 which means that there is no association between the variables. The higher value of correlation between two variables means that these two variables are highly and directly associated with each other and it also indicates that the increase in the value of one variable are leads to increase in the value of the other variable.
Results of Reliability Test
|
|
N |
% |
Cases |
Valid |
355 |
98.1 |
|
Excludeda |
7 |
1.9 |
|
Total |
362 |
100 |
Table 10: Case Processing Summary.
Cronbach's Alpha |
N of Items |
|
0.841 |
24 |
|
- |
|||
|
Mean |
Std. Deviation |
N |
1.PRPHR |
4.92 |
0.309 |
355 |
2.PHPSR |
1.72 |
0.644 |
355 |
3. PSRPR |
1.38 |
0.586 |
355 |
4. PBMHPRC |
1.5 |
0.579 |
355 |
5. PRPHRC |
1.29 |
0.485 |
355 |
6. PRPHRC |
1.54 |
0.548 |
355 |
7. WPECPR |
1.34 |
0.54 |
355 |
8.WPACGR |
1.54 |
0.597 |
355 |
9. WPCHER |
1.32 |
0.515 |
355 |
10. WPEHBUR |
1.53 |
0.538 |
355 |
11. WPPODR |
1.33 |
0.553 |
355 |
12. PASPIR |
1.5 |
0.549 |
355 |
13. PIEAWR |
1.29 |
0.507 |
355 |
14. PEPMOR |
1.49 |
0.554 |
355 |
15. PCBPR |
1.38 |
0.541 |
355 |
16. PSPOEHPR |
1.47 |
0.543 |
355 |
17. PEPHCTR |
1.33 |
0.526 |
355 |
18. PFRLR |
1.45 |
0.542 |
355 |
19. PMDSR |
1.4 |
0.56 |
355 |
20. PRNICR |
1.46 |
0.558 |
355 |
21. PTMSAN |
1.39 |
0.532 |
355 |
22. PRAHRC |
1.45 |
0.542 |
355 |
23. POMFTBR |
1.4 |
0.535 |
355 |
24. PFEDR |
1.39 |
0.521 |
355 |
|
Scale Mean if Item Deleted |
Scale Variance if Item Deleted |
Corrected Item-Total Correlation |
Cronbach's Alpha if Item Deleted |
1.PRPHR |
32.89 |
36.948 |
-0.214 |
0.85 |
2.PHPSR |
36.08 |
33.128 |
0.364 |
0.837 |
3. PSRPR |
36.43 |
33.404 |
0.368 |
0.837 |
4. PBMHPRC |
36.31 |
33.074 |
0.425 |
0.834 |
5. PRPHRC |
36.52 |
33.736 |
0.403 |
0.835 |
6. PRPHRC |
36.27 |
33.164 |
0.44 |
0.834 |
7. WPECPR |
36.47 |
33.16 |
0.449 |
0.833 |
8.WPACGR |
36.27 |
33.095 |
0.406 |
0.835 |
9. WPCHER |
36.48 |
33.674 |
0.385 |
0.836 |
10. WPEHBUR |
36.28 |
33.084 |
0.463 |
0.833 |
11. WPPODR |
36.48 |
33.488 |
0.382 |
0.836 |
12. PASPIR |
36.31 |
33.112 |
0.447 |
0.833 |
13. PIEAWR |
36.52 |
33.725 |
0.383 |
0.836 |
14. PEPMOR |
36.32 |
33.405 |
0.395 |
0.835 |
15. PCBPR |
36.43 |
33.461 |
0.398 |
0.835 |
16. PSPOEHPR |
36.34 |
33.393 |
0.406 |
0.835 |
17. PEPHCTR |
36.48 |
33.132 |
0.467 |
0.833 |
18. PFRLR |
36.35 |
33.224 |
0.436 |
0.834 |
19. PMDSR |
36.41 |
33.146 |
0.431 |
0.834 |
20. PRNICR |
36.34 |
33.243 |
0.417 |
0.835 |
21. PTMSAN |
36.42 |
33.708 |
0.364 |
0.837 |
22. PRAHRC |
36.35 |
33.653 |
0.365 |
0.837 |
23. POMFTBR |
36.41 |
33.124 |
0.46 |
0.833 |
24. PFEDR |
36.42 |
34.019 |
0.321 |
0.838 |
Mean |
Variance |
Std. Deviation |
N of Items |
37.81 |
36.24 |
6.02 |
24 |
The above mention tables that contain the results of the Alpha test are indicates that the 24 observed variables have been used to extract the one latent competent in the form of Physiotherapist as Health Promotion Practitioners because it required to check the association with the primary health care and the growth of the primary health care sector have been measured by using the binary variable in the form of dummy variable. The value of the alpha is indicated that the variables are internally reliable and they are moving in the same direction. The 24 items have been used to extract the latent factor and the value of the alpha greater than 0.7 which is the minimum acceptance level and it shows that the variables are internally reliable and they are moves in the same direction.
