台北市大安區三個不同社區場域健康促進議題需求之調查

A Survey Health Promotion Issues and Priority in Three Different Communities Settings in Da-An District, Taipei City

10.3966/168232812018032801003

楊逸菊(Yi-Chu Yang)；周婉芸(Wan-Yun Chou)；陳世偉(Shih-Wei Chen)

健康促進 ； 需求評估 ； 健康議題 ； health issues ； health promotion ； need assessment

台灣家庭醫學雜誌

28卷1期（2018 / 03 / 01）

18 - 27

繁體中文

目的：透過針對社區、學校以及工作場所三個不同場域的健康議題需求問卷調查，了解民眾對於健康議題的需求。方法：以台北市某行政區三個不同場域（社區、職場、學校）為研究對象，並利用便利取樣選取三個不同場域。以透過健康議題需求結構式問卷調查，不同場域有不同內容之問卷，來瞭解民眾對於健康議題的需求。結果：回收有效問卷共540份。研究發現，高齡的社區里民、青壯年的職場內勤人員及國小學童家長的平均年齡分為68.8±9.9歲、36.1±7.9歲及42.4±5.1歲。女性占較大的比例，高齡的社區里民大部分為高中職或專科程度，而青壯年的職場內勤人員與國小學童家長則多為大學及研究所以上。健康促進議題的需求：高齡的社區里民需要的為篩檢活動，青壯年的職場內勤人員是營養教育課程，國小學童家長認為學童需要的同樣也是營養教育課程。期望的健康促進議題參與方式：高齡的社區里民與青壯年的職場內勤人員最喜歡的活動方式為現場即可獲得檢查結果的簡易篩檢活動，國小學童家長則希望提供小班衛教指導與操作課程（如健康烹調）給學童。獲得健康相關知識來源：高齡的社區里民傾向從影片或電視獲得健康知識，青壯年的職場內勤人員與國小學童家長則大多從網站獲得健康知識。選擇實施健康促進活動的地點：高齡的社區里民覺得社區活動中心最方便，青壯年的職場內勤人員則選擇鄰近醫院，國小學童家長覺得學童在學校參與相關健康促進活動最方便。結論：依據本調查所得到的結果，可提供台北市該地區衛生單位在推行健康議題相關衛教時的參考，以民眾方便的方式，貼近民眾需求，在不同場域辦理各項教育宣導活動，以獲得健康促進活動成效。

Purpose: The goal of community health promotion is to help develop strategies addressing local health needs by identifying agreed priorities and facilitating effective resource allocation. Methods: A survey on subjects in three different settings (community, school, and workplace) in an administrative district of Taipei City was conducted. Convenience sampling was used, and structured questionnaires issued to three groups of participants to obtain an understanding of the health issues of priority concern in local community. The data from 540 effective questionnaires were statistically analyzed in percentage, averages and standard deviations, data attributes, and the results were described in accordance with the distribution of each variable. Results: The mean ages (±SD) of the participants were 68.8 (±9.9), 36.1 (±7.9) and 42.4 (±5.1) years old respectively for elderly community residents, workplace employees, and parents of elementary school children. Most of the participants were female. Most community participants graduated from senior or vocational high school, while a great part of the workplace and school participants graduated from college or graduate school. Survey findings identified the following priority health concerns: health screening program for community participants and nutrition program for workplace and school participants. Both community and workplace participants preferred simple screening producing immediate results, and school participants found small-class learning and practice-based activities more effective in raising health awareness among elementary school children. Community participants obtained health knowledge mainly from the video and television, and both workplace and school participants from email or hospital websites. In term of their preferred venues for health promotion activities, community participants suggested community centers, workplace participant local hospitals, and school participants in their children's schools. Conclusion: Our study provide evidence-based findings that highlight the importance of addressing the needs of different participants in the development of strategies for improving the effectiveness of health promotion programs in local communities in Taipei City.

