Abstrict
This article examined the performance of the provincial government of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa (KP) (2013-18) in terms of the reforms introduced in the health department in association with the level of public satisfaction. The study revealed that the level of public satisfaction is up to an average extent (35.90%) with the introduced reforms in the health department of KP. It is based on the primary data collected from the general public and experts randomly from a sample size of 464 respondents in districts Peshawar and Charsadda. In making the statistical analysis the chi-square test, p-value and percentage method have been used.
Keywords
Reforms, Public Satisfaction, Performance, Health Department, Khyber Pakhtunkhwa
Introduction
Government introduces reforms in every sector in order to enhance the efficiency of the respective sector or department. The term reform actually refers to a positive change for improving the performance of the sector that brings meaningful changes for improving efficiency and effectiveness (Islam, Health Sector Reform in Pakistan: Why is it needed? March 2002,). Thus health is one of those sectors that directly linked the government to the public. Reforms in the health care system involve many things including financing and organization of the service provider to the package of the services to be offered. It includes improving and protecting the quality of services, enhancing equity and creating new resources for the system (Islam, April 2002). Health Reforms can be that purposeful sustained changes that improve the efficiency, equity and effectiveness of the health sector (Raymond L. Goldsteen, 2017).
The health sector reforms can be categorised
into the funding changes, managerial changes and policy changes. It is also comprised of a number of interventions, policies and strategies that are designed in such a way that it may achieve better public health goals (Tania Dmytraczenko, 2003). Health reforms are introduced by almost all the major, developed and developing states like the USA, UK, Australia etc. In our neighbourhood, India and Iran are among those states that want to revive their healthcare system and improve its efficacy by implementing reforms.
In this connection, reforms in the health care system were attempted in Pakistan in the past. But the current reforms were initiated in Khyber Pakhtunkhwa after the promulgation of the Medial Teaching Institution (MTI) Reforms Act in 2015 (Zahid Kamal, 2021). In the current study under the umbrella of the health sector reforms, the focus is on the policy changes introduced by the provincial government of KP (2013-18) in the provincial health department in order to improve the structure and the function of the health care. The study argued that the respondents are satisfied to an average extent (35.90%) with the introduced reforms in the health sector.
The current study operationalized the performance of the provincial government of KP (2013-18) in the health department regarding the reforms introduced. The government of PTI in its tenure (2013-18) introduced various reforms in the provincial health department comprising the MTI Reforms Act, Medical Aid Act, Health Care Commission Act, Mental Act, Safe Blood Transfusion Act, Health Foundation Act, Child Nutrition Act and Protection of Breastfeeding etc. (Tribune, 2018). These reforms highlighted the performance of the provincial government of KP during (2013-18) with respect to the level of public satisfaction in the light of the following indicated questions.
Methodology
The current empirical study is applied in nature and is based on quantitative and analytical methods.
Primary data has been collected from the general community whereas experts in the health department were also interviewed through a questionnaire. The literature was covered through secondary data available in the forms of books, journals, articles, newspapers, government publications, booklets, records, and published official and non-official reports of elections and party manifestos.
Operationalisation Of The Varibales
The domain of the study is health departments where the health department in the current study means the provincial health department of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa comprising primary, secondary and tertiary care. In the same way, the reforms mean the reforms introduced and implemented by the provincial government in Khyber Pakhtunkhwa (2013-18) in the health department. However, public satisfaction means the perception of the performance where a greater extent means government perform well and an average extent means the average performance of the government while a lower extent is marked as poor performance of the provincial government.
Sampling Method
A simple random sampling technique was used for conducting this survey in District Charsadda and Peshawar. Amongst the four towns of district Peshawar rural and urban ones were selected. Likewise, in district Charsadda there is a total of three tehsils of which two tehsils were selected on a rural and urban basis.
Sample Size
The criteria for the number of respondents was selected by using the Yamane formula (n= N/1+N*e2) where n is the sampling size, N is the total population and e is the margin of error, which is 5%.
Calculating the sample size while using the Yamane sample size calculator by putting the total population of 5.8 million (Statistics, 2017) comes to be 399.97 around figure 400. But for knowing the expert views it is taken as 464. This number of respondents was taken from the general public of the two districts.
Q 1. To which extent are you satisfied with the reforms introduced in the health sector in KP (2013-18)?
Table 1
| Variables width="91">Sub-Category width="57">Greater Extent width="65">Average Extent width="63">Lower Extent width="54">Total width="78">Chi-Square Value width="57">P-Value | > Gender width="91" rowspan="2">Male> width="57">102 width="65">151 width="63">84 width="54">337 width="78" rowspan="6">0.032 width="57" rowspan="6">0.984 | > 30.3% width="65">44.8% width="63">24.9% width="54">100.0% | > Female width="57">28 width="65">41 width="63">24 width="54">93 | > 30.1% width="65">44.1% width="63">25.8% width="54">100.0% | > Total width="57">130 width="65">192 width="63">108 width="54">430 | > 30.2% width="65">44.7% width="63">25.1% width="54">100.0% | > 18-30 width="57">45 width="65">33 width="63">32 width="54">110 width="78" rowspan="8">21.748 width="57" rowspan="8">0.000 | > Age width="57">40.9% width="65">30.0% width="63">29.1% width="54">100.0% | > 31-40 width="57">55 width="65">73 width="63">35 width="54">163 | > 33.7% width="65">44.8% width="63">21.5% width="54">100.0% | > 41and Above width="57">30 width="65">86 width="63">41 width="54">157 | > 19.1% width="65">54.8% width="63">26.1% width="54">100.0% | > Total width="57">130 width="65">130 width="63">192 width="54">108 | > Education width="57">30.2% width="65">30.2% width="63">44.7% width="54">25.1% | > Illiterate width="57">19 width="65">47 width="63">34 width="54">100 width="78" rowspan="12">15.912 width="57" rowspan="12">0.044 | > 19.0% width="65">47.0% width="63">34.0% width="54">100.0% | > Matriculate width="57">14 width="65">27 width="63">17 width="54">58 | > 24.1% width="65">46.6% width="63">29.3% width="54">100.0% | > Intermediate width="57">35 width="65">46 width="63">24 width="54">105 | > 33.3% width="65">43.8% width="63">22.9% width="54">100.0% | > Graduate width="57">43 width="65">43 width="63">24 width="54">110 | > 39.1% width="65">39.1% width="63">21.8% width="54">100.0% | > Postgraduate width="57">19 width="65">29 width="63">9 width="54">57 | > 33.3% width="65">50.9% width="63">15.8% width="54">100.0% | > Total width="57">130 width="65">192 width="63">108 width="54">430 | > 30.2% width="65">44.7% width="63">25.1% width="54">100.0% | > Profession> > > > > > > width="91" rowspan="2">Government Servant width="57">21 width="65">27 width="63">6 width="54">54 width="78" rowspan="14">31.855 width="57" rowspan="14">0.000 | > 38.9% width="65">50.0% width="63">11.1% width="54">100.0% | > Private Service Sector width="57">19 width="65">38 width="63">22 width="54">79 | > 24.1% width="65">48.1% width="63">27.8% width="54">100.0% | > Businessmen & Shopkeepers width="57">19 width="65">51 width="63">21 width="54">91 | > 20.9% width="65">56.0% width="63">23.1% width="54">100.0% | > Health Experts width="57">6 width="65">14 width="63">1 width="54">21 | > 28.6% width="65">66.7% width="63">4.8% width="54">100.0% | > Education Experts width="57">13 width="65">9 width="63">5 width="54">27 | > 48.1% width="65">33.3% width="63">18.5% width="54">100.0% | > Others width="57">52 width="65">53 width="63">53 width="54">158 | > 32.9% width="65">33.5% width="63">33.5% width="54">100.0% | > Total width="57">130 width="65">192 width="63">108 width="54">430 | > 30.2% width="65">44.7% width="63">25.1% width="54">100.0% | > Monthly Income width="91" rowspan="2">PKR 21000 and Below width="57">30 width="65">72 width="63">30 width="54">72 width="78" rowspan="8">14.808 width="57" rowspan="8">0.005 | > 20.4% width="65">49.0% width="63">20.4% width="54">49.0% | > PKR 22000 and Above width="57">53 width="65">79 width="63">53 width="54">79 | > 31.5% width="65">47.0% width="63">31.5% width="54">47.0% | > Sorry width="57">47 width="65">41 width="63">47 width="54">41 | > 40.9% width="65">35.7% width="63">40.9% width="54">35.7% | > Total width="57">130 width="65">192 width="63">130 width="54">192 | > 30.2% width="65">44.7% width="63">30.2% width="54">44.7% | > Area> > width="91" rowspan="2">Rural width="57">79 width="65">142 width="63">66 width="54">287 width="78" rowspan="6">8.137 width="57" rowspan="6">0.017 | > 27.5% width="65">49.5% width="63">23.0% width="54">100.0% | > Urban width="57">51 width="65">50 width="63">42 width="54">143 | > 35.7% width="65">35.0% width="63">29.4% width="54">100.0% | > Total width="57">130 width="65">192 width="63">108 width="54">430 | > 30.2% width="65">44.7% width="63">25.1% width="54">100.0% |
Explanation
A significant number of health experts by profession (66.7%) followed by the respondents of the age group 41 and above (54.8%), the postgraduate respondents (50.9%), the rural respondents (49.5%), respondents with lower income group of PKR 21000 and below (49.0%) and male respondents (44.8%) have responded in favour of satisfaction with the reforms introduced in the health department. The chi-square test conveyed a significant p-value in favour of age, education, profession, monthly income and the variable of area. This significance confirmed a strong association between the reforms introduced by the provincial government of KP (2013-18) with all of the above-mentioned significant variables excluding gender showing an insignificant p-value that leads to the disassociation of the reforms introduced and public satisfaction.