Results of Factor Analysis (Extraction of Latent Factors)
Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin Measure of Sampling Adequacy. |
0.844 |
|
Bartlett's Test of Sphericity |
Approx. Chi-Square |
2193.06 |
df |
276 |
|
Sig. |
0 |
The value of KMO test and the Bartlett test are indicating that the factor analysis is useful techniques to extract the latent component because the KMO value is greater than 0.6 which means that sample are adequate and represent the population truly.
- |
||
|
Initial |
Extraction |
1.PRPHR |
1 |
0.07 |
2.PHPSR |
1 |
0.172 |
3. PSRPR |
1 |
0.213 |
4. PBMHPRC |
1 |
0.25 |
5. PRPHRC |
1 |
0.23 |
6. PRPHRC |
1 |
0.256 |
7. WPECPR |
1 |
0.292 |
8.WPACGR |
1 |
0.243 |
9. WPCHER |
1 |
0.219 |
10. WPEHBUR |
1 |
0.289 |
11. WPPODR |
1 |
0.225 |
12. PASPIR |
1 |
0.278 |
13. PIEAWR |
1 |
0.215 |
14. PEPMOR |
1 |
0.225 |
15. PCBPR |
1 |
0.22 |
16. PSPOEHPR |
1 |
0.226 |
17. PEPHCTR |
1 |
0.314 |
18. PFRLR |
1 |
0.252 |
19. PMDSR |
1 |
0.256 |
20. PRNICR |
1 |
0.228 |
21. PTMSAN |
1 |
0.183 |
22. PRAHRC |
1 |
0.172 |
23. POMFTBR |
1 |
0.277 |
24. PFEDR |
1 |
0.144 |
Extraction Method: Principal Component Analysis. |
Component |
Initial Eigenvalues |
Extraction Sums of Squared Loadings |
||||
Total |
% of Variance |
Cumulative % |
Total |
% of Variance |
Cumulative % |
|
1 |
5.449 |
22.704 |
22.704 |
5.449 |
22.704 |
22.704 |
2 |
2.671 |
11.128 |
33.832 |
|||
3 |
1.506 |
6.275 |
40.107 |
|||
4 |
1.389 |
5.786 |
45.893 |
|||
5 |
1.091 |
4.547 |
50.44 |
|||
6 |
1.034 |
4.31 |
54.75 |
|||
7 |
0.954 |
3.977 |
58.727 |
|||
8 |
0.909 |
3.787 |
62.514 |
|||
9 |
0.857 |
3.57 |
66.084 |
|||
10 |
0.779 |
3.247 |
69.331 |
|||
11 |
0.71 |
2.958 |
72.29 |
|||
12 |
0.669 |
2.786 |
75.076 |
|||
13 |
0.648 |
2.699 |
77.775 |
|||
14 |
0.621 |
2.587 |
80.362 |
|||
15 |
0.604 |
2.515 |
82.877 |
|||
16 |
0.577 |
2.403 |
85.28 |
|||
17 |
0.529 |
2.206 |
87.486 |
|||
18 |
0.524 |
2.182 |
89.668 |
|||
19 |
0.497 |
2.071 |
91.739 |
|||
20 |
0.461 |
1.922 |
93.661 |
|||
21 |
0.424 |
1.766 |
95.426 |
|||
22 |
0.385 |
1.605 |
97.031 |
|||
23 |
0.366 |
1.525 |
98.556 |
|||
24 |
0.347 |
1.444 |
100 |
|||
Extraction Method: Principal Component Analysis. |
Table 17: Total Variance Explained.
