失能患者日常生動與其生活滿意度之相關性
10
0
0
全文
(2) 158. 1 3 60%. 1 3 Barthel Index. [4-6]. (activities. 6.6%. of. [7]. 83 9.77%. 80. ADL). [9]. 70 70. 80. daily living. Cronbach's alpha. 0.87 [10]. 13.9%. [11]. [8]. / / 0 0 20. 100. 21 60. 61 80. 12-14. 13 Likert 1 5. 13 65. 5 6. 7. 8. 1. Barthel Index. Cronbach's alpha. 0.93 22. Cronbach's. alpha. 0.77. alpha. 0.83. alpha. 0.82. alpha. 0.68. Barthel Index 80 ( ). 18 226 (factor analysis) (Barthel. Index). 60.8%. 1.
(3) 159. 1. 1 11.. .74. 10.. .68. 12.. .69. 13.. .51. 9.. .47 2. 4.. .65. 3.. .68. 1.. .59. 2.. .55. 5.. 3.91. 30.1%. 2.17. 16.7%. 1.82. 14.0%. .50 3. 8.. .69. 7.. .66. 6.. .52 60.8%. (stepwise multiple regression). Barthel Index 80 18-95. dBASE 3 (coding). (ANOVA). SPSS/PC8.0. 67.5 13.6 74.3%. 50% ( 66.4% ) 19.5% ) 59.3% 68.1%. (Scheffe's). 36.7% 10.2 % (. (Pearson's correlation. ( 28.8% ) (13.7%) 6 8 89.4% 70.7% 53.1% 2). (. coefficient) 25 59 (dummy variable). 25. 40.9 44. 6.8.
(4) 160. 2 %. (. ). ). *. ;. 50.0. 2. 0.9 6.6. 45 64. 58. 25.7. ≥ 65. 151. 66.8. ≤6. 168. 74.3. 7 12. 47. 20.8. ≥ 13. 11. 4.9. 150. 66.4. 65. 28.8. 44. 19.5. 31. 13.7. 20. 8.8. 22. 9.7. 9. 4.0. 9. 4.0. 4. 1.8. 46. 20.4. 1. 113. 50.0. ≥2. 113. 50.0. ≤6. 134. 59.3. 92. 40.7. 7 24. ). 113 15. *. (. 50.0. 25 44. < 24. (. 113. 23. 10.2. 120. 53.1. 83. 36.7. <4. 26. 11.5. 5 8. 46. 20.4. >8. 154. 68.1. 160. 70.7. 50. 22.3. 16. 7.0. 68. 30.1. 134. 59.3. 24. 10.6.
(5) 161. 3 F. F 25. 25 17.5. 13.6. 3.9. F. F 15. 4.0. 1.6. 9.8. 65 2.5. 0.3. 40.9. 6.8. 3.0*. 1.4. < 24. 14.5. 0.4. 12.5. 10.6. 13.0. 1.4. 40.0. 18.4. 25 44. 15.7. 2.5. 13.4. 3.4. 8.4. 2.0. 37.5. 5.0. 45 64. 17.5. 4.3. 14.0. 4.5. 9.9. 2.6. 41.3. 7.7. ≥ 65. 17.7. 3.7. 13.5. 3.8. 9.9. 2.4. 41.1. 6.5. 40.4. 6.7. 2.6. ≤6. 17.2. 3.7. 7 12. 18.2. 3.9. ≥ 13. 19.4. 4.8. 0. 13.6. 2.5. 4.0. 9.6. 2.5. 13.4. 3.9. 10.5. 2.4. 42.1. 6.3. 14.4. 4.2. 10.5. 2.5. 44.2. 9.8. 0.5. 25.8. 3.9. 16.9. 3.1. 17.5. 3.3. 14.4. 17.3. 4.6. 11.5. 18.2. 2.7. 3.4*. 9.6. 10.6. 2.2. 45.7. 7.6. 3.2. 9.5. 2.3. 41.3. 6.0. 4.2. 10.2. 2.7. 39.1. 7.2. 0.0. 10.0. 0.3. 3.5*. <4. 17.4. 4.3. 15.9. 3.9. 10.0. 2.8. 43.3. 7.7. 5 8. 17.4. 3.4. 14.8. 3.8. 