民眾如何看待健康教育訊息：深度訪談嚼檳榔的計程車司機

Lay Perspectives of Health Education Information: in-depth Interviews with Areca Quid Chewing Taxi Drivers

10.6288/TJPH2005-24-03-09

郭淑珍(Shu-Chen Kuo)；丁志音(Chih-Yin Lew-Ting)；陳怡君(Yi-Chun Chen)

嚼檳榔 ； 計程車司機 ； 健康教育訊息 ； 常民知識 ； areca quid chewing ； taxi driver ； health education information ； lay knowledge

台灣公共衛生雜誌

24卷3期（2005 / 06 / 01）

239 - 253

繁體中文

目標：本研究探索嚼食檳榔的計程車司機，如何思考所接收到的檳榔相關健康訊息。方法：研究者利用深度訪談的方式，自2003年l月至8月訪問了44位嚼檳榔的計程車司機。結果：本研究大部分受訪司機，都曾由不同管道接觸檳榔危害的相關訊息，但是對於檳榔的健康危害，卻有更寬廣的看法。有些司機會從個人的健康狀況、體質與基因、是否實踐某些健康生活方式、是否做好口腔清潔工作等因素，以為檳榔危害的整體考量。有些司機認為自己是檳榔「專家」，他們認為只有嚼檳榔的「量」過多，或是嚼「錯」檳榔才會產生健康危害。少數司機認為生活中危害健康的因素無所不在，或是有比「健康」更重要的事情，所以檳榔的健康危害不足為道。結論：嚼檳榔的計程車司機並非是無知者，需要更多、更好的檳榔危害知識。本研究訪談的司機將其所接收到檳榔相關訊息與其原本的健康知識、生活經驗相連，重新詮釋檳榔危害的訊息，並採取相關行動。公衛專家需由常民觀點思考健康訊息，才能與民眾對話，進一步達成改變的契機。

Objectives: This study examined areca quid chewing taxi drivers' perspectives of areca quid related health information. Methods: Accompanied by an ex-taxi driver, the author visited one taxi driver for each interview at drivers' rest areas or waiting lines in Taipei. The interview conversation focused on the health effects of the behavior and the driver's thoughts. Results: A total of 44 areca quid chewing taxi drivers were interviewed in-depth between January and August 2003. Most taxi drivers received areca quid related health information from a variety of channels. However, they had very broad view of areca quid information. Some drivers identified their health status, constitution or genes, participation in a healthy lifestyle, and oral hygiene practices in determining the health risk of areca quid chewing. Some drivers considered themselves areca quid experts, and suggested that the health risk of areca quid was from an ”overdose” or chewing the ”wrong” kind of areca quid. A few drivers believed areca quid health information to be trivial. They said the hazardous environment and their daily survival were far more important than the health risk of chewing areca quid. Conclusions: Areca quid chewing taxi drivers are not uneducated individuals who require more or better areca quid health information. They integrated areca quid information with their own personal health knowledge and their daily experience, reinterpreted areca quid information, and took action. In order to communicate with the public and to change health behavior, public health experts need to recognize the significance of lay knowledge.

