請用此 Handle URI 來引用此文件：
http://tdr.lib.ntu.edu.tw/jspui/handle/123456789/26387完整後設資料紀錄
| DC 欄位 | 值 | 語言 |
|---|---|---|
| dc.contributor.advisor | 吳淑瓊(Shwu-Chong Wu) | |
| dc.contributor.author | Ying-Hua Lin | en |
| dc.contributor.author | 林映華 | zh_TW |
| dc.date.accessioned | 2021-06-08T07:08:27Z | - |
| dc.date.copyright | 2008-09-11 | |
| dc.date.issued | 2008 | |
| dc.date.submitted | 2008-08-01 | |
| dc.identifier.citation | 內政統計資訊服務網（2008）。上網日期：2008/3/30 world Widle Web
http://www.moi.gov.tw/stat/。 身心障礙者保護法：中華民國八十六年四月二十三日總統華總（一）義字第八六○○○九七八一○號令修正公佈。 教育部大專校院及高中職肢障學生學習輔具中心（2008）。上網日期：2008/03/30 world Widle Web http://www.ediassistech.org。 毛慧芬、林佳琪、黃小玲、陳莞音、紀彣宙、蔡伯如（2006）。台北市輔具服務認知及滿意度調查。職能治療學會雜誌，24，頁55-66。 毛慧芬、姚開屏、黃小玲（2006）。科技輔具服務成果評量—標準化評量工具建立與服務成效驗證。（國科會一般型研究計畫，NSC93-2314-B-002-094, NSC94-2314-B-002-019）台北：台灣大學職能治療學系。 李淑貞、曾明碁、黃玉怡、藍婉淑（2006）。ISO 9999:2002 (E) 身心障礙 者輔助器具之11 大分類中文名稱修正版。輔具之友，19，頁71。 身心障礙者醫療及輔助器具補助方法（民88）。中華民國八十八年十月六日台（88）內社字第八八九零六五二號令修正衛生署醫字第八八零五九一六九號公佈。 台北市身心障礙者生活補助器具費用補助標準表：中華民國九十一年六月六日台北市政府社會局修正適用。 胡名霞、柯志昌、柴惠敏、吳英黛（2004）。失能者輔具使用現況之初測 報告。物理治療，29(6)，頁396-403。 黃旐濤、陳建忠、黃一峰（2001）。身心障礙者輔具應用狀況分析及需求 評估研究報告（國科會身心障礙者補助科技研究，NSC 89-2614-H-364-003- F20）。新竹：玄奘人文社會學院社會福利學系。 傅立葉、周月清、洪永泰、鄭夙芬（2000）。「台北市身心障礙者生活需 求調查」研究報告書。台北市政府社會局委託研究報告。 鄧復旦、梁秋萍、周適偉、林聰樺、潘建理、裴育晟、朱岳喬、黎建中、 杜國賢（2004）。身心障礙者對於個別化醫療復健輔助器具設計服務需求暨市 場供需調查。台灣復健醫誌，32(1)，頁1-10。 蔚順華、張雅如、石冀贏、江傳江（2000）。肢體障礙者個別化復健輔具 之研究（行政院衛生署科技研究發展計畫，DOH90-TD-1193）。台北：國立陽 明大學。 Algood, S. D., Cooper, R. A., Fitzgerald, S. G., Cooper, R., & Boninger, M. L.(2005). Effect of a pushrim-activated power-assist wheelchair on the functional capabilities of persons with tetraplegia. Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, 86, 380-386. Batavia, A. I., & Hammer, G. S. (1990). Toward the development of consumer-based criteria for the evaluation of assistive devices. Journal of Rehabilitation Research & Development, 27(4), 425-437. Beattie, A. (1981). Aids to daily living for the patient with Parkinson’s disease. British Journal of Occupational Therapy, 44, 53-33. Benedict, R. E., Lee, J. P., Marrujo, S. K., & Farel, A.M. (1999). Assistive devices as an early childhood intervention: evaluating outcomes. Technology and Disability, 11, 79-90. Bertocci, G., Karg, P., & Hobson, D. (1997). Wheeled mobility device database for transportation safety research and standards. Assistive Technology, rercwm.pitt.edu. Boninger, M. L., Saur, T., Trefler, E., Hobson, D. A., Burdett, R., & Cooper, R. A. (1998). Postural changes with aging in tetraplegia: effects on life satisfaction and pain. Archive of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, 79, 1577-1581. Brandt, A., Iwarsson, S., & Stahl, A. (2003). Satisfaction with rollators among community-living users: a follow-up study. Disability and Rehabilitation, 25, 343-353. Bursick, T. M., Trefler, E., Hobson, D. A., & Fitzgerald, S.(2000). Functional outcomes of wheelchair seating and positioning in the elderly nursing home population. The Proceedings of the Annual RESNA Conference (pp.316-318). Orlando,FL, June 28-July 2. Bynum, H. S., Rogers, J. C. (1987). The use and effectiveness of assistive devices possessed by patients seen in home care. Occupational Therapy Journal of Research, 7, 181-191. Chan, S.C. & Chan, A.P. (2006). The validity and applicability of the Chinese version of the Quebec User Evaluation of Satisfaction With Assistive Technology for people with spinal cord injury. Assistive Technology, 