Analysis of informations is a procedure of inspecting, cleansing, transforming, and patterning informations with the end of foregrounding utile information, proposing decisions, and back uping determination devising.
This chapter deals with the analysis and reading of informations collected from 30 samples on clients with Osteoporosis at Melmaruvathur Adhiparasakthi Institute of Medical Science and Research. This survey was done with questionnaire, structured evaluation graduated table and experimental checklist.
Data analysis was done by utilizing descriptive and illative statistical process. The points were scored after appraisal and rating and the consequences were tabulated. The statistical methods used for analysis were average, standard divergence, gestural trial and correlativity.
Description OF THE TOOLS
Detailss of the tools in this survey are as follows ;
PART- I
Demographic variables
Demographic variables include age, gender, educational position, business, household monthly income, matrimonial position, faith, household history of co- morbid disease, diet and bad wonts.
PART- II
Structured Rating Scale
Structured evaluation graduated table of Index of Severity of Osteoporosis by Lequesne appraisal tool was used to place the betterment in the wellness position of clients with Osteoporosis.
PART- III
It includes Experimental Checklist of nursing intercessions for client with Osteoporosis.
REPORT OF THE PILOT STUDY
The pilot survey was conducted on July of 2010 to happen out the effectivity of nursing attention on clients with Osteoporosis in Melmaruvathur Adhiparasakthi Institute of Medical Sciences and Research, Melmaruvathur, Kanchipuram District for a period of two hebdomads. A Index of Severity of Osteoporosis by Lequesne and was used by the research worker and used to happen out the dependability, cogency which was evaluated by the experts of the research commission. A convenient sampling technique was used to choose three samples by agencies of structured evaluation graduated table to measure the wellness position of clients with Osteoporosis. The nursing attention was provided as per the tool and wellness position was evaluated, eventually the research was analysed based on the mark. Therefore the nursing attention was extremely effectual on clients with Osteoporosis.
Cogency
The tool was prepared by the research worker under the counsel of experts and on the footing of aims, which were assessed and evaluated, accepted by the experts of research commission. Content cogency of this instrument was obtained from nursing experts.
Dependability
The dependability was checked by an interater method. The dependability was 0.80 by utilizing Cronbach & A ; acirc ; ˆ™s expression. After the nursing attention was provided, gestural trial was used and found that nursing intercessions was effectual.
INFORMED CONSENT
The research worker obtained written consent from the Managing Director, Melmaruvathur Adhiparasakthi Institute of Medical Sciences and Research and from the Principal of Adhiparasakthi College of Nursing, Melmaruvathur. Oral consent was taken from the survey participant to carry on the survey. The information aggregation was done for six hebdomads by utilizing interview and experimental method.
DATA COLLECTION PROCEDURE
The informations were collected from the Osteoporosis clients who were admitted in Melmaruvathur Adhiparasakthi Institute of Medical Sciences and Research in Orthopaedic ward for the six hebdomads of survey period. A good resonance was maintained with the clients in order to derive the co- operation of the clients throughout the survey. After roll uping demographic informations, appraisal was done with the aid of standardised evaluation graduated table. The nursing attention was given utilizing a experimental checklist. On the twenty-four hours of discharge the client & A ; acirc ; ˆ™s wellness position was evaluated with the aid of same structured evaluation graduated table.
SCORE INTERPRETATION
The mark was interpretated as follows ;
Mark reading = Obtained score ten 100
Entire mark
SCORE DESCRIPTION
Description
Percentage
Healthy
Mild wellness impairment
Moderate wellness impairment
Severe wellness impairment
Less than 25 %
25- 50 %
50- 75 %
More than 75 %
STATISTICAL METHOD
S.No.
DATA ANALYSIS
Method
Remark
1
Descriptive statistics
Frequency per centum, Mean, Standard divergence
To depict the demographic variables.
2
Inferential statistics
1.Sign trial
2.Correlation
Analyzing the effectivity between pre appraisal and station rating of wellness position of the clients with Osteoporosis.
Correlation between selected demographic variables and rating of wellness position of clients with Osteoporosis.
Data analysis and reading were done under following headers.
Section- A: Distribution of selected demographic variables of clients with Osteoporosis.
Section- B: Frequency and per centum distribution of wellness position of clients with Osteoporosis.
Section- C: Comparison of mean and standard divergence of appraisal and rating mark of effectivity of nursing attention on clients with Osteoporosis.
Section- D: Mean and standard divergence of betterment mark for clients with Osteoporosis
SECTION- Tocopherol: Correlation between selected demographic variables and effectivity of nursing attention on clients with Osteoporosis.
SECTION- A Table 4.1: Distribution of selected demographic variables of clients with Osteoporosis
N= 30
S.No.