Component |
|
1 |
|
1.PRPHR |
-0.264 |
2.PHPSR |
0.415 |
3. PSRPR |
0.461 |
4. PBMHPRC |
0.5 |
5. PRPHRC |
0.48 |
6. PRPHRC |
0.506 |
7. WPECPR |
0.541 |
8.WPACGR |
0.492 |
9. WPCHER |
0.468 |
10. WPEHBUR |
0.537 |
11. WPPODR |
0.475 |
12. PASPIR |
0.527 |
13. PIEAWR |
0.464 |
14. PEPMOR |
0.474 |
15. PCBPR |
0.469 |
16. PSPOEHPR |
0.476 |
17. PEPHCTR |
0.56 |
18. PFRLR |
0.502 |
19. PMDSR |
0.506 |
20. PRNICR |
0.478 |
21. PTMSAN |
0.427 |
22. PRAHRC |
0.415 |
23. POMFTBR |
0.526 |
24. PFEDR |
0.38 |
Extraction Method: Principal Component Analysis. |
|
a. 1 Components Extracted. |
Table 18: Component Matrixa.
The above mention tables are express the results of the factor analysis which indicates that one component have been extracted with the help of 24 observed items. The values of the communalities are showing the direct association between the observed variables and the latent variable. The one component has been extracted with the help of 24 questions item that asked from the participant in the questionnaire. The most of the variables are positively associated because only the variables that have positive coefficient are included in the analysis and the extraction of the latent variables that not existed in the real way.
Regression Analysis Results
Model |
R |
R Square |
Adjusted R Square |
Std. Error of the Estimate |
1 |
.708a |
0.9 |
0.903 |
0.352 |
a. Predictors: (Constant), Physiotherapist as Health Promotion Practitioners |
Model |
Sum of Squares |
df |
Mean Square |
F |
Sig. |
|
1 |
Regression |
0.003 |
1 |
0.003 |
0.921 |
.005b |
Residual |
43.671 |
353 |
0.124 |
|||
Total |
43.673 |
354 |
||||
a. Dependent Variable: Primary Health Care |
||||||
b. Predictors: (Constant), Physiotherapist as Health Promotion Practitioners |
Model |
Unstandardized Coefficients |
Standardized Coefficients |
t |
Sig. |
||
B |
Std. Error |
Beta |
||||
1 |
(Constant) |
0.856 |
0.019 |
45.872 |
0 |
|
Physiotherapist as Health Promotion Practitioners |
-0.003 |
0.019 |
-0.008 |
-0.144 |
0.005 |
|
a. Dependent Variable: Primary Health Care |
Physiotherapist as Health Promotion Practitioners |
Primary Health Care |
||
Physiotherapist as Health Promotion Practitioners |
Pearson Correlation |
1 |
0.708 |
Sig. (2-tailed) |
0.885 |
||
N |
355 |
355 |
|
Primary Health Care |
Pearson Correlation |
0.708 |
1 |
Sig. (2-tailed) |
0.885 |
||
N |
355 |
362 |
Table 22: Correlations.
The results of the regression analysis are indicating that there is direct relationship between the Physiotherapist as Health Promotion Practitioners and the growth of Primary Health Care because the null hypothesis have been rejected on the basis of the p- value and the alternative hypothesis have been accepted because the p-value is greater than 0.05. The growth of primary health care has been measured with the help of dummy variable and the Physiotherapist as Health Promotion Practitioners have been extracted with the help of 24 items that asked from the participant in the form of questions. So, at the end we can say that the role of Physiotherapist as Health Promotion Practitioners in primary health care is significant.
Frequency Analysis
Figure 1: Frequency Analysis of questions (1-4).
Figure 2: Frequency Analysis of questions (5-8).