<p>
</p><p>TABLE OF CONTENT</p><p>Title page – – – – – – – – – i</p><p>Dedication – – – – – – – – – – ii</p><p>Acknowledgment – – – – – – – – – iii</p><p>Certification- – – – – – – – – – iv</p><p>Abstract- – – – – – – – – – – v</p><p>Table of content – – – – – – – – vi</p><p>List of tables- – – – – – – – – vii</p><p>List of abbreviations – – – – – – – – viii</p><p> </p><p>
Chapter ONE
</p><p>INTRODUCTION</p><p>Background to the study- – – – – – – – 1</p><p>Statement of problem- – – – – – – – – 2</p><p>Aims And Objectives Of the study- – – – – – – 3</p><p>Significance of the study- – – – – – – – – 3</p><p>Research Question- – – – – – – – – 4</p><p>Scope of the study- – – – – – – – – 4</p><p>Limitation – – – – – – – – – – 4</p><p>Operational definition of terms- – – – – – – 5</p><p>
Chapter TWO
</p><p>2.0 <a target="_blank" rel="nofollow" href="https://projectchampionz.com.ng/tag/literature/">Literature</a> review – – – – – – – – 6</p><p>2.1 Introduction – – – – – – – – – -6</p><p>2.2 Anatomy of the foot – – – – – – – – -7</p><p>2.3 The general osteology and foot shape – – – – – -9</p><p>2.4 Arches of the foot – – – – – – – – -10</p><p>2.5 Pes Cavus – – – – – – – – -18</p><p>2.6 Epidemiology of plantar arch index and prevalence of flat feet – -20</p><p> </p><p>
Chapter THREE
</p><p>3.0 Methodology – – – – – – – – – -2 4</p><p>3.1 Introduction – – – – – – – – – – -24</p><p>3.2 Study setting – – – – – – – – – -24</p><p>3.3 Study population – – – – – – – – – -24</p><p>3.4 Sample size determination – – – – – – -24</p><p>3.5 Sampling techniques – – – – – – – -24</p><p>3.6 Instruments of data collection – – – – – – -25</p><p>3.7 Method of data collection – – – – – – – -25</p><p>3.8 Method of data analysis – – – – – – – -26</p><p>3.9 Inclusion and exclusion criteria- – – – – – – – 26</p><p> </p><p>
Chapter FOUR
</p><ul><li>Results – – – – – – – – – – -27</li></ul><p>4.1 Demographic characteristics of participants- – – – -27</p><p> </p><p>
Chapter FIVE
</p><p>5.0 Discussion, conclusion, recommendation – – – – – 32</p><p>5.1 Conclusion – – – – – – – – – -36</p><p>5.2 Recommendation – – – – – – – – -36</p><p>5.3 References – – – – – – – – – – – 37</p><p>5.4 Appendices – – – – – – – – – – 42<strong><br></strong></p><p><strong> LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS</strong></p><ul><li>A: width of the central region of the foot</li><li>B: width of the heel region</li><li>BILAT: bilateral</li><li>H: height</li><li>MLA: medial longitudinal arch</li><li>MTP: metatarsophalangeal</li><li>PAI and PI: plantar arch index</li><li>SD: standard deviation</li><li>UNILAT: unilateral</li><li>WT: weight<strong> </strong></li></ul>
<br><p></p>
Project Abstract
ABSTRACT
The aim of this study was to assess the plantar arch index among residents in ovia northeast L.G.A and to determine the prevalence of pesplanus. A total of 380 subjects comprising of 194 males and 186 females aged 16-35 years were used for the study. The dynamic footprints of the subjects were obtained using endorsing ink and plain duplicating paper. The plantar arch index was determined as the ratio of the mid arch width to the mid heel width from the foot prints. Descriptive statistics for each variable included mean and standard deviation(SD). Mean 2SD was regarded as normal but greater than that that was considered as pes planus. After results were analyzed, a total of 60 males and 53 females had pes planus. The overall prevalence of pes planus was 29.72% with a prevalence of 15.78% among males and 13.94% among females. Bilateral pes planuswas commoner among males 4(1.05%) than females 2(0.52%). The results showed that the prevalence of pes planus was higher(P<0.05) among males than females in our study. 0(0%)cases of Pes Cavus was reported in this research,74(19.47%) males were normal, they didn’t have Pes planus or Pes Cavus, 100(26.317%) were normal, they didn’t have Pes planus or Pes Cavus.