請用此 Handle URI 來引用此文件：
http://tdr.lib.ntu.edu.tw/jspui/handle/123456789/21762完整後設資料紀錄
| DC 欄位 | 值 | 語言 |
|---|---|---|
| dc.contributor.advisor | 楊銘欽(Ming-Chin Yang) | |
| dc.contributor.author | Pei-Hsuan Hsu | en |
| dc.contributor.author | 許珮萱 | zh_TW |
| dc.date.accessioned | 2021-06-08T03:45:41Z | - |
| dc.date.copyright | 2019-03-05 | |
| dc.date.issued | 2019 | |
| dc.date.submitted | 2019-02-13 | |
| dc.identifier.citation | 中文文獻
中央健康保險局. (1995). 全民健康保險居家照護作業要點. 中央健康保險署. (2015a). 全民健康保險居家醫療整合照護試辦計畫. 中央健康保險署. (2015b). 全民健康保險慢性疾病-國際疾病分類編碼參考表. 中央健康保險署. (2018). 全民健康保險醫療費用支付標準-第五部居家照護及精神病患者社區復健, 第一章居家照護. 取自https://www.nhi.gov.tw/Content_List.aspx?n=58ED9C8D8417D00B&topn=D39E2B72B0BDFA15 內政部. (2007a). 96年居家服務補助使用者狀況調查報告分析. 內政部. (2007b). 我國長期照顧十年計畫-大溫暖社會福利套案之旗艦計畫 內政部. (2018). 歷年全國人口統計資料/06三階段人口及扶養比. 取自 http://goo.gl/QhvgT 行政院研究發展考核委員會. (1998). 配合我國社會福利制度之長期照護政策研究. 中華民國政府出版品. 行政院國家發展委員會. (2016). 中華民國人口推計. 利見清. (2002). 台灣地區居家照護品質指標群與居家照護利用及病人功能之相關研究. 臺北: 國立陽明大學公共衛生研究所碩士論文. 吳姿璇, 謝碧晴, 李中一, & 蘇慧芳. (2013). 健保居家照護使用者急診醫療利用. 台灣公共衛生雜誌, 32(1), 18-30. 吳姿璇, (2011). 不同照護模式健保居家照護使用者之急診醫療利用. 臺北: 臺北護理學院碩士論文 吳淑瓊. (1998). 台灣老人醫療及長期照護需要-迎接高齡社會的挑戰論文集. 厚生基金會出版. 吳淑瓊, & 江東亮. (1995). 台灣地區長期照護的問題與對策. 中華衛誌, 14 (3), 246-254. 吳淑瓊, & 莊坤洋. (2001). 在地老化: 台灣二十一世紀長期照護的政策方向. 台灣公共衛生雜誌, 20(3), 192-201. 吳淑瓊, 梁浙西, 張明正, 林惠生, & 孟蘿拉. (1994). 台灣老人醫療服務之使用. 中華公共衛生雜誌, 13(2), 168-182 吳淑瓊, 賴惠玲, & 江東亮. (1994). 影響社區老人對護理之家居住意願的因素. 中華公共衛生雜誌, 13(5), 388-394. 李世代, & 蕭淑貞編著(1999) .長期照護. 臺北: 藝軒圖書出版社. 李玉春, 林麗嬋, 吳肖琪, 鄭文輝, 傅立葉, & 衛生署長期照護保險籌備小組. (2013). 臺灣長期照護保險之規劃與展望. 社區發展季刊, 141, 26-44. 李愛誠, 葉玲玲, 黃光華, & 朱僑麗. (2012). 居家護理與護理之家照護品質之探討. 澄清醫護管理雜誌. 8(3), 38-46 林宜柏. (2015). 慢性阻塞性肺病病人門診照護連續性對可避免住院之影響. 臺北: 國立陽明大學衛生福利研究所博士論文 林琬芳. (2016). 比較使用居家護理服務之社區及機構老人的醫療服務利用情形. 臺北: 臺灣大學健康政策與管理研究所碩士論文,未出版 國家衛生研究院. (2011). 承保抽樣歸人檔-全民健康保險研究資料庫. 取自https://nhird.nhri.org.tw/date_cohort.html 張文瓊. (2014). 長期照護安排,醫療照護連續性與醫療服務利用. 臺北: 臺灣大學健康政策與管理研究所博士論文. 張淑卿, & 吳肖琪. (2012). 居家失能老人之經濟狀態對居家護理使用及照護品質之影響. 台灣公共衛生雜誌, 31(5), 446-459. 梁亞文, 陳文意, 林育秀, 李卓倫, & 張曉鳳. (2011). 可避免住院研究回顧對台灣基層醫療照護的意涵. 台灣公共衛生雜誌, 30(5), 409-421. 梁亞文, 陳芬如, & 鄭瑛琳. (2008). 台灣的可避免住院及其病患社經狀態. 台灣公共衛生雜誌, 27(1), 81-90. 陳怡靜. (2004). 追蹤腦中風病人之長期就醫流向及其對醫療利用之影響. 高雄: 高雄醫學大學公共衛生學研究所碩士在職專班學位論文. 陳雪姝, 蔡淑鈴, & 黃欽印. (2009). 長期照護機構住民醫療利用分析-以中部四縣市為例. 台灣公共衛生雜誌, 28(3), 175-183. 陳晶瑩. (2003). 老年人之長期照護. 台灣醫學, 7(3), 404-413. 楊惠真, 鄭讚源, 林四海, 方志琳, & 丁增輝. (2011). 不同照顧場所之中風失能老人復健照護利用及其長期照護政策意涵. Journal of Health Management, 9(1), 1-16. 葉宏明, 林秀碧, 吳重慶, 黃秀雲, & 顏裕庭. (2000). 台灣居家照護的軌跡初探. 秀傳醫學雜誌, 2(3), 111-115. 賈淑麗. (2000). 臺灣居家護理現況分析. 社區發展季刊, 29, 55-65. 熊曉芳. (2010). 失能者居家護理使用之研究. 臺北: 臺灣大學衛生政策與管理研究所學位論文. 劉介宇, 洪永泰, 莊義利, 陳怡如, 翁文舜, 劉季鑫, & 梁賡義. (2006). 台灣地區鄉鎮市區發展類型應用於大型健康調查抽樣設計之研究. 健康管理學刊, 4(1), 1-22. 劉素芬. (2001). 老人居家照顧服務方案評估-以紅心字會為例. 南投: 暨南國際大學社會政策與社會工作研究所碩士論文. 衛生福利部. (2016). 長期照顧十年計畫 2.0 (106~115年). 衛生福利部. (2017a). 衛生福利部年報. 衛生福利部. (2017b). 106年老人狀況調查. 鄧世雄. (2010). 台灣連續性、整合性長期照護服務發展. 2010年兩岸社會福利學術研討會. 賴燕君. (2010). 居家照護機構設置型態與使用者的併發症及醫療資源利用之關係. 臺北: 國立陽明大學醫務管理研究所碩士論文. 鐘明惠, 周稚傑, 莊明憲, & 陳永煌. (2003). 健保居家照護資源耗用之門診、住院費用之分析. 中華職業醫學雜誌, 10(1),37-42. 英文文獻 Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality. (2001). AHRQ Quality indicators—guide to prevention quality indicators: hospital admission for ambulatory care sensitive conditions. Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality. (2004). AHRQ Quality Indicators-Guide to Prevention Quality Indicators: Hospital Admission for Ambulatory Care Sensitive Conditions (Revision 4). Rockville, MD: AHRQ. Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality. (2016). AHRQ Prevention Quality Indicators Technical Specifications Updates - Version 6.0 (ICD-9) Andersen, R. M. (1995). Revisiting the behavioral model and access to medical care: does it matter?. Journal of health and social behavior, 1-10. Andersen, R. M. (2008). National health surveys and the behavioral model of health services use. Medical care, 647-653. Arendts, G., & Howard, K. (2010). The interface between residential aged care and the emergency department: a systematic review. Age and Ageing, 39(3), 306-312. Billings, J., Zeitel, L., Lukomnik, J., Carey, T. S., Blank, A. E., & Newman, L. (1993). Impact of socioeconomic status on hospital use in New York City. Health affairs, 12(1), 162-173. Bindman, A. B., Chattopadhyay, A., Osmond, D. H., Huen, W., & Bacchetti, P. (2005). The impact of Medicaid managed care on hospitalizations for ambulatory care sensitive conditions. Health services research, 40(1), 19-38. Bindman, A. B., Grumbach, K., Osmond, D., Komaromy, M., Vranizan, K., Lurie, N., ... & Stewart, A. (1995). Preventable hospitalizations and access to health care. Jama, 274(4), 305-311. Blustein, J., Hanson, K., & Shea, S. (1998). Preventable Hospitalizations And Socioeconomic Status: Failure to consider patients' characteristics may lead to the false conclusion that care is of poor quality. Health Affairs, 17(2), 177-189. Brody, S. J., & Masciocchi, C. (1980). Data for long-term care planning by Health Systems Agencies. American Journal of Public Health, 70(11), 1194-1198. Brown, A. D., Goldacre, M. J., Hicks, N., Rourke, J. T., McMurtry, R. Y., Brown, J. D., & Anderson, G. M. (2001). Hospitalization for ambulatory care-sensitive conditions: a method for comparative access and quality studies using routinely collected statistics. Can J Public Health, 92(2), 155-159. Callahan Jr, J. J. (1981). How much, for what, and for whom?. American journal of public health, 71(9), 987-988. Caminal, J., Starfield, B., Sánchez, E., Casanova, C., & Morales, M. (2004). The role of primary care in preventing ambulatory care sensitive conditions. The European Journal of Public Health, 14(3), 246-251. Cartier C: From home to hospital and back again: Economic restructuring, end of life, and the gendered problems of place-switching health services. Soc Sci Med, 2003; 56(11):2289-301 Chang, H. T., Lai, H. Y., Hwang, I. H., Ho, M. M., & Hwang, S. J. (2010). Home healthcare services in Taiwan: a nationwide study among the older population. BMC health services research, 10(1), 274. Chung, M. H., Hsu, N., Wang, Y. C., Lin, H. C., Huang, Y. L., Amidon, R. L., & Kao, S. (2008). Factors affecting the long-term care preferences of the elderly in Taiwan. Geriatric Nursing, 29(5), 293-301. Condelius, A., Hallberg, I. R., & Jakobsson, U. (2010). Medical healthcare utilization as related to long-term care at home or in special accommodation. Archives of gerontology and geriatrics, 51(3), 250-256. Deyo, R. A., Cherkin, D. C., & Ciol, M. A. (1992). Adapting a clinical comorbidity index for use with ICD-9-CM administrative