4.5.1. Distribution of participants according to their perceptions about community-based education as tool that promotes primary health care philosophy
In this study, 52.7% (48) and 35.2% (32) of the respondents agreed and strongly agreed respectively that the community setting prepared them to work as nurses in the communities while 3.3% (3) strongly disagreed and 8.8% (8) disagreed. It is shown in same table that 53.8% (49) agreed and 35.2% (32) strongly agreed that working in community settings gave them a better understanding of the influence of social, economic, political and cultural issues on health, whereas 8.8% (8) disagreed and 2.2% (2) strongly disagreed. Many of the respondents were in agreement that the distance between the university and the community settings did not affect their community learning with 40.7% (37) and 24.2% (22) agreeing and strongly agreeing respectively. The majority of respondents (58, n=63.7%) agreed and 23 (25.3%) strongly agreed that working with members from other health teams or sectors better prepared them for their role as nurses within these teams.
A big proportion of participants 65.9% (60) and 29.7% (27) agreed and strongly disagreed respectively that the type of community learning experience helped them develop new skills of managing and addressing health issues in the community. The majority of respondents 52 (57.1%) and 26 (28.6%) agreed and strongly agreed respectively that the practical exposure
in the communities gave them a better understanding of the primary health care theory they had learnt in class. Many of the respondents (49.5%, n=45) and (33%, n=30) agreed and strongly agreed respectively that the community-based learning increased their interest to work in under-resourced communities such as rural areas and informal settlement. It was indicated in this study that a large proportion of the respondents, 62.6% (57) and 27.5% (25) agreed and strongly agreed respectively that their community projects contributed to improving the health of the community.
The table below shows the distribution of respondents according to their perceptions about community-based education as a tool that promotes primary health care philosophy.
Table 10: The perceptions of participants about community-based education as tool that promotes primary health care philosophy
Statement Strongly
disagree
Disagree Agree Strongly agree
Total
Placement in the community setting better prepared me as a nurse to work even with the communities
3 (3.3%) 8 (8.8%) 48 (52. %) 32 (35.2%) 91(10 0%)
The type of community setting I was placed in made me understand better the social economic, psychological, political and cultural issues that influence health
2 (2.2%) 8 (8.8%) 49 (53.8%) 32 (35.2%) 91(10 0%)
The distance between the university and the community where I was placed did not affect my learning in the community
18 (19.8%) 14 (15.4%) 37 (40.7%) 22 (24.2%) 91(10 0%)
Working with members from other health teams or sectors better prepared me for my role as a nurse within these teams
1 (1.1%) 9 (9.9%) 58(63.7%) 23 (25.3%) 91(10 0%)
The types of community-based learning experiences I was exposed to, helped me develop some skills I did not have before of managing and addressing health issues in the community
1 (1.1%) 3 (3.3%) 60 (65.9%0 27 (29.7%) 91(10 0%)
Practical exposure in the communities allowed me better understand the Primary health care theory that was learnt in class
3 (3.3%) 10 (11%) 52 (57.1%) 26 (28.6%) 91(10 0%)
Community-based learning increased my interest to work in under-resourced communities such as rural areas, informal settlements, etc.
3 (3.3%) 13 (14.3%) 45 (49.5%) 30 (33%) 91(10 0%)
Our community projects contributed in improving the health of the community
4 (4.4%) 5 (5.5%) 57 (62.6%) 25 (27.5%) 91(10 0%)
4.5.2. The overall perceptions of respondents about community-based education as tool that promotes primary health care philosophy
Eight items of perceptions of students on community-based education as a tool that promotes primary health care philosophy were described. Scales ranging from 1 to 4 distinguished whether the perceptions were considered as negative or positive. All scores were summed to make overall perceptions. The minimum perception score of the respondents in the sample size was 13 and the maximum was 32. The mean was 24.85 with the std. deviation of 3.672.
The median was 24 and the mode was 23. The skewness was -.195 with a std. error of skewness of .253. The Kurtosis was .709 with a std. error of Kurtosis of .500. The percentile 25 was 23; the percentile 50 was 24 and the percentile 75 was 27, with an interquartile range of 4. The distance between the first quartile and median was 1, while the distance between third quartile and the median was 3. The significance value of Kolmogorov-Smirnov test of normality was .002, which indicates that the distribution of perceptions of respondents is negatively skewed.
Figure 3: The overall perception scores of respondents about CBE as a tool that promotes PHC philosophy.
4.5.3. The overall distribution of respondents according to the category of perceptions about community-based education as tool that promotes primary health care philosophy
The current study showed that the majority of respondents (63.7%, n=58) had strong positive perceptions and 35.2% (32) had moderate positive perceptions about community-based education as a tool that promotes primary health care, while only one respondent representing 1.1% had negative perceptions. As it had been indicated above, the overall perceptions score
mean were 24.85 at 79.5% indicating that the respondents had strong positive perceptions about community-based education as tool that promotes primary health care philosophy. The table below shows the overall distribution of respondents according to the category of their perceptions with regard to community-based education and primary health care philosophy.
Table 11: The distribution of respondents according to the category of their perceptions about CBE as tool that promotes PHC philosophy
Perceptions Frequency Percentage
Negative perceptions 1 1.1%
Moderate Positive perceptions 32 35.2%
Strong positive perceptions 58 63.7%
Total 91 100%