It also portrayed that the health experts were confident about the performance of the provincial government of KP (2013-18) in introducing effective reforms in the health system.
Q 2. To which extent are you satisfied with the performance of mti in the health sector in KP (2013-18)?
Table 2
| Variables width="90">Sub-Category width="57">Greater Extent width="64">Average Extent width="61">Lower Extent width="53">Total width="80">Chi-Square Value width="61">P-Value | > Gender width="90" rowspan="2">Male> width="57">93 width="64">132 width="61">112 width="53">337 width="80" rowspan="6">align="center">0.468 width="61" rowspan="6">0.791 | > 27.6% width="64">39.2% width="61">33.2% width="53">100.0% | > Female width="57">29 width="64">35 width="61">29 width="53">93 | > 31.2% width="64">37.6% width="61">31.2% width="53">100.0% | > Total width="57">122 width="64">167 width="61">141 width="53">430 | > 28.4% width="64">38.8% width="61">32.8% width="53">100.0% | > 18-30 width="57">44 width="64">27 width="61">39 width="53">110 width="80" rowspan="8">16.777 width="61" rowspan="8">0.002 | > Age width="57">40.0% width="64">24.5% width="61">35.5% width="53">100.0% | > 31-40 width="57">36 width="64">70 width="61">57 width="53">163 | > 22.1% width="64">42.9% width="61">35.0% width="53">100.0% | > 41and Above width="57">42 width="64">70 width="61">45 width="53">157 | > 26.8% width="64">44.6% width="61">28.7% width="53">100.0% | > Total width="57">122 width="64">167 width="61">141 width="53">430 | > Education width="57">28.4% width="64">38.8% width="61">32.8% width="53">100.0% | > Illiterate width="57">25 width="64">31 width="61">44 width="53">100 width="80" rowspan="12">23.754 width="61" rowspan="12">0.003 | > 25.0% width="64">31.0% width="61">44.0% width="53">100.0% | > Matriculate width="57">14 width="64">31 width="61">13 width="53">58 | > 24.1% width="64">53.4% width="61">22.4% width="53">100.0% | > Intermediate width="57">40 width="64">35 width="61">30 width="53">105 | > 38.1% width="64">33.3% width="61">28.6% width="53">100.0% | > Graduate width="57">35 width="64">40 width="61">35 width="53">110 | > 31.8% width="64">36.4% width="61">31.8% width="53">100.0% | > Postgraduate width="57">8 width="64">30 width="61">19 width="53">57 | > 14.0% width="64">52.6% width="61">33.3% width="53">100.0% | > Total width="57">122 width="64">167 width="61">141 width="53">430 | > 28.4% width="64">38.8% width="61">32.8% width="53">100.0% | > Profession> > > > > > > width="90" rowspan="2">Government Servant width="57">10 width="64">31 width="61">13 width="53">54 width="80" rowspan="14">21.026 width="61" rowspan="14">0.021 | > 18.5% width="64">57.4% width="61">24.1% width="53">100.0% | > Private Service Sector width="57">23 width="64">35 width="61">21 width="53">79 | > 29.1% width="64">44.3% width="61">26.6% width="53">100.0% | > Businessmen & Shopkeepers width="57">27 width="64">37 width="61">27 width="53">91 | > 29.7% width="64">40.7% width="61">29.7% width="53">100.0% | > Health Experts width="57">6 width="64">10 width="61">5 width="53">21 | > 28.6% width="64">47.6% width="61">23.8% width="53">100.0% | > Education Experts width="57">5 width="64">10 width="61">12 width="53">27 | > 18.5% width="64">37.0% width="61">44.4% width="53">100.0% | > Others width="57">51 width="64">44 width="61">63 width="53">158 | > 32.3% width="64">27.8% width="61">39.9% width="53">100.0% | > Total width="57">122 width="64">167 width="61">141 width="53">430 | > 28.4% width="64">38.8% width="61">32.8% width="53">100.0% | > Monthly Income width="90" rowspan="2">PKR 21000 and Below width="57">52 width="64">29 width="61">66 width="53">147 width="80" rowspan="8">39.184 width="61" rowspan="8">0.000 | > 35.4% width="64">19.7% width="61">44.9% width="53">100.0% | > PKR 22000 and Above width="57">36 width="64">90 width="61">42 width="53">168 | > 21.4% width="64">53.6% width="61">25.0% width="53">100.0% | > Sorry width="57">34 width="64">48 width="61">33 width="53">115 | > 29.6% width="64">41.7% width="61">28.7% width="53">100.0% | > Total width="57">122 width="64">167 width="61">141 width="53">430 | > 52 width="64">29 width="61">66 width="53">147 | > Area> > width="90" rowspan="2">Rural width="57">81 width="64">116 width="61">90 width="53">287 width="80" rowspan="6">1.102 width="61" rowspan="6">0.576 | > 28.2% width="64">40.4% width="61">31.4% width="53">100.0% | > Urban width="57">41 width="64">51 width="61">51 width="53">143 | > 28.7% width="64">35.7% width="61">35.7% width="53">100.0% | > Total width="57">122 width="64">167 width="61">141 width="53">430 | > 28.4% width="64">38.8% width="61">32.8% width="53">100.0% |
Explanation
A reasonable number of the respondents from within the government servants (57.4%) followed by the matriculate respondents (53.4%), respondents with PKR 22000 and above group (53.6%), senior respondents aged 41 and above group (44.6%), the respondents of the rural area (40.4%) and male respondents (39.2%) have confessed to an average extent of satisfaction with the performance of the MTI. A significant -value is elaborated by the chi-square test in favour of the variables of age, education, profession and monthly income. Likewise, it further examined an insignificant p-value for the gender and locality of the respondents. The significant variables show a close association with the performance of the MTI and insignificant variables showed disapproval of the performance of the MTI in the health system introduced by the government.
