arrow Health Care of the Rural Aged Books

Accessibility and adequacy

Out of 603 subjects, to 191 (32%), PHC was of easy access and to the remaining 412 (68%), the sub-centres could be reached by some method of transport. On enquiry about adequacy of treatment facilities, more than half of those interviewed opined that the treatment facilities to be 'adequate' at the PHC while two-thirds felt inadequate about them at the sub-centres. 56% placed the facilities as 'adequate' at the PHC while a meagre 6% said so at the sub-centres, The figures for the 'non-adequacy' of the treatment facilities at PHC and the sub-centres were 8% and 60% respectively. The remaining pleaded ignorance on the subject.


The satisfaction or otherwise with treatment at PHC/ Sub-centre and reasons for not being satisfied are offered in Tables 11, 12.

Table 11
Satisfaction with treatment at PHC/Sub-centre
(among those taking treatment)

Satisfaction Treatment
  At PHC
(N = 134)
At Sub-centre
(N = 68)

Satisfied 93 60
Not satisfied 23 3
Non-responders 18 5

About 70% of those taking treatment at the PHC reported' satisfaction while 17% expressed otherwise, Eighteen subjects 'could not assess' whether satisfied or not. Eighty-eight per cent reported satisfaction with treatment at the sub-centres. This high figure probably reflects their resorting to facilities for minor ailments.

Table 12
Reasons for not being satisfied with the treatment

  Reason At PHC % At Sub-centre %

1.  Inadequate drugs 5 (12.2) 7 (87.5)
2.  Inadequate injections 12 (41.5) 1 (12.5)
3.  No improvement in health condition even after treatment 16 (39.0) 5 (62.5)
4.  Poor attention and care 3 (7.3) 2 (25.0)
5.  Doctors not present --- 7 (87.5)

MPHWs' visits and services

On enquiry about the 'frequency of visits' made by the MPHWs to the villages, 325 (54%) put it as 'once a fortnight' and 176 (29%) as 'once a month'. Ninety-seven (16%) said that the MPHWs visit 'occasionally' while 5 (1%) failed to recall having seen them at all.

<<Back | Index | Next>>