1. Cockerham WC.,Bird C,Conrad, P,Fremont AM(2000).The sociology of health behavior and health lifestyles.Handbook of Medical Sociology,159-72.
2. Davison C,Davey Smith G,Frankel S.(1991).Lay epidemiology and the prevention paradox: the implications of coronary candidacy for health education.Sociol Health Illness,13,1-20.
3. Eakin J,Robertson A,Poland B,Coburn D,Edwards R.(1996).Toward a critical social science perspective on health promotion research.Health Promotion Inter,11,157-65.
4. Freire P.(1986).Pedagogy of the Oppressed
5. Ko YC,Chiang TA,Chang SJ,Hsieh SF(1992).Prevalence of betel quid chewing habit in Taiwan and related sociodemographic factors.J Oral Pathol Med,21,261-64.
6. Ko YC,Huang YL,Lee CH,Chen MJ,Lin LM,Tsai CC.(1995).Betal quid chewing, cigarette smoking and alcohol consumption related to oral cancer in Taiwan.J Oral Pathol Med,24,450-53.
7. Lawlor DA,Frankel S,Shaw M,Ebrahim S,Davey Smith G.(2003).Smoking and ill health: dose lay epidemiology explain the failure of smoking cessation programs among deprived population?.Am J Public Health,93,266-70.
8. Lee RG,Garvin T.(2003).Moving from information transfer to information exchange in health and health care.Soc Sci Med,56,449-64.
9. Lindbladh E,Lyttkens CH(2002).Habit versus choice: the process of decision-making in health-related behaviour.Soc Sci Med,55,451-65.
10. Mercado-Martinez FJ,Ramos-Herrera TM.(2002).Diabeted: The layperson's theories of causality.Qualitative Health Res,12,792-806.
11. Milburn K.(1994).The importance of lay theorizing for health promotion research and practice.Health Promotion Inter,11,41-6.
12. Popay J,Williams G.(1996).Public health research and lay knowledge.Soc Sci Med,42,759-68.
13. Rubin HJ,Rubin IS(1995).Qualitative Interviewing: The Art of Hearing Data.
14. Sorensen G,Barbeau E,Hunt MK,Emmons K.(2004).Reducing social disparities in tobacco use: a social-contextual model for reducing tobacco use among blue-collar workers.Am J Publ Health,94,230-39.
15. Tannahill A., Bunton R,MacDonald G(1992).Epidemiology and health promotion: a common understanding.Health Promotion: Disciplines and Diversity,86-107.
16. Xu KT.(2002).Compensating behaviors, regret, and heterogeneity in the dynamics of smoking behavior.Soc Sci Med,54,133-46.
17. 王淑貞(2001)。嘉義，國立中正大學國際經濟研究所碩士論文。
18. 行政院衛生署(1996)。中華民國公共衛生概況。
19. 行政院衛生署(1993)。衛生白皮書
20. 行政院衛生署、韓良俊(2000)。口腔檳榔癌。口腔檳榔癌
21. 李蘭、林慧宜、晏涵文(1998)。預防國中生嚼檳榔之教育效果。醫學教育，2，49-64。
22. 李蘭、晏涵文、劉潔心、關學婉、季璋珠、林瑞雄(1992)。嚼檳榔預防教育先驅研究(Ⅰ)－國中生嚼檳榔現況及影響因素之初探。中華衛誌，11，285-94。
23. 李蘭、劉潔心、晏涵文、陳麗鳳(1992)。嚼檳榔預防教育先驅研究(II)－國中生嚼檳榔預防教學實驗。中華衛誌，11，295-303。
24. 林易超、柯政全、謝天渝(2000)。檳榔及其添加物致突變性之研究。台灣口腔醫誌，16，273-95。
25. 胡幼慧、姚美華、胡幼慧(1996)。一些質性方法上的思考。質性研究：理論、方法及本土女性研究實例，141-58。
26. 郭彥彬、賴美淑、韓良俊(2000)。嚼檳榔與口腔癌癌基因、抑癌基因的突變和表現。論壇健康促進與疾病預防委員會文獻回顧研析計畫：「檳榔與口腔癌」。
27. 楊奕馨、陳鴻榮、曾筑琅、謝天渝(2002)。台灣地區各縣市檳榔嚼食率調查報告。台灣口腔醫學衛生科學雜誌，18，1-16。
28. 楊瑪利(1992).檳榔文化－文明與原始的矛盾.天下雜志,128,26-36.
29. 葛梅貞、李蘭、蕭朱杏(1999)。傳播管道與健康行為之關係研究：以嚼食檳榔為例。中華衛誌，18，349-62。
30. 蔡鵬飛、韓良俊(2000)。台灣地區嚼食檳榔風俗近況與牙醫界的對策。檳榔的健康危害，46-52。
31. 鄭景暉、賴美淑、韓良俊(2000)。檳榔嚼塊的化學致癌性質暨其防制：現況與未來。論壇健康促進與疾病預防委員會文獻回顧研析計畫：「檳榔與口腔癌」。
32. 韓良俊(2000)。檳榔的健康危害。

1. 盧敬文(2016)。牡丹鄉衛生所醫護人員的工作世界。清華大學社會學研究所學位論文。2016。1-97。