databases. Journal of clinical epidemiology, 45(6), 613-619. Fortinsky, R. H., Madigan, E. A., Sheehan, T. J., Tullai-McGuinness, S., & Fenster, J. R. (2006). Risk factors for hospitalization among Medicare home care patients. Western journal of nursing research, 28(8), 902-917. Godden, S., & Pollock, A. M. (2001). The use of acute hospital services by elderly residents of nursing and residential care homes. Health & social care in the community, 9(6), 367-374. Grabowski DC. Medicare and Medicaid: conflicting incentives for long-term care. Milbank Q. 2007;85(4):579-610. Graverholt, B., Riise, T., Jamtvedt, G., Ranhoff, A. H., Krüger, K., & Nortvedt, M. W. (2011). Acute hospital admissions among nursing home residents: a population-based observational study. BMC health services research, 11(1), 126. Gruneir, A., Bell, C. M., Bronskill, S. E., Schull, M., Anderson, G. M., & Rochon, P. A. (2010). Frequency and pattern of emergency department visits by long‐term care residents—a population‐based study. Journal of the American Geriatrics Society, 58(3), 510-517. Harrington, C., Swan, J. H., & Grant, L. A. (1988). Nursing home bed capacity in the states, 1978-86. Health care financing review, 9(4), 81. Harris, M. D. (2005). Handbook of home health care administration. Jones & Bartlett Learning. Ingarfield, S. L., Finn, J. C., Jacobs, I. G., Gibson, N. P., Holman, C. D. A. J., Jelinek, G. A., & Flicker, L. (2009). Use of emergency departments by older people from residential care: a population based study. Age and Ageing, 38(3), 314-318. Kane, R. A., & Kane, R. L. (1988). Long-term care: Variations on a quality assurance theme. Inquiry, 132-146. Knight, S., & Tjassing, H. (1994). Health care moves to the home. World Health, 4, 413-444. Kozak, L. J., Hall, M. J., & Owings, M. F. (2001). Trends in avoidable hospitalizations, 1980–1998. Health Affairs, 20(2), 225-232. McCall, N., Harlow, J., & Dayhoff, D. (2001). Rates of hospitalization for ambulatory care sensitive conditions in the Medicare+ Choice population. Health Care Financing Review, 22(3), 127. McCorkle, R., & Germino, B. (1984). What nurses need to know about home care. In Oncology nursing forum (Vol. 11, No. 6, pp. 63-69). Miller, B., & McFall, S. (1991). The effect of caregiver's burden on change in frail older persons' use of formal helpers. Journal of Health and Social Behavior, 165-179. Millman, M. (Ed.). (1993). Access to health care in America. National Academies Press. Oktay, J. S., & Volland, P. J. (1987). Foster home care for the frail elderly as an alternative to nursing home care: an experimental evaluation. American Journal of Public Health, 77(12), 1505-1510. Pappas, G., Hadden, W. C., Kozak, L. J., & Fisher, G. F. (1997). Potentially avoidable hospitalizations: inequalities in rates between US socioeconomic groups. American Journal of public health, 87(5), 811-816. Porter, J., Herring, J., Lacroix, J., & Levinton, C. (2007). Avoidable admissions and repeat admissions: what do they tell us?. Healthcare Quarterly, 10(1), 26-28 Saha, S., Solotaroff, R., Oster, A., & Bindman, A. B. (2007). Are preventable hospitalizations sensitive to changes in access to primary care? The case of the Oregon Health Plan. Medical Care, 45(8), 712-719. Sands, L. P., Xu, H., Weiner, M., Rosenman, M. B., Craig, B. A., & Thomas