It further illustrated that the respondents of the government servants by profession appreciated the performance of the provincial government of KP (2013-18) for the reforms in the health sector.
Q 3. To which extent was mti effective in improving the health sector in KP (2013-18)?
Table 3
| Variables width="90">Sub-Category width="57">Greater Extent width="64">Average Extent width="61">Lower Extent width="56">Total width="79">Chi-Square Value width="61">P-Value | > Gender width="90" rowspan="2">Male> width="57">88 width="64">139 width="61">110 width="56">337 width="79" rowspan="6">10.270 width="61" rowspan="6">0.006 | > 26.1% width="64">41.2% width="61">32.6% width="56">100.0% | > Female width="57">40 width="64">32 width="61">21 width="56">93 | > 43.0% width="64">34.4% width="61">22.6% width="56">100.0% | > Total width="57">128 width="64">171 width="61">131 width="56">430 | > 29.8% width="64">39.8% width="61">30.5% width="56">100.0% | > 18-30 width="57">42 width="64">43 width="61">25 width="56">110 width="79" rowspan="8">7.731 width="61" rowspan="8">0.102 | > Age width="57">38.2% width="64">39.1% width="61">22.7% width="56">100.0% | > 31-40 width="57">48 width="64">61 width="61">54 width="56">163 | > 29.4% width="64">37.4% width="61">33.1% width="56">100.0% | > 41and Above width="57">38 width="64">67 width="61">52 width="56">157 | > 24.2% width="64">42.7% width="61">33.1% width="56">100.0% | > Total width="57">128 width="64">171 width="61">131 width="56">430 | > Education width="57">29.8% width="64">39.8% width="61">30.5% width="56">100.0% | > Illiterate width="57">24 width="64">34 width="61">42 width="56">100 width="79" rowspan="12">24.034 width="61" rowspan="12">0.002 | > 24.0% width="64">34.0% width="61">42.0% width="56">100.0% | > Matriculate width="57">20 width="64">19 width="61">19 width="56">58 | > 34.5% width="64">32.8% width="61">32.8% width="56">100.0% | > Intermediate width="57">38 width="64">34 width="61">33 width="56">105 | > 36.2% width="64">32.4% width="61">31.4% width="56">100.0% | > Graduate width="57">32 width="64">49 width="61">29 width="56">110 | > 29.1% width="64">44.5% width="61">26.4% width="56">100.0% | > Postgraduate width="57">14 width="64">35 width="61">8 width="56">57 | > 24.6% width="64">61.4% width="61">14.0% width="56">100.0% | > Total width="57">128 width="64">171 width="61">131 width="56">430 | > 29.8% width="64">39.8% width="61">30.5% width="56">100.0% | > Profession> > > > > > > width="90" rowspan="2">Government Servant width="57">11 width="64">23 width="61">20 width="56">54 width="79" rowspan="14">27.940 width="61" rowspan="14">0.002 | > 20.4% width="64">42.6% width="61">37.0% width="56">100.0% | > Private Service Sector width="57">16 width="64">38 width="61">25 width="56">79 | > 20.3% width="64">48.1% width="61">31.6% width="56">100.0% | > Businessmen & Shopkeepers width="57">22 width="64">35 width="61">34 width="56">91 | > 24.2% width="64">38.5% width="61">37.4% width="56">100.0% | > Health Experts width="57">10 width="64">8 width="61">3 width="56">21 | > 47.6% width="64">38.1% width="61">14.3% width="56">100.0% | > Education Experts width="57">5 width="64">17 width="61">5 width="56">27 | > 18.5% width="64">63.0% width="61">18.5% width="56">100.0% | > Others width="57">64 width="64">50 width="61">44 width="56">158 | > 40.5% width="64">31.6% width="61">27.8% width="56">100.0% | > Total width="57">128 width="64">171 width="61">131 width="56">430 | > 29.8% width="64">39.8% width="61">30.5% width="56">100.0% | > Monthly Income width="90" rowspan="2">PKR 21000 and Below width="57">56 width="64">38 width="61">53 width="56">147 width="79" rowspan="8">20.011 width="61" rowspan="8">0.000 | > 38.1% width="64">25.9% width="61">36.1% width="56">100.0% | > PKR 22000 and Above width="57">44 width="64">74 width="61">50 width="56">168 | > 26.2% width="64">44.0% width="61">29.8% width="56">100.0% | > Sorry width="57">28 width="64">59 width="61">28 width="56">115 | > 24.3% width="64">51.3% width="61">24.3% width="56">100.0% | > Total width="57">128 width="64">171 width="61">131 width="56">430 | > 29.8% width="64">39.8% width="61">30.5% width="56">100.0% | > Area> > width="90" rowspan="2">Rural width="57">80 width="64">124 width="61">83 width="56">287 width="79" rowspan="6">4.280 width="61" rowspan="6">0.118 | > 27.9% width="64">43.2% width="61">28.9% width="56">100.0% | > Urban width="57">48 width="64">47 width="61">48 width="56">143 | > 33.6% width="64">32.9% width="61">33.6% width="56">100.0% | > Total width="57">128 width="64">171 width="61">131 width="56">430 | > 29.8% width="64">39.8% width="61">30.5% width="56">100.0% |
Explanation
A sizable number of the elderly respondents aged 41 and above group (42.7%) were seconded by the male respondents (41.2%), the postgraduate respondents (61.4%), the respondents serving the education sector (63.0%), the respondents of the undisclosed monthly income (51.3%) and the rural respondents (43.2%) are satisfied to an average extent with the effectivity of the MTI in improving the health sector. Applying the chi-square test portrayed significant p-values for gender, education, profession and monthly income. In the same, an insignificant value is forwarded for the consideration of the variables of age and area. It also advanced with the disconnection between the insignificant variables and the effectivity of the MTI in improving the health sector. On the other hand, the significant variables showed a connection with the improvements noticed in the health sector after the introduction of MTI by the provincial government of KP (2013-18) for revising the health system.
The information inquired that the education experts have credited the performance of the provincial government of KP (2013-18) for introducing public-oriented reforms in the health department in order to enhance the public with health curing privileges.
Q 4. To which extent did mti improve the performance of doctors in the health sector in KP (2013-18)?