18, 25-33. Cook, A.M., & Hussey, S.M. (2002). Assistive technologies: Principles and practice (2nd ed.). St. Louis, MO: Mosby. Curtis, K. A., & Black, K. (1999). Shoulder pain in female wheelchair basketball players. Journal of Orthopaedic and Sports Physical Therapy, 29, 225-231. Davis, G. M., Kofsky, P. R., Kelsey, J. C., & Shephard, R. J. (1981). Cardiorespiratory fitness and muscular strength of wheelchair users. Canadian Medical Association journal, 125, 1317-1323. Day, H., & Jutai, J. (1996). PIADS: The psychosocial impact of assistive devices scale. Toronto: Authors. Day, H., Jutai, J., & Campbell, K. A. (2002). Development of a scale to measure the psychosocial impact of assistive devices: lessons learned and road ahead. Disability and Rehabilitation, 24, 31-37. Demers, L., Weiss-Lambrou, R., & Ska, B. (1996). Developmental of the Quebec User Evaluation of Satisfaction with assistive technology (QUEST). Assistive Technology, 8, 3-13. Demers, L., Wessels, R.D., Weiss-Lambrou, R., Ska, P., & De Witte, L. P. (1999). An international content validation of the Quebec User Evaluation of Satisfaction with assistive Technology (QUEST). Occupational Therapy International, 6(3), 159-175. Demers, L., Weiss-Lambrou, R., & Ska, B. (2000). Item analysis of the Quebec User Evaluation of Satisfaction with Assistive Technology (QUEST). Assistive Technology, 12, 96-105. Demers, L., Wessels, R., Weiss-Lambrou, R., Ska, B., & De Witte, L.P. (2001). Key dimensions of client satisfaction with assistive technology: a cross-validation of a Canadian measure in the Netherlands. Journal of Rehabilitation Medicine, 33, 187-191. Demers, L., Monette, M., Lapierre, Y., Arnold, D.L., & Wolfson. C. (2002). Reliability , validity, and applicability of the Quebec User Evaluation of Satisfaction with assistive Technology (QUEST 2.0) for adults with multiple sclerosis. Disability and Rehabilitation, 24, 21-30. Demers, L., Weiss-Lambrou, R., & Ska, B. (2002). The Quebec User Evaluation of Satisfaction with Assistive Technology (QUEST 2.0): An overview and recent progress. Technology and Disability, 14, 101-105. DeRuyter, F. (1995). Evaluating outcomes in assistive technology: Do we understand the commitment? Assistive Technology, 7, 3-8. DeRuyter, F. (1997). The importance of outcome measures for assistive technology service delivery systems. Technology and Disability, 6(1), 89-104. Edwards, N. I., & Jones, D. A. (1998). Ownership and use of assistive devices amongst older people in the community. Age and Ageing, 27, 462-468. Finlayson, M., & Havixbeck, K. (1992). A postdischarge study on the use of assistive devices. Canadian Journal of Occupational Therapy, 59, 201-207. Fuhrer, M. J. (2001). Assistive technology outcomes research: challenges met and yet unmet. American Journal of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, 80, 528-535. Galvin, J. C., & Scherer, M. J. (1996). Evaluating, selecting, and using appropriate assistive technology. Gaithersburg, MD: Aspen. Geiger, C. M. (1990). The utilization of assistive devices by patients discharged from an acute rehabilitation setting. Physical and Occupational Therapy in Geriatrics, 9, 3-25. Gitlin, L. N., Levine, R., & Geiger, C. (1993). Adaptive device use by older adults with mixed disabilities. Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, 74, 149-152. Giltin, L. N., Luborsky, M. R., & Schemm, R. L. (1998). Emerging concerns of older stroke patients about assistive device use. Gerontologist, 38, 169-180. Giltin, L. N., Schemm, R. L., Landsberg, L., & Burgh, D. (1996). Factors predicting assistive device use in the home by older people following rehabilitation. Journal of Aging and Health, 8, 554-575. Grynbaum, B. B., Kaplan, L. I., Lloyd, K. E., & Rusk, H. A. (1963). Methodology and initial findings in a follow-up study of spinal cord dysfunction. Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, 44, 208-215. Hartke, R. J., Prohaska, T. R., & Furner, S. E. (1998). Older adults and assistive devices. Journal of Aging and Health, 10, 99-116. Haworth, R. J. (1983). Use of aids during the first 3 months after total hip replacement. British Journal of Rheumatology, 22, 29-35. Haworth, R. J., & Hopkins, J. (1980). Use of aids following total hip replacement. British Journal of Occupational Therapy, 43, 398-400. Jedeloo, S., De Witte, L.P., Linssen, B.A., & Schrijvers, G. (2000). Satisfaction with and use of assistive devices and services for outdoor mobility. Technology and Disability, 13, 173-181. Jedeloo, S., De Witte, L.P., Linssen, B.A., & Schrijvers, A.J. (2002). Client satisfaction with service delivery of assistive technology for outdoor mobility. Disability and Rehabilitation, 24, 550-557. Kirby, R. L., Ackroyd-Stolarz, S. A., Brown, M. G., Kirkland, S. A., & MacLeod, D. A. (1994). Wheelchair-related accidents caused by tips and falls among non-institutionalized users of manually propelled wheelchair in Nova Scotia. American Journal of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, 73, 319-330. Kittel, A., Marco, A-D., & Stewart, H. (2002). Factors influencing the decision to abandon manual wheelchairs for three individuals with a spinal cord injury. Disability and Rehabilitation, 24, 106-114. Kohn, J., Enders, S., Preston, J., & Motloch, W. (1983). Provision of assistive equipment for handicapped persons. Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, 64, 378-381. Kraskowsky, L. H., & Finlayson, M. (2001). Factors affecting older adults’ use of adaptive equipment: review of the literature. American Journal of Occupational Therapy, 55, 303-310. Lane, J. P., Usiak, D. J., Stone, V. I., & Scherer, M. J. (1997). The voice of the customer: consumers define the ideal battery charger. Assistive Technology, 9, 130-139. Lenker, J. A., & Paquet, V. L. (2003). A review of conceptual models for assistive technology outcomes research and practice. Assistive Technology, 15, 1-15. Littrell, J. L. (1991). Women with disabilities in community college computer training programs. In H. Murphy (Ed.), Proceedings of the sixth annual conference, Technology and persons with disabilities (pp. 553-562), California State University, Northridge. Mann, W. C., Hurren, D., & Tomita, M. (1993). Comparison of assistive device use and needs for home-based older persons with different impairments. American Journal of Occupational Therapy, 47, 980-987. Mills, T., Holm, M. B., Trefler, E., Schmeler, M., Fitzgerald, S., & Boninger, M. (2002). Development and consumer validation of the Functional Evaluation in Wheelchair (FEW) instrument. Disability and Rehabilitation, 24, 38-46. Neville-Jan, A., Piersol, C. V., Kielhofner, G., & Davis, K. (1993). Adaptive equipment: a study of utilization after hospital discharge. Occupational Therapy in Health Care, 8, 3-18. Page, T. L-B., Kim, J., & Weiner, B. (2002). The shaping of individual meanings assigned