III, J. (2008). Comparison of resource utilization for Medicaid dementia patients using nursing homes versus home and community based waivers for long-term care. Medical care, 449-453. Walsh, E. G., Wiener, J. M., Haber, S., Bragg, A., Freiman, M., & Ouslander, J. G. (2012). Potentially avoidable hospitalizations of dually eligible Medicare and Medicaid beneficiaries from nursing facility and home‐and community‐based services waiver programs. Journal of the American Geriatrics Society, 60(5), 821-829. Weissman, J. S., Gatsonis, C., & Epstein, A. M. (1992). Rates of avoidable hospitalization by insurance status in Massachusetts and Maryland. Jama, 268(17), 2388-2394. Wilson, D., & Truman, C. (2005). Comparing the health services utilization of long-term-care residents, home-care recipients, and the well elderly. CJNR (Canadian Journal of Nursing Research), 37(4), 138-154. Winslow, C. E. A. (1984). Evolution and significance of the modern public health campaign. In Evolution and significance of the modern public health campaign. Yeh, L., Chen, C.-H. (2003). Use of home nursing service in southern Taiwan. Home Health Care Management & Practive, 15(5), 439-448. | |
| dc.identifier.uri | http://tdr.lib.ntu.edu.tw/jspui/handle/123456789/21762 | - |
| dc.description.abstract | 背景與目的：居家照護為長照體系重要且不可或缺的一環，在高齡化社會來臨之際，居家照護更是醫療體系中的重要服務項目。高齡化社會使人口與家庭結構改變，人口老化延伸照護需求，從醫院到社區，病患可能留在家中療養或進入護理之家甚或安養護機構。因此，本研究以在不同照護場域接受居家照護的病患，探討其醫療利用情形與照護結果的影響。
方法：本研究為回溯性世代研究，採用全民健康保險研究資料庫2010年百萬承保歸人檔進行次級資料分析，篩選出2012年有使用居家照護服務者，依健保申報案件類別區分不同照護場域，分別為居家、護理之家、安養護機構之居家照護病患共1556名。使用二部模型，第一階段以複羅吉斯迴歸分析及第二階段以廣義線性模型分析，比較在不同照護場域接受居家照護病患一年內之門診、急診、住院、居家護理、醫師訪視等醫療利用情形，並以可避免住院做為照護結果指標進行比較。 結果：在醫療利用情形方面 (1)門診利用：門診次數，護理之家及安養護機構分別較居家高出44%及13%(p<.001)；門診費用，護理之家較居家高出14% (p<.01)、安養護機構較居家少14%(p<.001)。(2)急診利用：相較於居家病患有無急診，護理之家及安養護機構發生急診機會分別為0.72倍(p<.05)及0.63倍(p<.001)；急診次數，護理之家及安養護機構分別較居家少35%及43% (p<.001)，但急診費用未達顯著差異。(3)住院利用：住院次數未達顯著差異；住院天數，護理之家及安養護機構分別較居家少14%及24%(p<.001)；住院費用，護理之家及安養護機構均較居家少17%(0.83倍)(p<.05)。(4)居家護理利用：居家照護次數，護理之家及安養護病患均較居家高出5%(p<.05)；居家照護費用，安養護機構較居家高出12%(p<.01)。(5)醫師訪視利用：相較於居家有無醫師訪視，護理之家及安養護機構醫師訪視機會分別為1.95倍及1.99倍(p<.01)；醫師訪視次數，護理之家及安養護病患分別較居家高出28%及21%(p<.001)；醫師訪視費用，護理之家較居家高出17%(p<.001)。在照護結果方面：可避免住院次數未達顯著差異；可避免住院天數，護理之家及安養護機構病患分別較居家少29%及32% (p<.001)；可避免住院費用，護理之家及安養護機構病患分別較居家少35%及33% (p<.001)。在總醫療費用方面：整體總醫療費用及醫療利用總費用(門急住)，安養護機構均顯著少於居家；然而於居家照護利用總費用(居家護理及醫師訪視)，安養護機構則顯著高於居家。 結論：整體而言，在醫療利用情形的部份，接受居家照護者，在居家有較高的急診次數利用；護理之家有較高的門診次數利用與費用，以及較高的居家護理利用及醫師訪視利用，安養護機構次之；而安養護機構則在急診次數利用最低，其他方面大多介於護理之家與居家之間；另住院次數在不同照場域未達顯著差異，但住院天數與費用均以居家較高。在照護結果的部份，居家在可避免住院天數及費用均高於護理之家與安養護機構，可避免住院預防性品質指標(PQIs)主要病因為尿路感染、細菌性肺炎、慢性阻塞性肺病。顯見居家因無常駐護理人員而未能滿足病患之照護需求，以致急診利用較高；而護理之家呈現門診及居家照護利用較高情形，但在急診利用相對較低，亦即機構與醫院間基層照護合作關係有助於維持病況，惟仍建議應進一步檢視機構對病患照護安排的合宜性。 | zh_TW |
| dc.description.abstract | Background: Home care is an essential part of the long-term care system, and it also plays an important role in the medical system in an aging society. An aging society may cause changes in population and family structure, and increase the demand for care in the hospital and community. Patients may choose to receive care at home, nursing home or residential care home. This study aims to explore the expenditure and outcome of care delivered at different sites.