Table 4 border="0" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="0">
Variables
width="90">Sub-Category
width="57">Greater Extent
width="64">Average Extent
width="61">Lower Extent
width="56">Total
width="79">Chi-Square Value
width="61">P-Value
Gender
width="90" rowspan="2">Male>
width="57">102
width="64">137
width="61">98
width="56">337
width="79" rowspan="6">align="center"> align="center">10.048 align="center"> align="center">
width="61" rowspan="6">0.007
30.3%
width="64">40.7%
width="61">29.1%
width="56">100.0%
Female
width="57">19
width="64">31
width="61">43
width="56">93
20.4%
width="64">33.3%
width="61">46.2%
width="56">100.0%
Total
width="57">121
width="64">168
width="61">141
width="56">430
28.1%
width="64">39.1%
width="61">32.8%
width="56">100.0%
18-30
width="57">43
width="64">26
width="61">41
width="56">110
width="79" rowspan="8">19.410
width="61" rowspan="8">0.001
Age
width="57">39.1%
width="64">23.6%
width="61">37.3%
width="56">100.0%
31-40
width="57">41
width="64">65
width="61">57
width="56">163
25.2%
width="64">39.9%
width="61">35.0%
width="56">100.0%
41and Above
width="57">37
width="64">77
width="61">43
width="56">157
23.6%
width="64">49.0%
width="61">27.4%
width="56">100.0%
Total
width="57">121
width="64">168
width="61">141
width="56">430
Education
width="57">28.1%
width="64">39.1%
width="61">32.8%
width="56">100.0%
Illiterate
width="57">17
width="64">49
width="61">34
width="56">100
width="79" rowspan="12">15.040
width="61" rowspan="12">0.058
17.0%
width="64">49.0%
width="61">34.0%
width="56">100.0%
Matriculate
width="57">17
width="64">27
width="61">14
width="56">58
29.3%
width="64">46.6%
width="61">24.1%
width="56">100.0%
Intermediate
width="57">34
width="64">40
width="61">31
width="56">105
32.4%
width="64">38.1%
width="61">29.5%
width="56">100.0%
Graduate
width="57">36
width="64">35
width="61">39
width="56">110
32.7%
width="64">31.8%
width="61">35.5%
width="56">100.0%
Postgraduate
width="57">17
width="64">17
width="61">23
width="56">57
29.8%
width="64">29.8%
width="61">40.4%
width="56">100.0%
Total
width="57">121
width="64">168
width="61">141
width="56">430
28.1%
width="64">39.1%
width="61">32.8%
width="56">100.0%
Profession> > > > > > >
width="90" rowspan="2">Government Servant
width="57">17
width="64">26
width="61">11
width="56">54
width="79" rowspan="14">18.639
width="61" rowspan="14">0.045
31.5%
width="64">48.1%
width="61">20.4%
width="56">100.0%
Private Service Sector
width="57">24
width="64">34
width="61">21
width="56">79
30.4%
width="64">43.0%
width="61">26.6%
width="56">100.0%
Businessmen & Shopkeepers
width="57">21
width="64">33
width="61">37
width="56">91
23.1%
width="64">36.3%
width="61">40.7%
width="56">100.0%
Health Experts
width="57">8
width="64">7
width="61">6
width="56">21
38.1%
width="64">33.3%
width="61">28.6%
width="56">100.0%
Education Experts
width="57">10
width="64">3
width="61">14
width="56">27
37.0%
width="64">11.1%
width="61">51.9%
width="56">100.0%
Others
width="57">41
width="64">65
width="61">52
width="56">158
25.9%
width="64">41.1%
width="61">32.9%
width="56">100.0%
Total
width="57">121
width="64">168
width="61">141
width="56">430
28.1%
width="64">39.1%
width="61">32.8%
width="56">100.0%
Monthly Income
width="90" rowspan="2">PKR 21000 and Below
width="57">30
width="64">36
width="61">81
width="56">147
width="79" rowspan="8">54.001
width="61" rowspan="8">0.000
20.4%
width="64">24.5%
width="61">55.1%
width="56">100.0%
PKR 22000 and Above
width="57">48
width="64">79
width="61">41
width="56">168
28.6%
width="64">47.0%
width="61">24.4%
width="56">100.0%
Sorry
width="57">43
width="64">53
width="61">19
width="56">115
37.4%
width="64">46.1%
width="61">16.5%
width="56">100.0%
Total
width="57">121
width="64">168
width="61">141
width="56">430
28.1%
width="64">39.1%
width="61">32.8%
width="56">100.0%
Area> >
width="90" rowspan="2">Rural
width="57">85
width="64">120
width="61">82
width="56">287
width="79" rowspan="6">7.015
width="61" rowspan="6">0.030
29.6%
width="64">41.8%
width="61">28.6%
width="56">100.0%
Urban
width="57">36
width="64">48
width="61">59
width="56">143
25.2%
width="64">33.6%
width="61">41.3%
width="56">100.0%
Total
width="57">121
width="64">168
width="61">141
width="56">430
28.1%
width="64">39.1%
width="61">32.8%
width="56">100.0%
Explanation
A good number of the elderly age (49.0%) illiterate (49.0%) rural respondents (41.8%) responded to an average extent of pleasure while the female respondents (46.2%), the education experts (51.9%) and those having a lower income of PKR 21000 and below (55.1%) were pleased to a lower extent with the improvements in the performance of the doctors serving in the health care centres. A significant p-value is acquired after the chi-square test is applied for the variables of gender, age, education, profession, monthly income and area in terms of the rural/urban division. The significant variables demonstrated a good relationship between all the mentioned variables and the improved performance of the doctors serving in the provincial health department because its p-value < 0.05.
It also examined that the respondents of the lower income group rated the performance of the provincial government of KP (2013-18) as poor in terms of the improvements noticed in the performance of the doctors with the introduction of the MTI for enhancing the health care system.
Q 5. To which extent did mti enhance the attendance ratio of doctors in the health sector in KP (2013-18)?
Table 5
| Variables width="90">Sub-Category width="57">Greater Extent width="64">Average Extent width="61">Lower Extent width="56">Total width="79">Chi-Square Value width="61">P-Value | > Gender width="90" rowspan="2">Male> width="57">125 width="64">127 width="61">85 width="56">337 width="79" rowspan="6">5.732 align="center"> align="center"> width="61" rowspan="6">0.057 | > 37.1% width="64">37.7% width="61">25.2% width="56">100.0% | > Female width="57">39 width="64">23 width="61">31 width="56">93 | > 41.9% width="64">24.7% width="61">33.3% width="56">100.0% | > Total width="57">164 width="64">150 width="61">116 width="56">430 | > 38.1% width="64">34.9% width="61">27.0% width="56">100.0% | > 18-30 width="57">47 width="64">39 width="61">24 width="56">110 width="79" rowspan="8">11.695 width="61" rowspan="8">0.020 | > Age width="57">42.7% width="64">35.5% width="61">21.8% width="56">100.0% | > 31-40 width="57">49 width="64">69 width="61">45 width="56">163 | > 30.1% width="64">42.3% width="61">27.6% width="56">100.0% | > 41and Above width="57">68 width="64">42 width="61">47 width="56">157 | > 43.3% width="64">26.8% width="61">29.9% width="56">100.0% | > Total width="57">164 width="64">150 width="61">116 width="56">430 | > Education width="57">38.1% width="64">34.9% width="61">27.0% width="56">100.0% | > Illiterate width="57">32 width="64">29 width="61">39 width="56">100 width="79" rowspan="12">14.870 width="61" rowspan="12">0.062 | > 32.0% width="64">29.0% width="61">39.0% width="56">100.0% | > Matriculate width="57">24 width="64">18 width="61">16 width="56">58 | > 41.4% width="64">31.0% width="61">27.6% width="56">100.0% | > Intermediate width="57">39 width="64">39 width="61">27 width="56">105 | > 37.1% width="64">37.1% width="61">25.7% width="56">100.0% | > Graduate width="57">48 width="64">37 width="61">25 width="56">110 | > 43.6% width="64">33.6% width="61">22.7% width="56">100.0% | > Postgraduate width="57">21 width="64">27 width="61">9 width="56">57 | > 36.8% width="64">47.4% width="61">15.8% width="56">100.0% | > Total width="57">164 width="64">150 width="61">116 width="56">430 | > 38.1% width="64">34.9% width="61">27.0% width="56">100.0% | > Profession> > > > > > > width="90" rowspan="2">Government Servant width="57">23 width="64">14 width="61">17 width="56">54 width="79" rowspan="14">17.962 width="61" rowspan="14">0.056 | > 42.6% width="64">25.9% width="61">31.5% width="56">100.0% | > Private Service Sector width="57">33 width="64">30 width="61">16 width="56">79 | > 