to assistive technology: a review of personal factors. Disability and Rehabilitation, 24, 5-20. Parker, M. G.., & Thorslund, M. (1991). The use of technical aids among community-based elderly. American Journal of Occupational Therapy, 45, 712-718. Pierce, L. L. (1998). Barriers to access: frustrations of people who use a wheelchair for full-time mobility. Rehabilitation Nursing, 23(3), 120-125. Reid, D.T. (2004). Critical review of the research literature of seating interventions: A focus on adults with mobility impairments. Assistive Technology, 14, 118-129. Reid, D., Laliberte-Rudman, D., & Hebert, D. (2002). Impact of wheeled seated mobility devices on adult users’ and their caregivers’ occupational performance: a critical literature review. Canadian Journal of Occupational Therapy, 69(5), 261-280. Roelands, M., Van-Oost, P., Buysse, A., Depoorter, A. (2002). Awareness among community-dwelling elderly of assistive devices for mobility and self-care and attitudes towards their use. Social Science & Medicine, 54, 1441-1451. Scherer, M. J., & Cushman, L. A. (2001). Measuring subjective quality of life following spinal cord injury: a validation study of the Assistive Technology Device Predisposition Assessment. Disability and Rehabilitation, 23, 387-393. Scherer, M. J. (2000). Living in the state of stuck: how technology impacts the lives of people with disabilities. (3rd Ed.). Cambridge, MA: Brookline Books. Scherer, M. J. (1996). Outcomes of assistive technology use on quality of life. Disability and Rehabilitation, 18, 439-448. Scherer, M. J., & Frisina, D. R. (1994). Applying the Matching People with Technologies Model to individuals with hearing loss: what people say they want- and needfrom assistive technologies. Technology and Disability: Deafness and Hearing Impairments, 3, 62-68. Scherer, M. J. (1991). The Matching Person and Technology (MPT) Model (and assessment instruments). Rochester, NY: Author. Scherer, M. J., & McKee, B. (1989). But will the assistive technology device be used? In J. Presperin (Ed.), Proceedings of the 12th Annual Conference: Technology for the Next Decade (pp. 356-357). Washington, DC: RESNA Press. Shipman, I. (1987). Bath aids: their use by a multidiagnostic group of patients. International Rehabilitation Medicine, 4, 182-184. Shirado, O., Shundo, M., Kaneda, K., & Strax, T. E. (1995). Outdoor winter activities of spinal cord-injured patients with special reference to outdoor mobility. American Journal of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, 74, 408-414. Smith, R.O. (1996). Measuring the outcomes of assistive technology: challenge and innovation. Assistive Technology, 8, 71-81. Smith, C., McCreadie, M., & Unsworth, J. (1995). Prescribing wheelchairs: the opinions of wheelchair users and their carers. Clinical Rehabilitation, 9, 74-80. Stanley, R.K., Stafford, D.J., Rasch, E., & Rodgers, M.M. (2003). Development of a functional assessment measure for manual wheelchair users. Journal of Rehabilitation Research and Development, 40, 301-307. Stickel, M.S., Ryan, S., Rigby, P.J., & Jutai, J.W. (2002). Toward a comprehensive evaluation of the impact of electronic aids to daily living: evaluation of consumer satisfaction. Disability and Rehabilitation, 24, 115-125. Sonn, U., Davegardh, H., Lindskog, A.