Method: This study is a secondary data analysis of retrospective cohort studies. We used data for the year of 2010 from the National Health Insurance Research Database and collected data from patients receiving home care service in 2012. In this study, data from1,556 patients was collected and the patients were categorized into 3 groups: patients receiving care at home (HC), at nursing home (NH) and at residential care homes (RCH). Two-part model was used in this study. The first-stage multiple logistic regression analysis and second-stage generalized linear model analysis were conducted to verify the patients’ usages of outpatient department, emergency department, hospitalization, home care, and physician visits within one year after receiving home care, and make comparison between medical utilization and avoidable hospitalization. Results: Concerning medical utilization, in terms of (1) out-patient departments: patients utilizing nursing homes and residential care homes led to more outpatient visits than those utilizing home care by 44% and 13% (p<.001); and the outpatient expenses were higher among patients at nursing homes (14%, p<.01), and lower among patients at residential care homes (14%, p<.001) than among patients at home. (2) emergency room: patients utilizing nursing homes and residential care homes led to less emergency utilization than patients utilizing home care by 0.72 times (p<.05) and 0.63 times (p<.001); emergency visit: patients utilizing nursing homes and residential care homes led to less emergency visits than patients utilizing home care by 0.35 times and 0.43 times (p<.001) ; and the difference in emergency department expenses among different sites was not significant. (3) hospitalization: the difference in admission at different sites was not significant; patients utilizing nursing homes and residential care homes made fewer days of stay than those utilizing home care by 14% and 24% (p<.001); patients utilizing nursing homes and residential care homes made fewer expense than those utilizing home care by 17% (p<.05). (4) home care: patients utilizing nursing homes and residential care homes utilized more home care services than those utilizing home care by 5% (p<.05); patents utilizing residential care homes got more expense of home care services than those utilizing home care by 12% (p<.01). (5) utilization of physician visit: patients utilizing nursing homes and residential care homes made more utilization of physician visits than those utilizing home care by 1.95 times and 1.99 times (p<.01); physician visit: patients utilizing nursing homes and residential care homes made more physician visits than those utilizing home care by 28% and 21% (p<.01); and the expense for patients utilizing nursing home was higher than those utilizing home care by 17% (p<.001). Concerning care outcomes, no significant difference was found in visits of avoidable hospitalization; patients utilizing nursing homes and residential care homes made fewer days of avoidable hospitalization than those utilizing home care by 29% and 32% (p<.001); patients utilizing nursing homes and residential care homes made fewer expense of avoidable hospitalization than those utilizing home care by 35% and 33% (p<.001). While the total expense of home care services is lower for patients