Table 1.1: Shows percentage classification
according to age
according to age
Age of Respondent |
Frequency (F) |
Percentage (%) |
18 – 24years |
12 |
12% |
25 – 30years |
40 |
40% |
31 – 34years |
32 |
32% |
35 – 40years |
16 |
16% |
Total |
100 |
100% |
Table 1.1 indicate that 12% of the respondents represents age between 18
– 24years, 40% are age between 25 – 30years, 32% between 31 – 34years while 16%
34 – 40years.
– 24years, 40% are age between 25 – 30years, 32% between 31 – 34years while 16%
34 – 40years.
Table 1.2: Shows percentage classification
according to marital status
according to marital status
Marital Status |
Frequency (F) |
Percentage (%) |
Single |
15 |
15% |
Married |
85 |
85% |
Widowed |
– |
– |
Divorced |
– |
– |
Total |
100 |
100% |
Table 1.2 shows that majority of the respondents are married (85%) while
15% are single, no frequency for widow or divorced.
15% are single, no frequency for widow or divorced.
Table 1.3: Shows percentage distribution
according to educational attainment
according to educational attainment
Educational attainment |
Frequency (F) |
Percentage (%) |
Primary school |
20 |
20% |
Secondary school |
50 |
50% |
Tertiary school |
20 |
20% |
None |
10 |
10% |
Total |
100 |
100% |
Table 1.3 shows that secondary school attainment has the highest
frequency (50%), 20% represents primary school education and tertiary education
respectively while 10% had no educational attainment.
frequency (50%), 20% represents primary school education and tertiary education
respectively while 10% had no educational attainment.
Table 1.4: Shows percentage distribution
according to tribe
according to tribe
Tribe |
Frequency (F) |
Percentage (%) |
Urhobo |
30 |
30% |
Okpe |
40 |
40% |
Itsekiri |
10 |
10% |
Others |
20 |
20% |
Total |
100 |
100% |
Table 1.4 shows that most of the respondents were Okpe 40%, 30% were
Urhobo, 10% were Itsekiri while 20% for other tribes not indicated.
Urhobo, 10% were Itsekiri while 20% for other tribes not indicated.
Table 1.5: Shows percentage distribution
according to occupation
according to occupation
Occupation |
Frequency (F) |
Percentage (%) |
House wife |
10 |
10% |
Business women |
60 |
60% |
Civil servant |
20 |
20% |
Farmers |
10 |
10% |
Total |
100 |
100% |
Table 1.5 shows that 60% of the women were business women, 20% were
civil servant while 10% represent house wives and farmers respectively.
civil servant while 10% represent house wives and farmers respectively.
Table 1.6: Shows percentage distribution
according to Religion
according to Religion
Religion |
Frequency (F) |
Percentage (%) |
Christianity |
98 |
98% |
Islam |
2 |
2% |
Traditional |
– |
– |
Free thinker |
– |
– |
Total |
100 |
100% |
Table 1.6 shows that majority of the respondents were Christians (98%)
while 2% were Islamic.
while 2% were Islamic.
Table 1.7: Shows percentage distribution
according to number of children
according to number of children
No. of Children |
Frequency (F) |
Percentage (%) |
1 – 2 |
25 |
25% |
3 – 4 |
70 |
70% |
5 – 6 |
5 |
5% |
7 and above |
– |
– |
Total |
100 |
100% |
Table 1.7 shows that 25% of respondent have 1 – 2 children, 70% had
between 3 – 4, 5% had between 5 – 6 children while no respondent for 7 and
above.
between 3 – 4, 5% had between 5 – 6 children while no respondent for 7 and
above.
Table 1.8: Shows percentage distribution
according to awareness of caesarean section
according to awareness of caesarean section
Awareness |
Frequency (F) |
Percentage (%) |
Yes |
100 |
100% |
No |
– |
– |
Total |
100 |
100% |
Table 1.8 shows that all respondent (100%) have awareness of caesarean
section.
section.
Table 1.9: Shows percentage distribution
according to source of information
according to source of information
Source |
Frequency (F) |
Percentage (%) |
Friends |
40 |
40% |
Hospital |
45 |
45% |
Church |
5 |
5% |
Media |
10 |
10% |
Total |
100 |
100% |
Table 1.9 shows that 40% of respondents got their information from
friends, 45% from the hospital, 5% from the church and 10% from the media.
friends, 45% from the hospital, 5% from the church and 10% from the media.
Table 1.10: Shows percentage distribution of
what caesarean section is all about
what caesarean section is all about
What it’s all about |
Frequency (F) |
Percentage (%) |
An operation on the head |
– |
– |
An operation to deliver a baby |
100 |
100% |
An operation for Caesar |
– |
– |
An operation to remove the uterus |
– |
– |
Total |
100 |
100% |
Table 1.10 shows that all the respondent (100%) knows what caesarean
section is all about.
section is all about.
