Service Pattern Finder

Shows which citizen responses commonly appear together across each service area.

Social Welfare Services
Analysis Scope Complete active dataset

Association rules are generated from all eligible records in the active dataset. Region and LGU filters do not apply to these saved patterns.

What this page shows: recurring combinations in citizen survey responses for Social Welfare Services. A pattern is a clue that two experiences often occur together; it does not prove that one caused the other.
Key recurring pattern

Main finding: Satisfaction is linked with other service experiences

Citizens who knew about Social Welfare Services, and used Social Welfare Services had a 96.7% likelihood of also reporting satisfaction with Social Welfare Services.

Evidence strength Modest Positive Association Pattern appears in 1,004 of 3,709 eligible respondents (27.1%). Total active respondents: 4,500.

What the Current Pattern May Mean

What the numbers mean This pattern is mainly about the citizen's experience after using the service. When the starting responses were present, 96.7% also showed the linked outcome. The complete pattern appeared in 27.1% of eligible survey records.
What to check Readers may check which parts of Social Welfare Services are connected with satisfaction or dissatisfaction, such as timeliness, staff support, and completeness of service.
Suggested next step If the result points to satisfaction concerns, the next practical step is to review service quality and collect frontline feedback from actual users.
Important caution: Read this as a guide for review, not as a final judgment or proof of cause and effect. Confirm the pattern using LGU records, field context, and follow-up consultation.

How to Read This View

This view looks for response patterns that often happen together. For example, it can show whether citizens who are aware of a service also tend to use it, feel satisfied with it, or still ask for government action.
  • Seen in Records (Support)
    How many eligible responses show the same pattern.
  • Observed Together (Confidence)
    How often the linked responses appear together when the first response is present.
  • Link Strength (Lift)
    How much stronger the pattern is than ordinary chance. Above 1 means the link is meaningful.

Pattern Summary

Result Area Patterns Seen in Records (Support) Observed Together (Confidence) Link Strength (Lift)
Satisfaction 4 93.0% 1.05
Awareness 2 69.2% 0.96
Patterns Found
6
Observed Together (Confidence)
85.1%
Link Strength (Lift)
1.02
Meaningful Positive Links
0
Response Pattern Explorer

Compare Rules by Link Strength

Interpret a Rule

Choose a rule to connect the chart label with its evidence and practical meaning.

Rule 1 · Satisfaction

Citizens who knew about Social Welfare Services, and used Social Welfare Services had a 96.7% likelihood of also reporting satisfaction with Social Welfare Services.

Support1,004 of 3,709 eligible respondents (27.1%)
Confidence96.7%
Lift1.09
Modest positive association: The responses occur together somewhat more often than the baseline. Treat this as a useful lead for local review.

Unified Rule Evidence and Implications

Support shows how common the complete pattern is. Confidence shows how often the linked outcome appears when the starting responses are present. Lift shows whether the link is stronger than the normal baseline.
Rule Result Area Plain Reading Seen in Records (Support) Observed Together (Confidence) Link Strength (Lift) Lift Assessment Practical Interpretation
Rule 1 Satisfaction Citizens who knew about Social Welfare Services, and used Social Welfare Services had a 96.7% likelihood of also reporting satisfaction with Social Welfare Services. 1,004 of 3,709 eligible respondents (27.1%) 96.7% 1.09 Modest positive association The responses occur together somewhat more often than the baseline. Treat this as a useful lead for local review.
Rule 2 Satisfaction Citizens who knew about Social Welfare Services, and felt a need for further action, and used Social Welfare Services had a 94.3% likelihood of also reporting satisfaction with Social Welfare Services. 467 of 3,709 eligible respondents (12.6%) 94.3% 1.06 Modest positive association The responses occur together somewhat more often than the baseline. Treat this as a useful lead for local review.
Rule 3 Satisfaction Citizens who used Social Welfare Services had a 91.9% likelihood of also reporting satisfaction with Social Welfare Services. 1,320 of 3,709 eligible respondents (35.6%) 91.9% 1.04 Near baseline The pattern may be common, but it occurs at about the expected baseline rate. Use it for monitoring rather than as evidence of a strong relationship.
Rule 4 Satisfaction Citizens who felt a need for further action, and used Social Welfare Services had an 89.0% likelihood of also reporting satisfaction with Social Welfare Services. 606 of 3,709 eligible respondents (16.3%) 89.0% 1.00 Near baseline The pattern may be common, but it occurs at about the expected baseline rate. Use it for monitoring rather than as evidence of a strong relationship.
Rule 5 Awareness Citizens who used Social Welfare Services had a 69.9% likelihood of also knew about Social Welfare Services and reporting satisfaction with Social Welfare Services. 1,004 of 3,709 eligible respondents (27.1%) 69.9% 0.97 Near baseline The pattern may be common, but it occurs at about the expected baseline rate. Use it for monitoring rather than as evidence of a strong relationship.
Rule 6 Awareness Citizens who felt a need for further action, and used Social Welfare Services had a 68.6% likelihood of also knew about Social Welfare Services and reporting satisfaction with Social Welfare Services. 467 of 3,709 eligible respondents (12.6%) 68.6% 0.95 Negative association The linked outcome occurs less often than the baseline. Review the underlying responses before drawing a service conclusion.