receiving home care at home, the total expense of medical use for them is much higher than those who received their home care service in residential care homes. Conclusions: Overall, among home care recipients, those who received home care at home made more emergency visits; but those who received home care at nursing home made most outpatient visits, outpatient expenses, home care utilization and physician visits, followed by those who received home care at residential care homes. Parameters of residential care homes are usually between nursing homes and homes, except patients utilizing residential care homes made least emergency visits. There was no difference among hospitalization visits among the three groups, but those who received home care at home made most days of stay and emergency department expenses. Concerning the care outcome, those who received home care at home made most days of stay and expenses of avoidable hospitalization, which is mainly caused by infection in urinary tract, bacterial pneumonia, and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. It is obvious that nursing needs of the patients receiving home care at home cannot be satisfied owing to the lack of regular nursing staff, which demands more emergency use. The outcome demonstrated that patients utilizing nursing home made more outpatient and home care utilization but less emergency use. Despite the outcome may indicate decent collaborations among institutes and hospitals, further examination may still be needed to verify if there are adequate home care applied in institutes. | en |
| dc.description.provenance | Made available in DSpace on 2021-06-08T03:45:41Z (GMT). No. of bitstreams: 1 ntu-108-R04848037-1.pdf: 5122312 bytes, checksum: 157f68e6a91ad8ef9b288b1dcc5ab161 (MD5) Previous issue date: 2019 | en |
| dc.description.tableofcontents | 口試委員審定書 i
誌謝 ii 中文摘要 iii Abstract v 目錄 viii 表目錄 x 圖目錄 xii 第一章 緒論 1 第一節 研究背景與動機 1 第二節 研究目的 3 第三節 研究重要性 3 第二章 文獻探討 4 第一節 居家照護定義與概況 4 第二節 醫療服務利用理論 12 第三節 可避免住院 16 第四節 居家照護與醫療利用之相關研究 20 第五節 文獻綜合討論 31 第三章 研究方法 32 第一節 研究設計與架構 32 第二節 研究假說 35 第三節 資料來源與研究對象 35 第四節 研究變項與操作型定義 38 第五節 統計分析方法 44 第四章 研究結果 46 第一節 樣本基本特性分佈之描述性分析 46 第二節 研究變項與依變項之雙變項分析 58 第三節 研究變項與依變項之多變項分析 91 第五章 討論 122 第一節 研究資料品質 122 第二節 研究結果與討論 122 第三節 研究限制 130 第六章 結論與建議 132 第一節 結論 132 第二節 建議 134 參考文獻 136 附錄 143 | |
| dc.language.iso | zh-TW | |
| dc.title | 在不同照護場域接受居家照護病患之醫療利用情形與照護結果 | zh_TW |
| dc.title | Healthcare Utilization and Outcomes among Home-care Patients in Different Care Settings | en |
| dc.type | Thesis | |
| dc.date.schoolyear | 107-1 | |
| dc.description.degree | 碩士 | |
| dc.contributor.oralexamcommittee | 李玉春(Yue-Chune Lee),鄭守夏(Shou-Hsia Cheng) | |
| dc.subject.keyword | 居家照護,護理之家,安養護機構,醫療利用,可避免住院, | zh_TW |
| dc.subject.keyword | Home Care service,Nursing Home,Residential Care Homes,Healthcare Utilization,Avoidable hospitalization, | en |
| dc.relation.page | 152 | |
| dc.identifier.doi | 10.6342/NTU201900494 | |
| dc.rights.note | 未授權 | |
| dc.date.accepted | 2019-02-13 | |
| dc.contributor.author-college | 公共衛生學院 | zh_TW |
| dc.contributor.author-dept | 健康政策與管理研究所 | zh_TW |
| 顯示於系所單位： | 健康政策與管理研究所 | |
文件中的檔案：
| 檔案 | 大小 | 格式 | |
|---|---|---|---|
| ntu-108-1.pdf 未授權公開取用 | 5 MB | Adobe PDF |
系統中的文件，除了特別指名其著作權條款之外，均受到著作權保護，並且保留所有的權利。