SISTER NIVEDITA GOVERNMENT NURSING
COLLEGE, IGMC SHIMLA
COMMUNITY HEALTH NURSING
SURVEY REPORT
OF
MASHOBRA
SUBMITTED TO SUBMITTED BY
Dr. Pushpa Panwar Roll No. 05
Lecturer Cum HOD Sushmita
(Community health nursing ) M.sc. Nursing 2nd Year
SNGNC IGMC Shimla SNGNC,IGMC,Shimla
COMMUNITY HEALTH SURVEY
INTRODUCTION
The community health survey is the most common and important in the field of health survey. It
is very useful and reliable way of setting the real and factual information.
FAMILY HEALTH SURVEY DONE BY:
The M.Sc. Nursing of sister Nivedita Government Nursing College IGMC, Shimla, H.P.
Place: Mashobra I
Date: 14-07-2021
SURVEY:
Survey means an investigation process in which information is systematically collected, recorded
and analysis to solve the problem. Survey is the important component of population survey.
FAMILY HEALTH SURVEY
Family health survey is the most common and convenient method is the field of family health
survey ad it is a technique of collecting data through interview. The survey is used for evaluating
the health status of population, investigation of features affecting health and administration of
health problem.
OBJECTIVES OF FAMILY HEALTH SURVEY:
1. To identity the type of family.
2. To know the population distribution, age, sex, ratio, education and literally status of the
area.
3. To measure the health improvement and decline.
4. To predict medical expenses
5. To assess treatment effectiveness.
6. To compare disease burden across population.
7. To identity the immunization status of the children.
8. To know the occupational status of the community.
9. To list the structure of the house among the village
10. To find the type of latrine used by the villagers.
PLANNING STAGE
Preparation for survey
We are the students of M.Sc. Nursing 2nd year, Sister Nivedita Government Nursing College,
IGMC, Shimla H.P. have collected data for survey as guided by Dr. Pushpa Panwar, professor
cum HOD (Community Health Nursing).
On date: 14-07-2021
The data was collected through interview technique by taking family history.
Population:
We collected data from 30 families of Mashobra-I and the total population was 30 families.
Table 1
Percentage distribution of population according to age and sex.
Sr. No. Age Male Female Total Percentage
1. 0-5 years 24 10 34 4.78%
2. 6-10 years 40 36 76 10.7%
3. 11-20 years 90 50 140 19.71%
4. 21-30 years 80 55 135 19.01%
5. 31-40 years 45 40 85 11.97%
6. 41-50 years 45 45 90 12.67%
7. 51-60 years 30 30 60 8.45%
8. 61-70 years 36 30 66 9.29%
9. 71-80 years 08 02 10 1.40%
10. 81-90 years and 08 06 14 1.97%
above
It shows that among 710 population the male person is 410 i.e. 57.74% and female is 300 i.e.
42.25%.
Table 2
Sr. No. Type of family Number Percentage
1. Joint 12 40
2. Nuclear 15 50
3. Extended 3 10
This shows that among 30 families 12 families are joint that is 40%, 15 families are nuclear that
is 50% and 3 families are extended that is 10%.
TABLE 3
Percentage distribution of population according to marital status –
Sr. No. Marital status Number Percentage
1. Married 338 47.60%
2. Un- married 359 50.56%
3. Divorce 02 0.28%
4. Widow 11 1.54%
This shows that among 338 persons are married that is 47.60%, 359 persons are unmarried that
50.56%, 02 persons are divorced that is 0.28% and 11 Persons are widow that is 1.54%.
TABLE 4
Sr. No. Level of education Number Percentage
1. Illiterate 102 14.36%
2. Pre-primary 110 15.49%
3. Primary 105 14.7%
4. Secondary 144 20.2%
5. Higher secondary 113 15.9%
6. Above high secondary 136 19.1%
It shows that 102 persons are illiterate i.e.14.36% 110 number of person are pre-primary i.e.
15.49%, 105 number of persons are primary, i.e.14.7 %, 144 number of persons are secondary,
i.e. 20.2%, 113 number of persons are higher secondary, i.e. 15.9% and 136 number of persons
are above High secondary, i.e. 19.1%.
TABLE 5
Sr. No. Level of occupation Number Percentage
1. Business 160 22.53%
2. Service 20 2.81%
3. Farmer 120 16.90%
4. Labour 60 8.45%
5. House wife 90 12.67%
6. Student 180 25.35%
7. Un-employee 50 7.04%
8. Dependent 30 4.22%
It shows that 160 persons are business man i.e. 22.53%, 20 persons are service holder i.e.
2.81%, 120 persons are farmer i.e. 16.90%, 60 persons are laborer i.e. 8.45%, persons are
housewife i.e. 12.67%, 180 persons are students i.e. 25.35%, 50 persons are unemployed i.e.
7.04%, and 30 persons are dependent i.e. 4.22.
TABLE 6
Sr. No. Immunization coverage Number Percentage
1. Fully immunized 412 58.02%
2. Partially immunized 200 28.16%
3. Non taken 98 13.8%
It shows that among 0-6 year children 412 children are fully immunized i.e. 58.02%, 200
number of children are partially immunized i.e. .16% and 98 number of children are not
immunized i.e. 13.8%
TABLE 7
Percentage distribution of eligible couple according type of family planning method
Sr. No. Family planning method Number Percentage
1. Oral pills 46 30.65 %
2. Condoms 23 15.3%
3. Copper-T 67 44.6%
4. Tubectomy 12 8%
5. Vasectomy 02 1.33%
It shows that among 150 eligible couple, 46 number of couple are using oral pills i.e. 30.65%,
23 couples are using condoms i.e. 15.3%, 67 number of couple are using copper T i.e. 44.6%, 12
number of couple had undergone Tubectomy i.e. 8%, 02 number of couple had undergone
vasectomy i.e. 1.33%
TABLE 8: Percentage distribution of family according to type of house
Sr. No. Type of house Number Percentage
1. Pucca 15 50%
2. Semi-pucca 07 23.33%
3. Kaccha 08 26.67%
It shows that among 30 families, 15 families have pucca house i.e. 50%, 07 families have semi-
pucca house i.e. 23.33% and 08 families have kaccha house i.e. 26.67%.
TABLE 9
Percentage distribution of family according to source of safe drinking water
Sr. No. Source Of Safe Drinking Water Number Percentage
1. Tap 21 70%
2. Tube-well 09 30%
It shows that among 30 families, 21 Families are using tap water i.e.70 % and 09 Were using
tube well water i.e. 30%.
TABLE 10
Percentage distribution of family according to drainage system
Sr. No. Type of drainage Number Percentage
1. Open drainage 19 63.33%
2. Closed drainage 11 36.67%
It shows that among 30 families, 19 Families are using open drainage system i.e. 63.33.% and 11
families were using closed drainage system i.e. 36.67%.