41.8% width="64">38.0% width="61">20.3% width="56">100.0% | > Businessmen & Shopkeepers width="57">38 width="64">20 width="61">33 width="56">91 | > 41.8% width="64">22.0% width="61">36.3% width="56">100.0% | > Health Experts width="57">10 width="64">6 width="61">5 width="56">21 | > 47.6% width="64">28.6% width="61">23.8% width="56">100.0% | > Education Experts width="57">9 width="64">12 width="61">6 width="56">27 | > 33.3% width="64">44.4% width="61">22.2% width="56">100.0% | > Others width="57">51 width="64">68 width="61">39 width="56">158 | > 32.3% width="64">43.0% width="61">24.7% width="56">100.0% | > Total width="57">164 width="64">150 width="61">116 width="56">430 | > 38.1% width="64">34.9% width="61">27.0% width="56">100.0% | > Monthly Income width="90" rowspan="2">PKR 21000 and Below width="57">75 width="64">42 width="61">30 width="56">147 width="79" rowspan="8">26.994 width="61" rowspan="8">0.000 | > 51.0% width="64">28.6% width="61">20.4% width="56">100.0% | > PKR 22000 and Above width="57">44 width="64">61 width="61">63 width="56">168 | > 26.2% width="64">36.3% width="61">37.5% width="56">100.0% | > Sorry width="57">45 width="64">47 width="61">23 width="56">115 | > 39.1% width="64">40.9% width="61">20.0% width="56">100.0% | > Total width="57">164 width="64">150 width="61">116 width="56">430 | > 38.1% width="64">34.9% width="61">27.0% width="56">100.0% | > Area> > width="90" rowspan="2">Rural width="57">117 width="64">88 width="61">82 width="56">287 width="79" rowspan="6">6.784 width="61" rowspan="6">0.034 | > 40.8% width="64">30.7% width="61">28.6% width="56">100.0% | > Urban width="57">47 width="64">62 width="61">34 width="56">143 | > 32.9% width="64">43.4% width="61">23.8% width="56">100.0% | > Total width="57">164 width="64">150 width="61">116 width="56">430 | > 38.1% width="64">34.9% width="61">27.0% width="56">100.0% |
Explanation
A considerable number of the elderly respondents (43.3%), male respondents (41.9%), the health experts by profession (47.6%) with a low monthly income of PKR 21000 and below (51.0%) strongly supported while the postgraduate (47.4%) and the respondents of the urban area (43.4%) have supported the enhancement of the attendance of the doctors to an average extent with the introduction of the MTI in the health sector. The variable of gender, age, profession, monthly income and area have got a significant p-value after the chi-square test is applied. This further strengthened the connection of the significant variables with the MTI enhancement of the doctors' attendance ratio, while disconnecting the insignificant variable with the enhanced attendance ratio of the doctors in the health sector for getting p-value < 0.05 and > 0.05 respectively.
It further elaborated that the lower income group of respondents approved of the government while the postgraduate respondents disapproved of the performance of the provincial government of KP (2013-18) for initiation of the public favoured health reforms in the health department.
Q 6. To which extent was the polio control policy effective in KP (2013-18)?
Table 6 border="0" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="0">
Variables
width="90">Sub-Category
width="57">Greater Extent
width="64">Average Extent
width="61">Lower Extent
width="56">Total
width="79">Chi-Square Value
width="61">P-Value
Gender
width="90" rowspan="2">Male>
width="57">140
width="64">107
width="61">90
width="56">337
width="79" rowspan="6">0.649
width="61" rowspan="6">0.723
41.5%
width="64">31.8%
width="61">26.7%
width="56">100.0%
Female
width="57">41
width="64">31
width="61">21
width="56">93
44.1%
width="64">33.3%
width="61">22.6%
width="56">100.0%
Total
width="57">181
width="64">138
width="61">111
width="56">430
42.1%
width="64">32.1%
width="61">25.8%
width="56">100.0%
18-30
width="57">53
width="64">30
width="61">27
width="56">110
width="79" rowspan="8">5.309
width="61" rowspan="8">0.257
Age
width="57">48.2%
width="64">27.3%
width="61">24.5%
width="56">100.0%
31-40
width="57">69
width="64">48
width="61">46
width="56">163
42.3%
width="64">29.4%
width="61">28.2%
width="56">100.0%
41and Above
width="57">59
width="64">60
width="61">38
width="56">157
37.6%
width="64">38.2%
width="61">24.2%
width="56">100.0%
Total
width="57">181
width="64">138
width="61">111
width="56">430
Education
width="57">42.1%
width="64">32.1%
width="61">25.8%
width="56">100.0%
Illiterate
width="57">31
width="64">31
width="61">38
width="56">100
width="79" rowspan="12">15.081
width="61" rowspan="12">0.058
31.0%
width="64">31.0%
width="61">38.0%
width="56">100.0%
Matriculate
width="57">29
width="64">13
width="61">16
width="56">58
50.0%
width="64">22.4%
width="61">27.6%
width="56">100.0%
Intermediate
width="57">45
width="64">38
width="61">22
width="56">105
42.9%
width="64">36.2%
width="61">21.0%
width="56">100.0%
Graduate
width="57">51
width="64">36
width="61">23
width="56">110
46.4%
width="64">32.7%
width="61">20.9%
width="56">100.0%
Postgraduate
width="57">25
width="64">20
width="61">12
width="56">57
43.9%
width="64">35.1%
width="61">21.1%
width="56">100.0%
Total
width="57">181
width="64">138
width="61">111
width="56">430
42.1%
width="64">32.1%
width="61">25.8%
width="56">100.0%
Profession> > > > > > >
width="90" rowspan="2">Government Servant
width="57">24
width="64">24
width="61">6
width="56">54
width="79" rowspan="14">12.375
width="61" rowspan="14">0.261
44.4%
width="64">44.4%
width="61">11.1%
width="56">100.0%
Private Service Sector
width="57">34
width="64">24
width="61">21
width="56">79
43.0%
width="64">30.4%
width="61">26.6%
width="56">100.0%
Businessmen & Shopkeepers
width="57">33
width="64">30
width="61">28
width="56">91
36.3%
width="64">33.0%
width="61">30.8%
width="56">100.0%
Health Experts
width="57">12
width="64">6
width="61">3
width="56">21
57.1%
width="64">28.6%
width="61">14.3%
width="56">100.0%
Education Experts
width="57">12
width="64">8
width="61">7
width="56">27
44.4%
width="64">29.6%
width="61">25.9%
width="56">100.0%
Others
width="57">66
width="64">46
width="61">46
width="56">158
41.8%
width="64">29.1%
width="61">29.1%
width="56">100.0%
Total
width="57">181
width="64">138
width="61">111
width="56">430
42.1%
width="64">32.1%
width="61">25.8%
width="56">100.0%
Monthly Income
width="90" rowspan="2">PKR 21000 and Below
width="57">84
width="64">27
width="61">36
width="56">147
width="79" rowspan="8">27.560
width="61" rowspan="8">0.000
57.1%
width="64">18.4%
width="61">24.5%
width="56">100.0%
PKR 22000 and Above
width="57">52
width="64">67
width="61">49
width="56">168
31.0%
width="64">39.9%
width="61">29.2%
width="56">100.0%
Sorry
width="57">45
width="64">44
width="61">26
width="56">115
39.1%
width="64">38.3%
width="61">22.6%
width="56">100.0%
Total
width="57">181
width="64">138
width="61">111
width="56">430
42.1%
width="64">32.1%
width="61">25.8%
width="56">100.0%
Area> >
width="90" rowspan="2">Rural
width="57">126
width="64">99
width="61">62
width="56">287
width="79" rowspan="6">8.131
width="61" rowspan="6">0.017
43.9%
width="64">34.5%
width="61">21.6%
width="56">100.0%
Urban
width="57">55
width="64">39
width="61">49
width="56">143
38.5%
width="64">27.3%
width="61">34.3%
width="56">100.0%
Total
width="57">181
width="64">138
width="61">111
width="56">430
42.1%
width="64">32.1%
width="61">25.8%
width="56">100.0%
Explanation
An important number of the younger respondents of the 18-30 age group (48.2%), the matriculate (50.0%), the female respondents (44.1%), the health experts (57.1%) with low monthly income group of PKR 21000 and below (57.1%) from the rural area (43.9%) have supported the polio control policy initiated by the government. The chi-square test furnished insignificant p-values for gender, age and profession, while it showed significant values for the variables of education, monthly income and the area. The significant variables illustrated linkages with effective polio countering policy while it is discontinued by the insignificant variables of gender, age and profession for its p-value > 0.05.