1. 許君強(2005)。台北市健康促進事業發展史。學校衛生，46，79-95。
   連結：
2. (2014).Global Status Report on Noncommunicable Diseases 2014.World Health Organization.
3. The Ottawa Charter for Health Promotion. World Health Organization, 1986. http://www.who.int/healthpromotion/conferences/previous/ottawa/en/ Accessed May 8, 2017.
4. Bracht, N(ed.)(1999).Health Promotion at the Community Level: New Advances.California:SAGE Publications.
5. Chu, C(ed.),Simpson, R(ed.)(1994).Ecological Public Health: From Vision to Practice.Australia:Griffith University.
6. Cibula, DA,Novick, LF,Morrow, CB,Sutphen, SM(2003).Community health assessment.Am J Prev Med,24,118-23.
7. Cohen, J(1988).Statistical Power Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences.New York:L. Erlbaum Associates.
8. Eldredge, LKB,Markham, CM,Ruiter, RAC,Fernández, ME,Kok, G,Parcel, GS(2016).Planning Health Promotion Programs: An Intervention Mapping Approach.California:Jossey-Bass.
9. Jones, R,Lamont, T,Haines, A(1995).Setting priorities for research and development in the NHS: A case study on the interface between primary and secondary care.BMJ,311,1076-80.
10. Simon, PA,Wold, CM,Cousineau, MR,Fielding, JE(2001).Meeting the data needs of a local health department: the Los Angeles County Health Survey.Am J Public Health,91,1950-2.
11. Sparling, PB(2010).Worksite health promotion: Principles, resources, and challenges.Prev Chronic Dis,7,A25.
12. Stafford-Alewine, S,Land, GH(2002).The Missouri experience in providing tools and resources to promote community assessment.J Public Health Manag Pract,8,14-9.
13. UNICEF(2007).Child poverty in perspective: An Overview of Child Well-being in Rich Countries.Florence:UNICEF Innocenti Research Center.
14. Victora, CG,Habicht, JP,Bryce, J(2004).Evidencebased public health: Moving beyond randomized trials.Am J Public Health,94,400-5.
15. Williams, RL,Crabtree, BF,O'Brien, C,Zyzanski, SJ,Gilchrist, VJ(1999).Practical tools for qualitative community-oriented primary care community assessment.Fam Med,31,488-94.
16. Winslow CEA: The untilled field of public health. Science 1920; 51: 23-33
17. 行政院衛生福利部：2025 衛生福利政策白皮書。2017年7月7日，取自https://www.gitbook.com/book/oliviawu/2025-whbook/details
18. 行政院衛生福利部國民健康署。學校健康體位教戰手冊。
19. 行政院衛生福利部國民健康署(2017)。2016衛生福利部國民健康署年報。
20. 行政院衛生福利部統計處：104年度全民健康保險醫療統計年報。2017年5月8日，取自https://dep.mohw.gov.tw/DOS/lp-2830-113.html
21. 行政院衛生福利部統計處：104年度死因統計。2017年5月8日，取自http://www.mohw.gov.tw/dl-17918-23844849-419a-4d71-a403-206f4d88429e.html。
22. 吳明清(1991)。教育研究─基本觀念與方法之分析。台北:五南圖書出版有限公司。
23. 吳明隆、涂金堂(2006)。SPSS 與統計應用分析。台北:五南圖書出版有限公司。
24. 李蘭、成亮、洪百薰、洪美紋、劉文玉、吳文琪(2003)。形塑陽光家園：健康社區DIY。台北:財團法人光寶文教基金會。
25. 季瑋珠(1993)。社區診斷。台北:巨流圖書公司。
26. 陳靜音(2002)。碩士論文(碩士論文)。嘉義，國立中正大學教育研究所。
27. 楊慎絢、陳美如、蕭麗華、廖峰偉、黃芬芬(2007)。臺北市職場健康促進議題與優先順序調查。北市醫學雜誌，4，61-73。
28. 趙坤郁(2001)。九十年度衛生署委託辦理評估計畫九十年度衛生署委託辦理評估計畫,台北:行政院衛生福利部。
29. 趙坤郁、林茂安、鄭惠美(2006)。社區健康營造工作手冊。台北:行政院衛生署國民健康局。
30. 鄭尊仁(2001)。,台北:行政院衛生福利部。