Demographic Profile

120 100 80 60 40 20 0 0-11 months 10 13-18 years 37 19-35 years 101 36-59 years 78

1-2 years 3-5 years 6-12 years 17 23 43

> 60 27

Frequency

Figure 1: Age Figure 1 shows the distribution of ages in Barangay Candahon. Interpretation: Basing on Erik Eriksons Developmental Psychology, it can be noted that majority of the population belongs to Early Adulthood, followed by middle adulthood. In the Early Adulthood stage, the psychological role that needs to be fulfilled is intimacy where the people search for partners, peers that they can go along with as they traverse the way of life. If they failed to do so, social isolations tends to occur.
140 120 100 80 60 40 20 0 Frequency Elementary 118 Elementary High School 92 High School College 42 College Day Care Day Care 1 None None 9

Figure 2: Educational Attainment

Most of the residents of Barangay Candahon were only able to reach elementary education level, as shown in Figure 2, Interpretation: The above results signify the need for comprehensive lectures on technical subjects and topics including those that involve health.
400 350 300 250 200 150 100 50 0 Series 1 Tagalog 345 Tagalog English English 74 Bicolano Bicolano 1

Figure 3: Dialect The result of the community survey reveals that the majority of the residents in Barangay Candahon use Tagalog as their main language for communication while the rest use English as a medium for communication as well. One resident speaks bicolano.
250 200 150 100 50 0 Frequency Catholic 212 Catholic Baptist Baptist 6 Born Again Born Again 22 Dating Daan Dating Daan 4

Figure 4: Religion

Figure 4 shows the distribution of the religious practices of the residents in Barangay Candahon. Interpretation: Ther results show that majority of them are Roman Catholics with the frequency of 212 residents. The rest belong to the sectal denomination of Christianity like Born Again Christians, Baptist and Dating daan. It can be said that Barangay Candahon is a Catholic Barrio based on the domination of Roman Catholicism.

Either, 12, 16% Matriarchal, 8, 10%

Patriarchal , 57, 74%

Patriarchal

Matriarchal

Either

Figure 5: Family Type

Figure 5 shows the types of Family according to authority. Interpretation: Filipinos highly value the presence of their families more than anything. Regardless of the liberal influence they have gotten from the west, the family remained the basic unit of their society according to the website Philippine Country (2006). In Figure 5, majority of the families in Barangay Candahon have a patriarchal type of family, about 74% of them. Some of the families say that they have both types with 16% and the rest say that they have a matriarchal type of family with 10%. Patriarchal family was the prevailing type in the greater civilization of

antiquity even up to now in the modern times. According to Basavanthappa (2008), it is a form of family organization wherein the father is the formal head and his authority is absolute and final. On the other hand, Basavanthappa (2008) also defined matriarchal family is a type wherein the control and authority are centered on the mother.

> 10 years, 22, 29%

Since Birth, 34, 44%

> 5 years, 5, 6% < 5 years, 16, 21% Since Birth < 5 years > 5 years > 10 years

Figure 6: Length of Residence Figure 6 shows the length of residence the community members have stayed in Barangay Candahon. Interpretation: Majority shows that 44% of them have lived there since they were born, some say they have been there for more than 10 years with 29%. While others say they have been staying there for only less than 5 years with 21% and the rest say they have lived there for more than 5 years with 6%.

Free, 11, 14% Renting, 7, 9%

Owned, 59, 77%

Owned 7: House Renting Ownership Free Figure

Figure 7 shows the number of people who own their house and land. Interpretation: Majority of the respondents say that they do own the house and lot they are living in with 77%, while 14% of them say that their house is free and the rest say they are just renting the land they live in with 9%.

Concrete, 18, 23%

Mixed, 40, 52% Bamboo, 9, 12%

Wood, 10, 13% Concrete Bamboo Wood Mixed

Figure 8: House Materials Figure 8 shows the building materials used by the respondents to make their house. The majority of them used a mixed combination of concrete, wood and bamboo to build their house,

about 52%. While the others had built their house with solid concrete with 23% and some used wood and bamboo with 13% and 12% respectively.

