3.10. Limitations and delimitations of the study
The first limitation is that most rural household heads are
illiterates and this is why the researcher used both the questionnaire and the
interview guide. This required making long instances looking for respondents
especially during meetings and in fact spending much time explaining questions
to them. Lastly, the researcher selected only 30 respondents from the six cells
of Ruganda sector. It would have been much better if this number was increased
to make it more representative, but doing this would have required extra
resources in term of finance that were unavailable to the researcher's
disposal.
But, the researcher considered this sample size to be
representative as respondents was randomly selected using the systematic random
sampling technique. As a matter of fact, all rural households share a common
life style, depending on health aspects, which make the sample size quite
representative.
CHAPTER FOUR: DATA ANALYSIS, PRESANTATION AND
INTERPRETATION OF FINDINGS
4.1. Introduction
This chapter presents research findings, analysis of data
collected and interpretation of the primary data collected from the field (case
of study) and draws a conclusion in tabular forms with percentage interpreted
by giving suitable comments. According to Craven and Woodruff (1986) data
interpretation is «the process of drawing conclusion from data
analysis». This chapter presents the findings of the study in order to
achieve the objectives of the study. Questionnaires were given to 30
respondents including Fourteen respondents which includes six heads of
households (6), Six agents (6) of mutual health insurance and Two patients (2)
in health centre of Biguhu; the second part of questionnaire is made up with
Sixteen questionnaires (16) designed to the staffs at sector and cell levels
and Two nurses.
4.2. Analysis, Presentation and Interpretation of data part
one (Beneficiaries)
4.2.1.
Distribution of age
Table 1: Distribution of age
|
Age groups
|
Number of respondents
|
Percentage (%)
|
|
Between 18-30
|
2
|
14
|
|
Between 30-42
|
3
|
21
|
|
Between 42-54
|
4
|
30
|
|
Between 54-66
|
3
|
21
|
|
Above 66
|
2
|
14
|
|
Total
|
14
|
100
|
Source: Primary data
2012
According to this table, the age group between
«42-54» is the most dominant since it scores 30% of the respondents;
this implies that the information given by this group is significant and this
group can contribute big to the understanding of mutual health.
The group of 30-42 and that of 54-66 follow and represents
21%, the following groups are that of 18-30 and that of above 66 each
represents 14% of the whole respondents. The highest three first groups are
made up of the majority of the population which can be involved in
decision-making and these include the members from different groups such as
heads of households, agents of mutual health insurance and these groups are
more knowledgeable and able to provide information because there are the ones
who contribute mutual health insurance's contribution for them and their
families. They also participate in all government projections which covers also
mutual health insurance policy.
| 