10.0. 2.0. 42.2. 6.2. >8. 17.5. 3.9. 12.8. 3.9. 9.8. 2.5. 40.1. 6.8. 17.1. 4.0. 12.3. 3.6. 9.7. 2.5. 39.0. 6.2. 18.1. 3.4. 15.8. 2.8. 10.2. 2.3. 44.1. 5.9. 19.6. 3.1. 19.8. 2.0. 10.4. 2.9. 49.9. 4.9. 4.4*. 51.9. 8.2. 1.59. 8.3. 33.2. 0.2. 11.3. 16.1. 4.2. 12.0. 3.7. 9.7. 2.8. 37.9. 6.7. 17.9. 3.4. 14.2. 3.9. 9.9. 2.3. 42.0. 6.3. 19.3. 4.0. 14.7. 4.2. 9.7. 2.5. 43.7. 7.3. 17.3. 3.4. 13.6. 3.7. 40.5. 6.1. 17.7. 4.3. 13.5. 4.3. 41.4. 7.5. 41.2. 7.1. 40.5. 6.5. -0.7. 0.2. 0.1. ≤6. 17.5. 4.1. 7 24. 17.5. 3.5. 2.0* 9.5 10.2. 13.6. 4.1. 13.6. 3.8. 1.0. 1.9 10.1. 2.3. 9.5. 2.6. 1.4. 0.7. 1.9. 1. 17.3. 3.8. 13.2. 4.0. 9.5. ≥2. 17.7. 3.9. 13.9. 4.0. 10.1. Scheffe's. 2.7. 0.0. -0.9. *p <0.05; p <0.01; p < 0.001. 2.1. 2.0*. 2.7. 40.0. 6.1. 2.1. 41.8. 7.3.
(6) 162. 1. 2. 4. 0.12. 0.01. 0.04. 0.09. 0.11. 0.49. 0.06. 0.29. 0.03. 0.07. 0.13. 0.07. 0.02. 0.01. 0.11. 0.05. 0.76. 0.75. 0.38. 1.00. p < 0.01. Scheffe's (. 3) 5 0. 80. 34.2 7.7 45.6 70.2. 23.5 7.9 9%. 11.1. 6.1 (. 2). Scheffe's. 8 4 (. 4. 43%. ) 25.
(7) 163. 5 2. (R ) (Beta). 2. F. (. = 0). 2.06. 0.82. 0.03. 0.03. 6.27. (. = 0). 1.75. 0.56. 0.07. 0.04. 9.92. = 0). 2.09. 0.96. 0.09. 0.02. 4.69*. (. = 0). 6.65. 0.93. 0.18. 0.18. 50.52. (. = 0). 3.54. 0.54. 0.32. 0.13. 43.68. (. = 0). 2.06. 0.74. 0.34. 0.02. 7.82. (. = 0). 2.00. 0.46. 0.39. 0.05. 19.18. 0.98. 0.46. 0.41. 0.01. 4.50*. = 0). 1.50. 0.74. 0.43. 0.02. 4.00*. = 0). 0.82. 0.32. 0.03. 0.03. 6.33*. = 0). 1.48. 0.64. 0.05. 0.02. 5.32*. 0.88. 0.39. 0.07. 0.02. 5.03*. (. 8. (< 4. = 0). ( ( 25 44. (<24 (≤ 6. 7 12. = 0) (. = 0). 9.71. 1.65. 0.13. 0.13. 34.51. (. = 0). 5.14. 0.98. 0.23. 0.1. 27.71. = 0). 2.98. 1.35. 0.25. 0.02. 4.86*. (. = 0). 1.66. 0.82. 0.26. 0.01. 4.11*. (. = 0). 4.15. 1.43. 0.29. 0.03. 8.44. 2.04. 0.96. 0.30. 0.01. 4.55*. (. 7 12. (B). R. (≤ 6. = 0). *p < 0.05; p < 0.01; p < 0.001. 44 7 7%. 24 12. 6 7. 12. 6 30%.
(8) 164. [20,27] 66.8%. Glatzer. 65. 70. 64 [13] [15. 17]. Spreitzer. [6,15]. [12] 70.7% [14,18,21] Change [28] 1). [18,19] 66.8%. 65 66.4% 59.3% 6. 89.4% 53.1%. 2). 77%. (r = 0.29) (r = 0.49). [12,20,21]. 30%. [22 -24] Levin. [25]. 3). Siebert [26]. 22.