70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 Gaas None Yes

84% Gaas, [VALUE] [CATEGORY NAME]ne, No [VALUE] 5 7 65 Yes None Gaas

Yes

Figure 9: Electricity Figure 9 shows the frequency of respondents who have supply of electricity to their homes. Interpretation: Majority of them have supply of electricity with 84% while 16% of them say that they dont have electricity. Being unable to avail electricity at home also poses a health threat to the residents because they are being forced to use kerosene lamps as a form of alternative.

II. Socioeconomic

Handicrafts, 1, Others, 8, 10% 1%

Agriculture, 29, 37%

Employment, 32, 41% Livestock and Poultry, 9, 11% Agriculture Livestock and Poultry Employment Handicrafts Others

Figure 10: Way of Living Figure 10 shows the respondents main source of income. Interpretation: Majority of them get their income from employers with about 41%. Others are farmers with 37%, while some take care of livestock and poultry to sell with about 11% and for the rest about 10% of them are freelancers and 1% are in the handicraft business.
6 5 4 3 2 1 0 Series 1 Coconut Coconut 3 Rice Rice 1 Root Crops Root Crops 2 Bamboo 1 Bamboo Fruits Fruits 4 Banana Banana 5 Vegetables 2 Vegetables Cacao Cacao 1

Figure 11: Agriculture Products Figure 11 shows the crops the respondents grow in Barangay Candahon. The top 3 crops that they grow there are Banana, Coconut and Fruits.

35 30 25 20 15 10 5 0 Frequency

42%

21%

25% 13%

< 1000 16 < 1000

1000-5000 32 1000-5000

5000- 10000 19

> 10000 10

5000- 10000

> 10000

Figure 12: Income Figure 12 shows the average monthly family income of the respondents. Interpretation: The majority of them have an average income per month ranging between 1000-5000 with 42%. The others have an average of 5000-10000/month with 25% followed by <1000/ month with 21% and the rest have >10000/month with 13%. One of the major problems of the residents in Barangay Candahon is their income, with the rising of the cost of living in the Philippines it becomes harder for them to cope. With this, a Hilot seminar was conducted to teach the residents basic techniques to practice and make an income out of it. III. Environmental Sanitation
No, 7, 9%

Yes, 70, 91%

Yes

No

Figure 4: Clean Supply of Water Figure 13 shows the frequency of respondents who have a clean source of water. Interpretation: Majority of them have a clean source of water with 91% and the rest have no clean source of water with 9%. Clean water is one of the most basic needs of man. Unclean water supply can be the cause of many illnesses which can alter quality of life (Ministry of Health British Columbia, 2008).

Not Sure, 1, 1% Buying, 10, 13%

Others, 4, 5% Water from town, 26, 34%

Water Pump, 36, 47%

Water from town

Water Pump

Buying

Not Sure

Others

Figure 14: Source of Water

Figure 14 shows the sources of water the respondents have. Interpretation: The majority of them get their water from an underground source through a water pump with about 47%. Some get their water from the mainline of the town with 34%. The others buy their drinking water with about 13% and the rest get their water from springs with 5% and1% is not sure of where they get their water. Underground water is usually one of the main sources here in the Philippines especially the provinces since it is free. According to the National Institute of Open Schooling (2012), ground water generally does not get polluted. The water gets filtered while percolating through sand and stones therefore ground water remains pure and clean.

Yes, 11, 14%

No, 66, 86% Yes No

Figure 15: Chlorination of Drinking water Figure 15 shows the frequency of respondents who chlorinates their drinking water. Majority of them do not chlorinate their water with 86% and only 14% do. According to National Institute of Open Schooling (2008), chlorine is a disinfectant added to drinking water to reduce or eliminate microorganisms, such as bacteria and viruses, which can be present in water supplies. The addition of chlorine to our drinking water has greatly reduced the risk of waterborne diseases (Health Canada, 2006).
Drum with cover, 13, 17%

Faucet, 3, 4%

Drum, 61, 79% Faucet Drum Drum with cover

Figure 16: Water Storage Figure 16 shows the way the respondents store their water.

Interpretation: Majority of them store their water in a drum with 79% while the others use a drum with a cover with 17% and the rest do not have any water storage since their water flows directly from the faucet with 4%.