It also investigated that the health experts and the lower income group of respondents were pleased with the performance of the provincial government in adopting beneficial policies for countering polio in the province.
Q 7. To which extent was the policy of
population control effective in KP (2013-18)?
Table 7 border="0" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="0">
Variables
width="90">Sub-Category
width="57">Greater Extent
width="64">Average Extent
width="61">Lower Extent
width="56">Total
width="79">Chi-Square Value
width="61">P-Value
Gender
width="90" rowspan="2">Male>
width="57">138
width="64">101
width="61">98
width="56">337
width="79" rowspan="6">align="center">10.653 align="center">
width="61" rowspan="6">0.005
40.9%
width="64">30.0%
width="61">29.1%
width="56">100.0%
Female
width="57">21
width="64">38
width="61">34
width="56">93
22.6%
width="64">40.9%
width="61">36.6%
width="56">100.0%
Total
width="57">159
width="64">139
width="61">132
width="56">430
37.0%
width="64">32.3%
width="61">30.7%
width="56">100.0%
18-30
width="57">40
width="64">37
width="61">33
width="56">110
width="79" rowspan="8">3.186
width="61" rowspan="8">0.527
Age
width="57">36.4%
width="64">33.6%
width="61">30.0%
width="56">100.0%
31-40
width="57">55
width="64">59
width="61">49
width="56">163
33.7%
width="64">36.2%
width="61">30.1%
width="56">100.0%
41and Above
width="57">64
width="64">43
width="61">50
width="56">157
40.8%
width="64">27.4%
width="61">31.8%
width="56">100.0%
Total
width="57">159
width="64">139
width="61">132
width="56">430
Education
width="57">37.0%
width="64">32.3%
width="61">30.7%
width="56">100.0%
Illiterate
width="57">51
width="64">20
width="61">29
width="56">100
width="79" rowspan="12">19.550
width="61" rowspan="12">0.012
51.0%
width="64">20.0%
width="61">29.0%
width="56">100.0%
Matriculate
width="57">23
width="64">15
width="61">20
width="56">58
39.7%
width="64">25.9%
width="61">34.5%
width="56">100.0%
Intermediate
width="57">35
width="64">34
width="61">36
width="56">105
33.3%
width="64">32.4%
width="61">34.3%
width="56">100.0%
Graduate
width="57">33
width="64">47
width="61">30
width="56">110
30.0%
width="64">42.7%
width="61">27.3%
width="56">100.0%
Postgraduate
width="57">17
width="64">23
width="61">17
width="56">57
29.8%
width="64">40.4%
width="61">29.8%
width="56">100.0%
Total
width="57">159
width="64">139
width="61">132
width="56">430
37.0%
width="64">32.3%
width="61">30.7%
width="56">100.0%
Profession> > > > > > >
width="90" rowspan="2">Government Servant
width="57">10
width="64">23
width="61">21
width="56">54
width="79" rowspan="14">27.395
width="61" rowspan="14">0.002
18.5%
width="64">42.6%
width="61">38.9%
width="56">100.0%
Private Service Sector
width="57">39
width="64">24
width="61">16
width="56">79
49.4%
width="64">30.4%
width="61">20.3%
width="56">100.0%
Businessmen & Shopkeepers
width="57">37
width="64">23
width="61">31
width="56">91
40.7%
width="64">25.3%
width="61">34.1%
width="56">100.0%
Health Experts
width="57">7
width="64">10
width="61">4
width="56">21
33.3%
width="64">47.6%
width="61">19.0%
width="56">100.0%
Education Experts
width="57">5
width="64">15
width="61">7
width="56">27
18.5%
width="64">55.6%
width="61">25.9%
width="56">100.0%
Others
width="57">61
width="64">44
width="61">53
width="56">158
38.6%
width="64">27.8%
width="61">33.5%
width="56">100.0%
Total
width="57">159
width="64">139
width="61">132
width="56">430
37.0%
width="64">32.3%
width="61">30.7%
width="56">100.0%
Monthly Income
width="90" rowspan="2">PKR 21000 and Below
width="57">62
width="64">45
width="61">40
width="56">147
width="79" rowspan="8">11.678
width="61" rowspan="8">0.020
42.2%
width="64">30.6%
width="61">27.2%
width="56">100.0%
PKR 22000 and Above
width="57">54
width="64">67
width="61">47
width="56">168
32.1%
width="64">39.9%
width="61">28.0%
width="56">100.0%
Sorry
width="57">43
width="64">27
width="61">45
width="56">115
37.4%
width="64">23.5%
width="61">39.1%
width="56">100.0%
Total
width="57">159
width="64">139
width="61">132
width="56">430
37.0%
width="64">32.3%
width="61">30.7%
width="56">100.0%
Area> >
width="90" rowspan="2">Rural
width="57">105
width="64">97
width="61">85
width="56">287
width="79" rowspan="6">0.943
width="61" rowspan="6">0.624
36.6%
width="64">33.8%
width="61">29.6%
width="56">100.0%
Urban
width="57">54
width="64">42
width="61">47
width="56">143
37.8%
width="64">29.4%
width="61">32.9%
width="56">100.0%
Total
width="57">159
width="64">139
width="61">132
width="56">430
37.0%
width="64">32.3%
width="61">30.7%
width="56">100.0%
Explanation
A sufficient number of the illiterate (51.0%), the elderly respondents of 41 and above age group (40.8%), the respondents of the lower income group of PKR 21000 and below (42.2%) and the urban respondents (37.8%) were satisfied to a greater extent with the policy of population control. In the same way, the female respondents (40.9%) and the education experts by profession (55.6%) have recommended effective population control policy to an average extent. The chi-square test provided significant P-values for gender, education, profession and monthly income, while the variables of age and area received insignificant P-values. It signified that the significant variables were closely associated with the population control for its p-value < 0.05 and the insignificant variables were isolated from the policies adopted for the population control.
It further illustrated that the education experts followed by the illiterate respondents commended the government of KP during (2013-18) for adopting favourable policies for population control in the province.
Q 8. To what extent was the policy of supervision of pharmacies effective in KP (2013-18)?