(9) 165. 1991; 1.. 18:237-48. 1996. 2. World Health Organization. International. 16. 1993;12:191-200. classification of impairments, disability, and 17.. handicaps. Geneva; WHO, 1980:7-46;143-82.. 1995;22:99-113. 3. 18.. 1997;7:29-37. 1999;7:294-306. 4. 19.. 1987;3:69-78. -. 5. 1997;5:279-89 20.. 6.. 1997;176. 1999; 21.. 7:363-74. 1992;39:37-47. 7.. 22. Brown JS, Rawlinson ME, Hilles NC. Life. 1995;14:246-53. satisfaction and chronic disease: exploration of. 8.. theoretical model. Med Care 1981:19:1136-46.. 1995 9. Mahoney FI, Barthel DW. Functional evaluation. 23. Palmore E, Kivett V. Change in life satisfaction: a longitudinal study of persons aged 46-70. J. the Barthel index. Mar State Med J 1965;14:61-5. 10. Collin C, Wade DT, Davies S, et al. The Barthel ADL Index: a reliability study. J D i s S t u. Gerontol 1977;32:311-6. 24. 1995;3:138-48. 1987;10:61-3.. 25. Levin ER. Ah: Sweet mystery of life satisfaction.. 11. 1995 12. Spreitzer E, Synder EE. Correlates of life. Caring 1994;13:17-9,76. 26. Siebert DC, Mutran EJ, Reitzes DC. Friendship and social support: the importance of role. satisfaction among the aged. J Gerontol 1974; 29:454-58. 13. Glatzer W, Mohr HM. Quality of life concepts. identity to aging adults. Soc Work 1999;44:522-33. 27. 1994;21:118-27. and measurement. Soc Ind Res 1987;19:15-50.. 28. Change BL. Locus of control, trust, situational. 14. 1988 15.. 2000;8:423-. 34. control and morale of the elder. Int J Nur Stu 1979:16:169-81..
(10) 166. Association Between Activities of Daily Living and Life Satisfaction Among Disabled Patients 1. Chien-Chi Liu, Li-Chen Hung, Hsien-Wen Kuo 1. Department of Nursing, Hung Kuang Institution of Technology; Department of Public Health, China Medical College, Taichung, Taiwan, R.O.C.. Objective. To investigate the relationship between activities of daily living (ADL) and life satisfaction among disabled patients. M e t h o d s . The method of cross-sectional investigation was used in our research. In Taichung County, 226 disabled patients were enrolled in this study based on two criteria: Barthel Index Score (< 80), and age (over 18 years). A structured questionnaire included patients' demographic information, health status, activities of daily life (ADL), pharmacological history and life satisfaction. Results. The results showed that 89.8% of disabled patients were ADL dependent. Life satisfaction depended on chronic disease, sex, age, duration of daily care, perceived financial burden, perceived health status and ADL dependency (p < 0.05). ADL dependency was negatively related to duration of daily care, but positively related to perceived financial burden and perceived health status. Patients' satisfaction with life and satisfaction with physical condition can be assessed by ADL (Barthel index) scores. Using stepwise multiple regression, perceived health status, ADL dependency, perceived financial burden, and education levels among disabled patients can explain 30% of the total variance in life satisfaction for ADL dependency. Conclusions. Patients with greater ADL dependency were less satisfied with life. The factors influencing life satisfaction were: perceived health status, ADL dependency, perceived financial burden and level of education. ( Mid Taiwan J Med 2001;6:157-66). Key words ADL dependency, disabled patients, life satisfaction. Received : March 21, 2001.. Revised : May 11, 2001.. Accepted : July 13, 2001. Address reprint requests to : Hsien-Wen Kuo, Department of Public Health, China Medical College, No 91, Hsueh-Shih Road, Taichung 404, Taiwan, R.O.C..
(11)
相關文件
This shows that service quality, perceived value, DM advertising, customer satisfaction and loyalty have become important issues on business management.. Therefore, the
The analytic results show that image has positive effect on customer expectation and customer loyalty; customer expectation has positive effect on perceived quality; perceived
The regression analysis results indicated that after the corporate image, service quality, satisfaction, perceived value and loyalty between each dimension and is
Among them, service quality and sex, age, level of education, marital status, average month income and class Present notable difference... Job Pressure and service quality of
A model of service quality perceptions and health care consumer behavior. Measurement and evaluation of satisfaction processes in
On regression analysis, we had found that perceived waiting time had native effect on sensation of waiting for getting medicine, service quality and general satisfaction, but
In this study, we make use of Technology Acceptance Model (TAM), Perceived Usefulness and Perceived Ease of Use as primary factors, followed by perceived level of
Keywords: Taiwan and Chinese consumers, Brand Image, Perceived Value, Perceived Quality, Beauty Care