-C., & Steen, B. (1996). The use and effectiveness of assistive devices in an elderly urban population. Aging: Clinical and Experimental Research, 8, 176-183. Stowe, J., Thornely, G., Chamberlain, M. A., & Wright, V. (1982). Evaluation of aids and Equipment for bathing, survey II. British Journal of Occupational Therapy, 45, 92-95. Trail, M., Nelson, N., Van, J. N., Appel, S. H., & Lai, E. C. (2001). Wheelchair use by patients with amyotrophic lateral sclerosis: a survey of user characteristics and selection preferences. Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, 82, 98-102. Trefler, E., Fitzgerald, S. G., Hobson, D. A., Bursick, T. M., & Joseph, R.(2004). Outcomes of Seating and Mobility Intervention with Residents of Long Term Care Facilities. Assistive Technology, 16,18-27. Warren, C. G. (1993). Cost effectiveness and efficiency in assistive technology service delivery. Assistive Technology, 5, 61-65. Weiss-Lambrou, R. (2002). Satisfaction and comfort. In Scherer, M. J. (Ed.), Assistive technology: matching device and consumer for successful rehabilitation. (pp. 77-94). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association. Weiss-Lambrou, R., Tremblay, C., LeBlanc, R., Lacoste, M., & Dansereau, J. (1999). Wheelchair seating aids: how satisfied are consumers? Assistive Technology,11, 43-53. Weiss-Lambrou, R. (1993). Technologie en réadaptation. Undergraduate course notes, ERT 3318 Technology in Rehabilitation, Université de Montréal, Montreal. Quebec, Canada. Wielandt, T., & Strong, J. (2000). Compliance with prescribed adaptive equipment: a literature review. British Journal of Occupational Therapy, 63, 65-75. | |
| dc.identifier.uri | http://tdr.lib.ntu.edu.tw/jspui/handle/123456789/26387 | - |
| dc.description.abstract | 身心障礙學生常因肢體受限導致無法順利完成學業。因此教育部規劃提供身心障礙學生學習輔具（assistive technology device）以及支持學生使用輔具之服務系統，以提供學生公平參與學習活動的機會。但目前輔具及提供服務的品質仍為未知。輔具使用者的滿意度調查則可幫助相關人員：補助者、服務提供者和廠商了解在服務過程中改善之處。但輔具使用的感受隨輔具種類型式而異，而輪椅類輔具（wheeled mobility device）是目前在學肢體障礙學生使用比率最高的輔具類別，故本研究以大專校院及高中職以上並接受教育部補助而使用輪椅類輔具（包含手動輪椅、電動輪椅及電動代步車）之學生為對象，調查學生對於輔具及服務的滿意度，並以媒合人與科技模式（matching person and technology model）為研究架構，探討影響滿意度的重要因素為何。
滿意度調查以台灣版魁北克輔具使用者滿意度調查量表（QUEST-T）為研究工具，滿意度相關影響因素則以自行編製之問卷調查，以電話訪問方式進行。樣本數共76人。分數以1~5分記算，QUEST-T平均總分為3.97，表示滿意程度介於中等程度滿意至滿意之間；與加拿大及荷蘭等輔具福利先進國家之調查結果無明顯差異。而不同的身心障礙等級、疾病診斷、自覺無障礙環境完善程度的差異、不同提供服務單位在QUEST-T總分或次量表分數上具顯著差異。 本研究結果驗證教育部提供大專校院及高中職學生之輔具和服務系統具良好成效。若欲提升滿意度及學生就學權益，無障礙環境的完善程度和提供服務單位的素質是補助者、服務提供者和學校等相關人員可介入改善之處。未來可進一步探討其他輔具服務成果指標如：功能的改善、生活品質、成本效益分析，以利國內輔助科技及服務之發展。 | zh_TW |
| dc.description.abstract | Disabled students fail to finish their school work usually due to physical limitations. Therefore, Ministry of Education plans to offer these students assistive technology devices and relevant support system so that they can take part in their studies as the others. However, the quality of these devices and services currently remain unknown. A satisfaction investigation among the device users helps the people (assistant, service provider, and the manufacturer) to improve their jobs. The experience of using assistive device changes with the device type. The wheeled mobility device is the most popular type among the disabled students today. In this study, the students accepting assistance from Ministry of Education and using wheeled mobility devices (including manual wheelchair, power wheelchair and scooter) are adopted as targets and their satisfactions on the device and the service are investigated. Referred to the structure of Matching Person and Technology Model, the factors affecting the satisfaction are studied.