Table 8
| Variables width="90">Sub-Category width="57">Greater Extent width="64">Average Extent width="61">Lower Extent width="56">Total width="79">Chi-Square Value width="61">P-Value | > Gender width="90" rowspan="2">Male> width="57">139 width="64">108 width="61">90 width="56">337 width="79" rowspan="6">align="center">10.746 align="center"> align="center"> width="61" rowspan="6">0.005 | > 41.2% width="64">32.0% width="61">26.7% width="56">100.0% | > Female width="57">23 width="64">45 width="61">25 width="56">93 | > 24.7% width="64">48.4% width="61">26.9% width="56">100.0% | > Total width="57">162 width="64">153 width="61">115 width="56">430 | > 37.7% width="64">35.6% width="61">26.7% width="56">100.0% | > 18-30 width="57">44 width="64">45 width="61">21 width="56">110 width="79" rowspan="8">4.728 width="61" rowspan="8">0.316 | > Age width="57">40.0% width="64">40.9% width="61">19.1% width="56">100.0% | > 31-40 width="57">59 width="64">55 width="61">49 width="56">163 | > 36.2% width="64">33.7% width="61">30.1% width="56">100.0% | > 41and Above width="57">59 width="64">53 width="61">45 width="56">157 | > 37.6% width="64">33.8% width="61">28.7% width="56">100.0% | > Total width="57">162 width="64">153 width="61">115 width="56">430 | > Education width="57">37.7% width="64">35.6% width="61">26.7% width="56">100.0% | > Illiterate width="57">41 width="64">36 width="61">23 width="56">100 width="79" rowspan="12">15.496 width="61" rowspan="12">0.050 | > 41.0% width="64">36.0% width="61">23.0% width="56">100.0% | > Matriculate width="57">30 width="64">19 width="61">9 width="56">58 | > 51.7% width="64">32.8% width="61">15.5% width="56">100.0% | > Intermediate width="57">39 width="64">34 width="61">32 width="56">105 | > 37.1% width="64">32.4% width="61">30.5% width="56">100.0% | > Graduate width="57">33 width="64">48 width="61">29 width="56">110 | > 30.0% width="64">43.6% width="61">26.4% width="56">100.0% | > Postgraduate width="57">19 width="64">16 width="61">22 width="56">57 | > 33.3% width="64">28.1% width="61">38.6% width="56">100.0% | > Total width="57">162 width="64">153 width="61">115 width="56">430 | > 37.7% width="64">35.6% width="61">26.7% width="56">100.0% | > Profession> > > > > > > width="90" rowspan="2">Government Servant width="57">13 width="64">28 width="61">13 width="56">54 width="79" rowspan="14">17.969 width="61" rowspan="14">0.055 | > 24.1% width="64">51.9% width="61">24.1% width="56">100.0% | > Private Service Sector width="57">30 width="64">23 width="61">26 width="56">79 | > 38.0% width="64">29.1% width="61">32.9% width="56">100.0% | > Businessmen & Shopkeepers width="57">43 width="64">27 width="61">21 width="56">91 | > 47.3% width="64">29.7% width="61">23.1% width="56">100.0% | > Health Experts width="57">4 width="64">8 width="61">9 width="56">21 | > 19.0% width="64">38.1% width="61">42.9% width="56">100.0% | > Education Experts width="57">9 width="64">9 width="61">9 width="56">27 | > 33.3% width="64">33.3% width="61">33.3% width="56">100.0% | > Others width="57">63 width="64">58 width="61">37 width="56">158 | > 39.9% width="64">36.7% width="61">23.4% width="56">100.0% | > Total width="57">162 width="64">153 width="61">115 width="56">430 | > 37.7% width="64">35.6% width="61">26.7% width="56">100.0% | > Monthly Income width="90" rowspan="2">PKR 21000 and Below width="57">52 width="64">55 width="61">40 width="56">147 width="79" rowspan="8">20.494 width="61" rowspan="8">0.000 | > 35.4% width="64">37.4% width="61">27.2% width="56">100.0% | > PKR 22000 and Above width="57">51 width="64">75 width="61">42 width="56">168 | > 30.4% width="64">44.6% width="61">25.0% width="56">100.0% | > Sorry width="57">59 width="64">23 width="61">33 width="56">115 | > 51.3% width="64">20.0% width="61">28.7% width="56">100.0% | > Total width="57">162 width="64">153 width="61">115 width="56">430 | > 37.7% width="64">35.6% width="61">26.7% width="56">100.0% | > Area> > width="90" rowspan="2">Rural width="57">99 width="64">108 width="61">80 width="56">287 width="79" rowspan="6">3.747 width="61" rowspan="6">0.154 | > 34.5% width="64">37.6% width="61">27.9% width="56">100.0% | > Urban width="57">63 width="64">45 width="61">35 width="56">143 | > 44.1% width="64">31.5% width="61">24.5% width="56">100.0% | > Total width="57">162 width="64">153 width="61">115 width="56">430 | > 37.7% width="64">35.6% width="61">26.7% width="56">100.0% |
Explanation
A good number of the matriculate respondents (51.7%), the undisclosed income group (51.3%) and the urban respondents (44.1%) strongly supported the supervisory policy of the pharmacies. While the female respondents (48.4%), the younger respondents of the 18-30 age group (40.9%) and the government servants by profession (51.9%) rated the supervisory policy as average. The chi-square test gave a significant p-value for the variables of gender, education,
profession and monthly income. It gave an insignificant p-value for the consideration of the variables of age and area. The p-value < 0.05 guided the strong alliance between the significant variables and the supervision of the pharmacies in the province. While the p-value > 0.05 disengaged the insignificant variables and the government regularisation of the pharmacies.
It further informs that the respondents from within the government servant by profession highly favoured the government and supported its
performance in terms of the regularisation of the pharmacies in order to enhance result-oriented reforms in the health system.
Q 9. To which extent was the policy of malaria control effective in KP (2013-18)?
Table 9
| Variables width="90">Sub-Category width="57">Greater Extent width="64">Average Extent width="61">Lower Extent width="56">Total width="79">Chi-Square Value width="61">P-Value | > Gender width="90" rowspan="2">Male> width="57">111 width="64">87 width="61">139 width="56">337 width="79" rowspan="6">0.019 width="61" rowspan="6">0.991 | > 32.9% width="64">25.8% width="61">41.2% width="56">100.0% | > Female width="57">30 width="64">24 width="61">39 width="56">93 | > 32.3% width="64">25.8% width="61">41.9% width="56">100.0% | > Total width="57">141 width="64">111 width="61">178 width="56">430 | > 32.8% width="64">25.8% width="61">41.4% width="56">100.0% | > 18-30 width="57">41 width="64">28 width="61">41 width="56">110 width="79" rowspan="8">7.567 width="61" rowspan="8">0.109 | > Age width="57">37.3% width="64">25.5% width="61">37.3% width="56">100.0% | > 31-40 width="57">48 width="64">35 width="61">80 width="56">163 | > 29.4% width="64">21.5% width="61">49.1% width="56">100.0% | > 41and Above width="57">52 width="64">48 width="61">57 width="56">157 | > 33.1% width="64">30.6% width="61">36.3% width="56">100.0% | > Total width="57">141 width="64">111 width="61">178 width="56">430 | > Education width="57">32.8% width="64">25.8% width="61">41.4% width="56">100.0% | > Illiterate width="57">26 width="64">19 width="61">55 width="56">100 width="79" rowspan="12">25.214 width="61" rowspan="12">0.001 | > 26.0% width="64">19.0% width="61">55.0% width="56">100.0% | > Matriculate width="57">13 width="64">15 width="61">30 width="56">58 | > 22.4% width="64">25.9% width="61">51.7% width="56">100.0% | > Intermediate width="57">49 width="64">22 width="61">34 width="56">105 | > 46.7% width="64">21.0% width="61">32.4% width="56">100.0% | > Graduate width="57">34 width="64">37 width="61">39 width="56">110 | > 30.9% width="64">33.6% width="61">35.5% width="56">100.0% | > Postgraduate width="57">19 width="64">18 width="61">20 width="56">57 | > 33.3% width="64">31.6% width="61">35.1% width="56">100.0% | > Total width="57">141 width="64">111 width="61">178 width="56">430 | > 32.8% width="64">25.8% width="61">41.4% width="56">100.0% | > Profession> > > > > > > width="90" rowspan="2">Government Servant width="57">18 width="64">20 width="61">16 width="56">54 width="79" rowspan="14">22.879 width="61" rowspan="14">0.011 | > 33.3% width="64">37.0% width="61">29.6% width="56">100.0% | > Private Service Sector width="57">26 width="64">18 width="61">35 width="56">79 | > 32.9% width="64">22.8% width="61">44.3% width="56">100.0% | > Businessmen & Shopkeepers width="57">28 width="64">13 width="61">50 width="56">91 | > 30.8% width="64">14.3% width="61">54.9% width="56">100.0% | > Health Experts width="57">5 width="64">11 width="61">5 width="56">21 | > 