DEMOGRAPHIC VARIABLES
Frequency
Percentage
1
Age ( In old ages )
18- 32
33- 45
46- 58
& A ; gt ; 58
0
7
16
7
0
23.3
53.3
23.3
2
Gender
Male
Female
5
25
16.7
83.3
3
Education Status
Illiterate
Primary school
Higher Secondary
Graduate/ College
12
10
4
4
40
33.3
13.3
13.3
4
Occupation
Employed
Unemployed
Retired
Others
17
6
7
0
56.7
20.0
23.3
0
5
Family & A ; acirc ; ˆ™s monthly Income ( in Rs. )
Up to 2000
2001- 4000
4001- 6000
Above 6001
7
11
6
6
23.3
36.7
20
20
6
Marital Status
Married
Unmarried
Widow/ Widower
Divorced
21
0
9
0
70
0
30
0
7
Religion
Hindoo
Christian
Moslem
Others
10
5
15
0
33.3
16.7
50.0
0
8
History of any co- morbid disease
Osteoporosis
Other Orthopaedic Problems
None
Both
15
5
9
1
50.0
16.7
30.0
3.3
9
Diet
Vegetarian
Non- Vegetarian
15
15
50
50
10
Bad Habits
Alcohol
Smoking
Both
None
3
2
4
21
10
6.7
13.3
70
Table 4.1 implies the distribution of respondents harmonizing to certain demographic factors such as age, gender, educational position, business, household monthly income, matrimonial position, faith, household history of carbon monoxide ; morbid disease, diet and bad wonts.
Out of 30 clients 7 ( 23.3 per centum ) clients were in the age group 33- 45 old ages, 16 ( 53.3 per centum ) clients were in the age group of 46- 58 old ages, 7 ( 23.3 per centum ) clients were in the age group of above 58 old ages. Most of the clients, 16 ( 53.3 per centum ) were in the age group of 46- 58 old ages.
Sing gender 5 ( 16.7 per centum ) of clients are male and 25 ( 83.3 per centum ) of clients are female. Majority of clients, 25 ( 83.3 per centum ) were females.
Out of 30 clients 12 ( 40 per centum ) clients are illiterate, 10 ( 33.3 per centum ) clients completed primary school, 4 ( 13.3 per centum ) clients completed high school, and 4 ( 13.3 per centum ) clients are graduate / college. Most of the clients, 12 ( 40 per centum ) are illiterate.
Sing business 17 ( 56.7 per centum ) of clients are employed and 6 ( 20 per centum ) of clients are unemployed and 7 ( 23.3 per centum ) are retired. Majority of clients, 17 ( 56.7 per centum ) are illiterate.
In instance of household monthly income up to Rs. 2000/- was drawn by 7 ( 23.3 per centum ) clients, 11 ( 36.7 per centum ) had monthly income of Rs. 2001/- to Rs. 4000/- , 6 ( 20 per centum ) were in the income group of Rs. 4001/- to Rs. 6000/- and 6 ( 20 per centum ) clients had a monthly income of above Rs. 6000/- . Most of the clients, 11 ( 36.7 per centum ) had monthly income of Rs. 2001/- to Rs. 4000/-
While analyzing the matrimonial position of clients 21 ( 70 per centum ) are married and 9 ( 30 per centum ) were widower/ widow. Most of the clients 21 ( 70 per centum ) are married.
10 ( 33.3 per centum ) of clients are Hindu were as 5 ( 16.7 per centum ) of clients are Christian and 15 ( 50 per centum ) are Muslim. Majority 15 ( 50 per centum ) of clients are Muslim.
Out of 30 clients 15 ( 50 per centum ) clients are with co- household history of Osteoporosis, 5 ( 16.7 per centum ) clients are with household history of other orthopedic jobs, 9 ( 30 per centum ) clients are with no co- morbid disease and 1 ( 3.3 per centum ) is with both household history of Osteoporosis every bit good as other orthopedic jobs, Most of the clients, 15 ( 50 per centum ) clients are with household history of Osteoporosis.
Sing diet 15 ( 50 per centum ) of clients are vegetarian and 15 ( 50 per centum ) of clients are non- vegetarian.
While analyzing the bad wonts 3 ( 10 per centum ) of clients are holding the wont of devouring intoxicant and 2 ( 6.7 per centum ) are of clients with the wont of smoke, 4 ( 13.3 per centum ) are with both the wonts. 21 ( 70 per centum ) of clients do non hold any bad wonts. Majority of clients, 12 ( 70 per centum ) do non hold any bad wonts.
SECTION- B Table 4.2: Frequency and per centum distribution of wellness position of clients with Osteoporosis
N= 30.