The satisfaction investigation is based on the the Taiwanese version of Quebec User Evaluation of Satisfaction with Assistive Technology（QUEST-T）. The satisfaction related factors are based on some unofficial satisfaction questionnaire according to review literature. Up to 76 samples are collected by telephone interview. The score QUEST-T adopts Likert-scale , and the average total score of QUEST-T is 3.97, the satisfaction is between moderate satisfied and satisfied. This is quite close to the advanced countries like Canada and Netherland. The total score of QUEST-T or the subscale score are significantly different among people with different disability level, diagnose, environment, and service provider. Results confirm the good effect of devices and service delivery system to the university and high school students. To improve the satisfaction and the study rights of the students, the barrier-free environment and the quality of service provider can be improved by the assistant, service provider, and the school. In the future, other devices and services including function enhancement, life quality, and the cost-benefit analysis can be discussed to help the development of technology and the service. | en |
| dc.description.provenance | Made available in DSpace on 2021-06-08T07:08:27Z (GMT). No. of bitstreams: 1 ntu-97-P95845101-1.pdf: 1293172 bytes, checksum: dee4fe379926bb1fb1f22566dd2eae3a (MD5) Previous issue date: 2008 | en |
| dc.description.tableofcontents | 口試委員會審定書書……………………………………………………………… i
誌謝………………………………………………………………………………… ii 中文摘要…………………………………………………………………………… iii 英文摘要…………………………………………………………………………… iv 第一章 前言……………………………………………………………………… 1 第一節 背景及研究機……………………………………………………… 1 第二節 研究目的…………………………………………………………… 3 第二章 文獻回顧………………………………………………………………… 4 第一節 輔具、輪椅類輔具及學習輔具的定義…………………………… 4 第二節 我國輔具服務提供體系實施況…………………………………… 7 第三節 輔具服務提供系統的成果測量…………………………………… 10 第四節 輔具使用滿意度調查相關文獻…………………………………… 14 第五節 媒合人與科技模式及影響輔具使用滿意度之因素……………… 18 第三章 研究方法………………………………………………………………… 22 第一節 研究架構及假說…………………………………………………… 22 第二節 研究對象…………………………………………………………… 25 第三節 研究工具…………………………………………………………… 26 第四節 研究流程…………………………………………………………… 28 第五節 資料分析…………………………………………………………… 29 第四章 研究結果………………………………………………………………… 30 第一節 樣本特性及各自變項描述性統計………………………………… 30 第二節 台灣版魁北克輔具使用者滿意度評量描述性統計結果………… 31 第三節 各變項對輔具使用滿意度之影響………………………………… 32 第六章 結論……………………………………………………………………… 47 第一節 重要結果與討論…………………………………………………… 47 第二節 政策建議…………………………………………………………… 52 第三節 研究限制與未來研究方向………………………………………… 53 圖目錄 圖一：研究架構…………………………………………………………………… 24 表目錄 表一：樣本個人特質各變項描述性統計………………………………………… 35 表二：情境之各變項描述性統計………………………………………………… 36 表三：輔具特性之各變項描述性統計…………………………………………… 37 表四：台灣版魁北克輔具使用者滿意度評量各題分數描述性統計結果……… 38 表五：台灣版魁北克輔具使用者滿意度評量各次量表與總分………………… 39 表六： QUEST2.0 版分數國際比較……………………………………………… 40 表七：台灣版魁北克輔具使用者滿意度評量各題重要性結果………………… 41 表八：QUEST-T 各題不滿意原因………………………………………………… 42 表九：各變項對QUEST-T分數之影響…………………………………………… 45 參考文獻…………………………………………………………………………… 54 附錄………………………………………………………………………………… 64 | |
| dc.language.iso | zh-TW | |
| dc.subject | 輔具 | zh_TW |
| dc.subject | 身心障礙 | zh_TW |
| dc.subject | 滿意度 | zh_TW |
| dc.subject | 輪椅類輔具 | zh_TW |
| dc.subject | 服務提供系統 | zh_TW |
| dc.subject | satisfaction | en |
| dc.subject | assistive technology | en |
| dc.subject | wheeled mobility device | en |
| dc.subject | service delivery system | en |
| dc.subject | disabled | en |
| dc.title | 肢體障礙學生輪椅類輔具使用滿意度研究 | zh_TW |
| dc.title | A Study of Satisfaction with Assistive technology for
Physical Disabled Students Using Wheeled Mobility Devices | en |
| dc.type | Thesis | |
| dc.date.schoolyear | 96-2 | |
| dc.description.degree | 碩士 | |
| dc.contributor.coadvisor | 毛慧芬(Hui-Fen Mao) | |
| dc.contributor.oralexamcommittee | 張彧(Yuh Jang) | |
| dc.subject.keyword | 身心障礙,滿意度,輔具,輪椅類輔具,服務提供系統, | zh_TW |
| dc.subject.keyword | disabled,satisfaction,assistive technology,wheeled mobility device,service delivery system, | en |
| dc.relation.page | 70 | |
| dc.rights.note | 未授權 | |
| dc.date.accepted | 2008-08-01 | |
| dc.contributor.author-college | 公共衛生學院 | zh_TW |
| dc.contributor.author-dept | 衛生政策與管理研究所 | 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-97-1.pdf 未授權公開取用 | 1.26 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。