Skip to main content

View full-text article in PMC

. 2020 Nov 9;20:512. doi: 10.1186/s12887-020-02416-y

Table 2.

Comparison of massage practices between study states

Prevalence of massage practice		Total n = 1497(%)	MH n = 1000 (%)	MP n = 497 (%)	X² Statistic	P value^#
Received massage (overall)	Yes	1403 (93.8)	979 (98.0)	424 (85.3)	91.61	< 0.01^*
Received massage (overall)	No	93 (6.2)	20 (2.0)	73 (14.7)	91.61	< 0.01^*
Receiving massage at 3 months	Yes	308 (89)	231 (95.1)	77 (74.8)	30.50	< 0.01^*
Receiving massage at 3 months	No	38 (11)	12 (4.9)	26 (25.2)	30.50	< 0.01^*
Receiving massage at 6 months	Yes	293 (90.1)	165 (93.2)	128 (86.5)	4.11	0.04^*
Receiving massage at 6 months	No	32 (9.9)	12 (6.8)	20 (13.5)	4.11	0.04^*
Receiving massage at 12 months	Yes	453 (76.9)	293 (72.5)	160 (86.5)	13.92	< 0.01^*
Receiving massage at 12 months	No	136 (23.1)	111 (27.5)	25 (13.5)	13.92	< 0.01^*
Receiving massage at 18 months	Yes	97 (42.4)	57 (32.6)	40 (74.1)	29.11	< 0.01^*
Receiving massage at 18 months	No	132 (57.64)	118 (67.4)	14 (25.9)	29.11	< 0.01^*

MH Maharashtra, MP Madhya Pradesh

*significant at p < 0.05 ^# Comparisons using Chi-squared test