Table 1.11: Shows percentage distribution on
whether the operation is dangerous or not
whether the operation is dangerous or not
Response |
Frequency (F) |
Percentage (%) |
Yes |
57 |
57% |
No |
43 |
43% |
Total |
100 |
100% |
Table 1.11 shows that 57% of the respondents showed that the operation
is dangerous while 43% feel it is not.
is dangerous while 43% feel it is not.
Table 1.12: Shows percentage distribution as to
whether they have delivered through caesarean section
whether they have delivered through caesarean section
Response |
Frequency (F) |
Percentage (%) |
Yes |
45 |
45% |
No |
55 |
55% |
Total |
100 |
100% |
Table 1.12 shows that 45% of the respondent had delivered through
caesarean section while 55% have not.
caesarean section while 55% have not.
Table 1.13: Shows percentage distribution
according to how they felt after the operation
according to how they felt after the operation
Response |
Frequency (F) |
Percentage (%) |
Happy |
38 |
84.4% |
Unhappy |
7 |
15.6% |
Total |
45 |
100% |
Table 1.13 shows that 84.4% of the respondent felt happy while 15.6% are
not happy.
not happy.
Table 1.14: Shows percentage distribution
according to those that would accept caesarean section as a method of delivery
according to those that would accept caesarean section as a method of delivery
Response |
Frequency (F) |
Percentage (%) |
Yes |
8 |
14.5% |
No |
47 |
85.5% |
Total |
55 |
100% |
Table 1.14 shows that 85.5% would not accept it while 14.5% would
accept.
accept.
Table 1.15: Shows percentage distribution
according to method of delivery preferred.
according to method of delivery preferred.
Response |
Frequency (F) |
Percentage (%) |
Caesarean section |
– |
– |
Vaginal delivery |
100 |
100% |
Total |
100 |
100% |
Table 1.15 shows that all the respondent (100%) preferred vaginal
delivery to caesarean section.
delivery to caesarean section.
Table 1.16: Shows percentage distribution whether
cultural belief affects its acceptance.
cultural belief affects its acceptance.
Response |
Frequency (F) |
Percentage (%) |
Yes |
65 |
65% |
No |
45 |
45% |
Total |
100 |
100% |
Table 1.16 shows that 65% of the respondents showed that cultural belief
affected their decision while 45% showed that cultural belief did not affect
their acceptance.
affected their decision while 45% showed that cultural belief did not affect
their acceptance.
Table 1.17: Shows percentage distribution
whether knowledge of the operation affects it’s acceptance.
whether knowledge of the operation affects it’s acceptance.
Response |
Frequency (F) |
Percentage (%) |
Yes |
66 |
66 |
No |
34 |
34% |
Total |
100 |
100% |
Table 1.17 shows that majority of the respondent 60% showed that
knowledge about the operation affected it’s acceptance while 34% showed that
knowledge did not.
knowledge about the operation affected it’s acceptance while 34% showed that
knowledge did not.
Table 1.18: Shows percentage distribution as to
it cost of the operation affects its acceptance.
it cost of the operation affects its acceptance.
Response |
Frequency (F) |
Percentage (%) |
Yes |
– |
– |
No |
100 |
100% |
Total |
100 |
100% |
Table 1.18 shows that all (100%) of the respondent indicated that cost
of the operation did not affect its acceptance.
of the operation did not affect its acceptance.
Table 1.19: Shows percentage distribution as to
if the cost of the operation is affordable.
if the cost of the operation is affordable.
Response |
Frequency (F) |
Percentage (%) |
Yes |
100 |
100% |
No |
– |
– |
Total |
100 |
100% |
Table 1.19 shows that all of the respondent (100%) indicated that the
cost is affordable.
cost is affordable.
Table 1.20: Shows percentage distribution as to
whether proper explanation of the operation would improve it’s acceptance.
whether proper explanation of the operation would improve it’s acceptance.
Response |
Frequency (F) |
Percentage (%) |
Yes |
68 |
68% |
No |
32 |
32% |
Total |
100 |
100% |
Table 1.20 shows that 68% of the respondent indicated that proper
explanation of the operation would improve its acceptance while 32% indicated
it will not.
explanation of the operation would improve its acceptance while 32% indicated
it will not.
Table 1.21: Shows percentage distribution of
what measures they think would did its acceptance.
what measures they think would did its acceptance.
Measures |
Frequency (F) |
Percentage (%) |
Reduce the cost of the operation |
– |
– |
Improve attitude of health care provider |
28 |
28% |
Giving proper explanation |
72 |
72% |
Total |
100 |
100% |
Table 1.21 shows that 72% of the respondent indicated that giving proper
explanation would aid its acceptance while 28% indicated that improve attitude
would aid its acceptance.
explanation would aid its acceptance while 28% indicated that improve attitude
would aid its acceptance.