23.8% width="64">52.4% width="61">23.8% width="56">100.0% | > Education Experts width="57">8 width="64">9 width="61">10 width="56">27 | > 29.6% width="64">33.3% width="61">37.0% width="56">100.0% | > Others width="57">56 width="64">40 width="61">62 width="56">158 | > 35.4% width="64">25.3% width="61">39.2% width="56">100.0% | > Total width="57">141 width="64">111 width="61">178 width="56">430 | > 32.8% width="64">25.8% width="61">41.4% width="56">100.0% | > Monthly Income width="90" rowspan="2">PKR 21000 and Below width="57">47 width="64">32 width="61">68 width="56">147 width="79" rowspan="8">10.218 width="61" rowspan="8">0.037 | > 32.0% width="64">21.8% width="61">46.3% width="56">100.0% | > PKR 22000 and Above width="57">48 width="64">56 width="61">64 width="56">168 | > 28.6% width="64">33.3% width="61">38.1% width="56">100.0% | > Sorry width="57">46 width="64">23 width="61">46 width="56">115 | > 40.0% width="64">20.0% width="61">40.0% width="56">100.0% | > Total width="57">141 width="64">111 width="61">178 width="56">430 | > 32.8% width="64">25.8% width="61">41.4% width="56">100.0% | > Area> > width="90" rowspan="2">Rural width="57">96 width="64">84 width="61">107 width="56">287 width="79" rowspan="6">7.630 width="61" rowspan="6">0.022 | > 33.4% width="64">29.3% width="61">37.3% width="56">100.0% | > Urban width="57">45 width="64">27 width="61">71 width="56">143 | > 31.5% width="64">18.9% width="61">49.7% width="56">100.0% | > Total width="57">141 width="64">111 width="61">178 width="56">430 | > 32.8% width="64">25.8% width="61">41.4% width="56">100.0% |
Explanation
A substantial number of the illiterate (55.0%), female respondents (41.9%), respondents of the middle age group of 31-40 (49.1%), self-employed group the businessmen and shopkeepers by profession (54.9%), respondents of the lower income group of PKR 21000 and below (46.3%) belonging to the urban areas (49.7%) meagrely supported the counter malaria policy adopted by the provincial government of KP (2013-18). The chi-square test issued significant results of p-values in favour of the variables comprising the education, profession, monthly income and area of the livelihood of the respondents. It further confirmed that gender and age were declared insignificant in this case. The significant variables have p-value < 0.05 and were in syndication with the effective counter-malaria policy, while there is no relationship between the insignificant variables and the efficacy of the malaria control policy initiated by the government in Khyber Pakhtunkhwa.
It also unearthed that the illiterate respondents were conveniently satisfied with the performance of the provincial government of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa for adopting such reforms in the health department that facilitated the common people and were in a position to acquire top-class health curing privileges in the public sector hospitals.
Conclusion
The provincial government of PTI after coming into power in Khyber Pakhtunkhwa (2013-18) get a chance for converting its electoral manifesto into policies. The electoral manifesto highlighted the provision of world-class health facilities. In this connection, a number of reforms were introduced in the health sector. It tried to ensure health insurance and granted autonomy to the medical teaching institutes under the MTI Act of 2015. The study revealed that the reforms introduced in the provincial health sector satisfied the public to an average extent (35.90%).
Health reforms are also important to be understood in terms of the variable including gender, age group, education, profession, monthly income and rural and urban division. In considering gender, the male respondents are more satisfied in comparison with female respondents with the performance of the provincial government of KP (2013-18) in terms of the introduced reforms. In reference to the age group, the middle age group respondents are more satisfied. The graduated respondents are more satisfied with the health reforms. The professional consideration revealed that the professionals of the private services sector are crediting the government for the introduction of good reforms in the health department. As for the monthly income, consideration is concerned, the respondents having a high-income group of 22000 and above are pleased with the provincial government. Likewise, the rural respondents have encouraged the provincial government for providing health facilities in the rural health care centres.
The Pakistan Tehrik-e-Insaf gave high hope and expectations to the public in running an electoral campaign for the 2013 general elections and announced upgrading the standard of the health care centres. Thus after assuming power it tried its best for improving the healthcare sector which is unearthed in the study. The study revealed that the public is satisfied with the performance of the provincial government of PTI in KP (2013-18) which leads to the applicability of the expectancy disconfirmation theory.
References
- Apuke, O. D. (2017). Quantitative Research Methods: a Synopsis Approach. Kuwait Chapter of Arabian Journal of Business and Management Review, 6(10), 40–47. Researchgate.
- Islam, A. (April 2002). Health Sector Reform in Pakistan: Future Directions. Journal Of Pakistan Medical Association, 52(4), 174-182.
- Islam, A. (March 2002,). Health Sector Reform in Pakistan: Why is it needed? Journal of Pakistan Medical Association, 52(3), 95-100.
- Majeed, I. (2019). Understanding positivism in Social Research: A Research Paradigm of Inductive logic of inquiry. International Journal of Research in Social Sciences, 9(11), 118-125.
- Raymond, L., & Goldsteen, K. G. (2017). Jonas’Introduction to the U.S. Health Care System. New York: Springer.
- Roscoe, J. T. (1975). Fundamental Research Statistics for Behavioural Sciences. New York: Holt Rinehart and Winston.
- Statistics, P. B. (2017). Province Wise Provisional Results of Census - 2017. Islamabad: Pakistan Bureau of Statistics.
- Tania, D. (2003). Health Sector Reform: How It Affects Reproductive Health. Washington DC: Population Reference Bureau.
- Tribune, T. E. (2018, May 24). Five-year report: Government more than doubled health budget. Peshawar, KP, Pakistan.
- Zahid, K., & Amjad, H. M. (2021). Medical Teaching Institutions Reforms Act: Facts and Fictions. Pakistan Journal of Medical Sciences, 37(5).
Cite this article
-
APA : Ibrahim, M., & Khan, S. (2022). Performance of the Provincial Government of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa (2013-18) in Terms of Reforms Introduced in the Health Department. Global Political Review, VII(II), 110-126. https://doi.org/10.31703/gpr.2022(VII-II).13
-
CHICAGO : Ibrahim, Muhammad, and Shahbaz Khan. 2022. "Performance of the Provincial Government of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa (2013-18) in Terms of Reforms Introduced in the Health Department." Global Political Review, VII (II): 110-126 doi: 10.31703/gpr.2022(VII-II).13
-
HARVARD : IBRAHIM, M. & KHAN, S. 2022. Performance of the Provincial Government of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa (2013-18) in Terms of Reforms Introduced in the Health Department. Global Political Review, VII, 110-126.
-
MHRA : Ibrahim, Muhammad, and Shahbaz Khan. 2022. "Performance of the Provincial Government of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa (2013-18) in Terms of Reforms Introduced in the Health Department." Global Political Review, VII: 110-126
-
MLA : Ibrahim, Muhammad, and Shahbaz Khan. "Performance of the Provincial Government of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa (2013-18) in Terms of Reforms Introduced in the Health Department." Global Political Review, VII.II (2022): 110-126 Print.
-
OXFORD : Ibrahim, Muhammad and Khan, Shahbaz (2022), "Performance of the Provincial Government of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa (2013-18) in Terms of Reforms Introduced in the Health Department", Global Political Review, VII (II), 110-126
-
TURABIAN : Ibrahim, Muhammad, and Shahbaz Khan. "Performance of the Provincial Government of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa (2013-18) in Terms of Reforms Introduced in the Health Department." Global Political Review VII, no. II (2022): 110-126. https://doi.org/10.31703/gpr.2022(VII-II).13
