“全校性健康五蔬果”介入計畫對國中學生每日攝取五蔬果及相關因素之影響－以彰化縣立鹿嗚國中學生為例

The Effect of School 5-A-Day Education Program on Dietary Behavior Related Factors in Lu-Ming Junior High School students

10.7022/JHE.200506.0019

黃惠斌(Hui-Pin Huang)；劉潔心(Chieh-Hsing Liu)

每日五蔬果 ； 全校性教學活動 ； 班級性教學活動 ； 國中學生 ； 5-A-Day ； classroom activities ； school-wide activities ； junior high school students

衛生教育學報

23期（2005 / 06 / 01）

19 - 38

繁體中文

本研究主要目的在發展一個「全校性健康五蔬果」介入計畫，並進一步探討其介入效果。本研究採「前測－後測不等組」實驗設計，以彰化縣立鹿嗚國中一年級各三個班級為實驗組一及實驗組二，以彰化縣立和群國中一年級三個班級為對照組。「全校性健康五蔬果」介入計畫，分成班級性教學活動及全校性教學活動，實驗組一先接受班級性教學活動，再接受全校性教學活動介入，實驗組二只接受全校性教學活動介入。研究工具為前後測自填式結構性問卷，問卷回收率達98.11%。最後有效問卷為306份，佔95.92%。研究結果發現「全校性健康五蔬果」介入計畫實施後，實驗組一的每日五蔬果五個變項和對照組都達統計上顯著差異；實驗組二除了每日五蔬果「認知」「自覺障礙」與對照組未達顯著差異外，其餘變項都和對照組達統計上顯著差異。實驗組一每日五蔬果的五個變項前後測都達統計上顯著差異，實驗組二前後測除了「自覺障礙」外，其他四個變項也都達統計上顯著差異。若是在控制前測得分下，實驗組一的每日五蔬果「認知」與「自覺障礙」和實驗組二有達顯著差異，「自覺利益」、「社會支持」和「行為」等變項未達顯著差異。根據本研究結果，建議未來在發展每日五蔬果教育計畫課程時，應透過全面性整合的教育方式，才可增強學生改變的興趣與意願，且對學生每日五蔬果行為亦才能產生顯著提昇的效果。

The purpose of this study is to develop an effective school 5-A-Day education program related to the dietary behavior of junior high school students. Quasi-experimental method is used to explore the effect of the treatments on junior high school students. Treatment activities in the education program are designed to have two sections as classroom activities and school-wide activities. Subjects were divided into three groups, two as experimental groups, and the other as control group. The first experimental group is treated with both classroom activities and school-wide activities; classroom activities were held first, and then followed with school-wide activities. The second experimental group is treated with school-wide activities only. The control group is treated without any activities. All the subjects were sampled from two junior high schools located in Chanhwang County. Questionnaire is used as the measurement instrument. Totally 306 out of 319 subjects are valid for statistical analysis. Results reveal the following information: 1. The mean scores of the knowledge, Prons, Cons, social support, and behavior about 5-A-Day in the post-test of the first experimental group are significantly different from those of the control group. 2. The mean scores of the Prons, social support, and behavior about 5-A-Day in the post-test of the second experimental group are significantly different from those of the control group. However, their mean scores of the knowledge and Cons about 5-A-Day are not significant. 3. The mean scores of the knowledge and Cons about 5-A-Day in the post-test of the two experimental groups are different significantly. But the mean scores of the Prons, social support, and behavior about 5-A-Day of the two experimental groups are not significant. According to the findings in this study, it is recommended that the health educator should design a 5-A-Day education program according to the strategies of behavior change, social cognitive theory, health communication theory, social support and other important items. Meanwhile, the education program should contain health concept promotion, school environmental changes, and media marketing campaign.

1. Block, G.,Patterson, B.,Subar, A.(1991).Fruit, vegetables, and cancer prevention: a review of the Epidemiological evidence.Nutrition and cancer,18,1-29.
2. Center for Disease Control and Prevention(1997).Guidelines for school health program to promote lifelong healthy eating.Journal of School Health,67(1),9-26.
3. Chen, V. A.,Vontham, E.,Groves, F. D.(1991).Cancer incidence in south Louisiana: 1983-1986.Cancer in Louisiana,7,1-33.
4. Kelder, S. H.(1994).Longitudinal tracking of adolescent smoking, physical activity and food choice behaviors.American Journal of Public Health,84,1121-1126.
5. Nicklas, T. A.,Johnson, C. C.,Myers, L.,Farris, R. P.,Cunningham, A.(1998).Outcomes of a High School Program to Increase Fruit and Vegetable Consumption: Gimme 5-A Fresh Nutrition Concept for Students.Journal of School Health,68(6),248-253.
6. Perry, C. L.,Klepp, K. I.,Schultz, J.(1988).Primary prevention of cardiovascular disease: Community-wide strategies for youth.Journal of Consulting Clinical Psychology,56,358-364.
7. Schlettweingsell, D.(1992).Nutrition and the quality of life: A measure for the outcome of nutrition intervention.American Journal of Clinical Nutrition,55,1263-1266.
8. Splett, P. L.,Story, M.(1992).Child nutrition: Objectives for the decade.Journal of the American Dietetic Association,91,665-668.
9. Willer, W.(1990).Vitamin A and lung Cancer.Nutrition Review,48(5),201-211.
10. 行政院衛生署(1993)。每日飲食指南。台北:行政院。
11. 李蘭、陸玓玲、李隆安、黃美維、潘伶燕、鄧肖琳(1995)。台灣地區成人的健康行爲探討：分布情形、因素結構和相關因素。中華衛生雜誌，4(14)，358-367。
12. 張玉鳳(2001)。碩士論文(碩士論文)。國立台灣師範大學衛生教育研究所。
13. 教育部(2001)。國民中小學九年一貫課程暫行綱要。台北:教育部。
14. 彭汪家康、賴基銘、杭極敏、財團法人台灣癌症基金會主編(2001)。蔬果防癌飲食寶典。台北:財團法人台灣癌症基金會。
15. 鄭惠美(1998)。學童家長與學童蔬果攝取行爲研究。衛生教育學報，13，91-106。