50 40 30 20 10 0

Compost pit/Collection 44

Burning 39 Burning

Anywhere 2 Anywhere

Feed to animals 1

Frequency

Compost pit/Collection

Feed to animals

Figure 17: Garbage Disposal Figure 17 shows how the respondents dispose of their garbage. Interpretation: Majority of them put their garbage in a compost pit or is being collected by the garbage truck with 44 respondents saying so. While the others, 39 of them burn their garbage and rest throw their garbage anywhere with 2 and only one feeds to their animals. Using compost pits are a great way to go green, it reduces pollution, provides healthy soil for plants/crops to grow in and reduces greenhouse gases by reducing the amount of methane production according to Green Living (2006). One of the problems in the community is the burning of garbage. Burning garbage is a health hazard, it is toxic and can affect ones health tremendously. It can cause fires,

it pollutes the air, and contributes to global warming. It is also unlawful because it goes against RA 9003 or the Ecological Solid Waste Management Act of 2000 as well as RA 8749 or the Clean Air Act of 1999 (EcoWaste Coalition, 2007).

Pit privy, 5, 7% Septic tank system, 8, 10%

None, 6, 8%

Water Sealed, 58, 75% Water Sealed Septic tank system Pit privy None

Figure 18: Excreta and Sewage Disposal Facilities

Figure 18 shows the types of toilet facilities the residents have. Majority of them have water sealed disposal facilities with 75% while the others use a septic tank system with 10% and some say they do not have any facilities with 8%. The rest use a pit privy with 7%.
None, 4, 5%

Outside, 31, 40%

Inside, 42, 55%

Inside

Outside

None

Figure 19: Location of Toilet Facilities

Figure 19 shows the location of the respondents toilet facilities. Majority of them have their toilets inside their homes with 55% while the rest have it outside with 40%. IV. Maternal and Child

Yes, 16, 21%

None, 61, 79%

Yes

None

Figure 20: Individuals who gave birth since 2012 Figure 20 shows the frequency of individuals who gave birth since 2012. Majority of them did not give birth with 79%.

Does not use, 29, 38%

Uses , 48, 62%

Uses

Does not use

Figure 21: Artificial Family Planning Methods Most of the residents in Barangay Candahon use artificial family planning methods with 62% and the rest of them do not as shown in Figure 21.

50 45 40 35 30 25 20 15 10 5 0 Artificial Pills IUD Pills, [VALUE] IUD, [VALUE]

Condom, [VALUE] Injectables, [VALUE] Ligate, [VALUE]

[CATEGORY NAME], 45

Billings, [VALUE] Calendar, [VALUE] Natural Ligate Injectables Condom Calendar None Billings None

Figure 22: Methods of Family Planning Figure 22 shows the methods of family planning being used by the residents of Barangay Candahon. Most of them are using the artificial method with birth control pills being commonly used followed by intrauterine devices and ligation.

Hypertensive, 16, 20%

Non Hypertnsive, 63, 80% Hypertensive Non Hypertnsive

Figure 23: Hypertension

Figure 23 shows the frequency of residents who have hypertension. Majority of them or

Criteria Nature of the Problem - Health Status - Health Resources - Health Related Magnitude of the Problem

Score

Weight

3 2 1

80% are non-hypertensive.

Priority Setting Scoring System

- 75%-100% affected - 50%-74% affected - 25%-49% affected - <25% affected Modifiability of the Problem - High - Moderate - Low - Not modifiable Preventive Potential - High - Moderate - Low Social Concern -Urgent community concern; expressed readiness -Recognized as a problem but not needing urgent attention -Not a community concern

4 3 2 1 3 2 1 0 3 2 1 2

1 1 0

Listed in the table are the problems that were noted as a result of the community survey. To be able to determine the priority problem the students used the scoring system adapted from the UP College of Nursing, Community Health Specialty Group (1989). To be able to obtain the Total Weighted Score the score of each problem according to each criterion were divided by the highest possible score multiplied by the weight, then the final score for each criterion were summed up. Since the problem that got the highest weighted score was burning of garbage as a form of waste disposal, this was given the highest priority by the students.

Formula: Score of the Problem X Weight = Weighted Score of the Criterion (eg. Nature of problem) Highest Possible Score

Weighted Score of all the criteria = Total Weighted Score