S.No
Health STATUS
Appraisal
Evaluation
Number
Percentage
Number
Percentage
1
Healthy
0
0
5
16.7
2
Mild wellness impairment
6
20
24
70
3
Moderate wellness impairment
22
73.3
1
3.3
4
Severe wellness impairment
2
6.7
0
0
Table 4.2 shows that at the clip of immediate station operative period wellness position of clients were assessed, out of 30 clients 2 ( 6.7 per centum ) were in terrible wellness impairment, 22 ( 73.3 per centum ) were in moderate wellness impairment and 6 ( 20 per centum ) are in mild wellness impairment. At the clip of discharge the wellness position of clients were evaluated, out of 30 clients 5 ( 16.7 ) were healthy, 24 ( 70 per centum ) are in mild wellness impairment, merely 1 ( 3.3 per centum ) are in moderate wellness impairment and 5 ( 16.7 per centum ) were healthy.
Section- C Table 4.3: Comparison of mean and standard divergence of appraisal and rating mark of clients with Osteoporosis
N= 30.
S.No.
Health STATUS
Mean
Standard
Deviation
CONFIDENCE INTERVAL
1
Appraisal
30.8
3.06
31.28- 28.2
2
Evaluation
16.96
3.94
17.96- 14.44
Table 4.3 indicates assessment average value 30.8 with standard divergence of 3.06 and rating mean value 16.96 with standard divergence of 3.94.
SECTION- D Table 4.4 Mean and standard divergence of betterment mark for clients with Osteoporosis
N= 30.
S.No.
Health STATUS
Mean
Standard DEVIATION
Second
Value
K
Value
1
Improvement mark
13.83
3.64
2
5.38
**p & A ; lt ; 0.05 degree of significance
Table 4.4 shows that betterment score average with 13.83 and standard divergence of 3.64. The K value is 2 and S value is 5.38. Since the deliberate value is greater than table value, it implies that there was statistically extremely important betterment in wellness position of clients with Osteoporosis after the post- operative nursing attention at 0.05 degree of significance. Thus the nursing attention on clients with Osteoporosis was effectual.
Section- E Table 4.5: Correlation between the selected demographic variables with the effectivity of nursing attention of clients with Osteoporosis.
S.No.
DEMOGRAPHIC VARIABLES
Appraisal
Evaluation
R
Severe wellness impairment
Moderate wellness impairment
Moderate wellness impairment
Mild wellness impairment
No.
%
No
%
No
%
No
%
1
Age ( In old ages )
18- 32
33- 45
46- 58
& A ; gt ; 58
0
1
0
1
0
3.3
0
3.3
0
6
10
6
0
20
3.3
20
0
1
0
0
0
3.3
0
0
0
6
16
7
0
20
53.3
23.3
-0.3
2
Gender
Male
Female
0
2
0
6.7
3
19
10
63.3
0
1
0
3.3
5
24
16.7
80
-0.8
3
Education Status
Illiterate
Primary school
Higher Secondary
Graduate/ College
1
0
0
1
3.3
0
0
3.3
9
6
4
3
30
20
13.3
10
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
3.3
12
10
4
3
40
33.3
13.3
10
0.4*
4
Occupation
Employed
Un- employed
Retired
Others
4
2
0
0
13.3
6.7
0
0
12
4
6
0
40
13.3
20
0
1
0
0
0
3.3
0
0
0
16
6
7
0
53.3
20
23.3
0
-0.1
5
Family & A ; acirc ; ˆ™s monthly Income ( in Rs. )
Up to 2000
2001- 4000
4001- 6000
6001- 8000
0
1
0
1
0
3.3
0
3.3
5
8
4
5
16.7
26.7
13.3
16.7
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
3.3
7
11
6
5
23.3
36.7
20
16.7
0.3
6
Marital Status
Married
Unmarried
Widow/ Widower
Divorced
1
0
1
0
3.3
0
3.3
0
16
0
6
0
53.3
0
20
0
1
0
0
0
3.3
0
0
0
20
0
9
0
66.7
0
30
0
-0.1
7
Religion
Hindoo
Christian
Moslem
Others
1
1
0
0
3.3
3.3
0
0
6
3
13
0
20
10
43.3
0
1
0
0
0
3.3
0
0
0
9
5
15
0
30
16.7
50
0
-0.2
8
Family history of any co- morbid disease
Osteoporosis
Other orthopedic jobs
None
Both
2
0
0
0
6.7
0
0
0
10
5
7
0
33.3
16.7
23.3
0
0
1
0
0
0
3.3
0
0
14
5
9
1
46.7
16.7
30
3.3
-0.2
9
Diet
Vegetarian
Non- vegetarian
1
1
3.3
3.3
11
11
36.7
36.7
14
15
46.7
50
1
0
3.3
0
-0.2
10
Bad wonts
Alcohol
Smoking
Both
None
0
1
0
1
0
3.3
0
3.3
1
1
1
19
3.3
3.3
3.3
63.3
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
1
3
2
4
20
30
6.7
13.3
16.7
0.1
**p & A ; lt ; 0.05 degree of significance
Table 4.5 indicates that there was statistically no important correlativity between selected demographic variables like age, gender, business, household monthly income, matrimonial position and faith, household history of co- morbid disease, diet and bad wonts. There is important correlativity in educational position.
