Skip navigation

DSpace

機構典藏 DSpace 系統致力於保存各式數位資料(如:文字、圖片、PDF)並使其易於取用。

點此認識 DSpace
DSpace logo
English
中文
  • 瀏覽論文
    • 校院系所
    • 出版年
    • 作者
    • 標題
    • 關鍵字
    • 指導教授
  • 搜尋 TDR
  • 授權 Q&A
    • 我的頁面
    • 接受 E-mail 通知
    • 編輯個人資料
  1. NTU Theses and Dissertations Repository
  2. 公共衛生學院
  3. 健康政策與管理研究所
請用此 Handle URI 來引用此文件: http://tdr.lib.ntu.edu.tw/jspui/handle/123456789/44315
完整後設資料紀錄
DC 欄位值語言
dc.contributor.advisor鍾國彪(Kuo-Piao Chung)
dc.contributor.authorMeng-Yu Chenen
dc.contributor.author陳孟渝zh_TW
dc.date.accessioned2021-06-15T02:50:37Z-
dc.date.available2014-09-16
dc.date.copyright2009-09-16
dc.date.issued2009
dc.date.submitted2009-08-05
dc.identifier.citation英文文獻
Baker, B,B. Carter.(2005) Provider Pay-for-Performance Incentive Programs:2004
National Study Results.
Berwick, D. M. (2003). Disseminating innovations in health care. JAMA, 289(15), 1969-1975.
Bokhour, B. G., Burgess, J. F., Jr., Hook, J. M., White, B., Berlowitz, D., Guldin, M. R., et al. (2006). Incentive implementation in physician practices: A qualitative study of practice executive perspectives on pay for performance. Med Care Res Rev, 63(1 Suppl), 73S-95S.
Cabana, M. D., Rand, C. S., Powe, N. R., Wu, A. W., Wilson, M. H., Abboud, P. A., et al. (1999). Why don't physicians follow clinical practice guidelines? A framework for improvement. JAMA, 282(15), 1458-1465.
Campbell, S. M., McDonald, R., & Lester, H. (2008). The experience of pay for performance in English family practice: a qualitative study. Ann Fam Med, 6(3), 228-234.
Casalino, L., Gillies, R. R., Shortell, S. M., Schmittdiel, J. A., Bodenheimer, T., Robinson, J. C., et al. (2003). External incentives, information technology, and organized processes to improve health care quality for patients with chronic diseases. JAMA, 289(4), 434-441.
Casalino, L. P. (1999). The unintended consequences of measuring quality on the quality of medical care. N Engl J Med, 341(15), 1147-1150.
Casalino, L. P., Alexander, G. C., Jin, L., & Konetzka, R. T. (2007). General internists' views on pay-for-performance and public reporting of quality scores: a national survey. Health Aff (Millwood), 26(2), 492-499.
Dudley RA, Rosenthal MB. Pay for Performance: A Decision Guide for Purchasers. Rockville, MD: Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality; 2006.
Doran, T., Fullwood, C., Gravelle, H., Reeves, D., Kontopantelis, E., Hiroeh, U., et al. (2006). Pay-for-performance programs in family practices in the United Kingdom. N Engl J Med, 355(4), 375-384.
Eggleston, K. (2005). Economic modeling of methods to stimulate quality improvement. Int J Qual Health Care, 17(6), 521-531.
Epstein, A. M., Lee, T. H., & Hamel, M. B. (2004). Paying physicians for high-quality care. N Engl J Med, 350(4), 406-410.
Freed, G. L., & Uren, R. L. (2006). Pay-for-performance: an overview for pediatrics. J Pediatr, 149(1), 120-124.
Frolich, A., Talavera, J. A., Broadhead, P., & Dudley, R. A. (2007). A behavioral model of clinician responses to incentives to improve quality. Health Policy, 80(1), 179-193.
Hendrickson, M. A. (2008). Pay for performance and medical professionalism. Qual Manag Health Care, 17(1), 9-18.
Li, R., Simon, J., Bodenheimer, T., Gillies, R. R., Casalino, L., Schmittdiel, J., et al. (2004). Organizational factors affecting the adoption of diabetes care management processes in physician organizations. Diabetes Care, 27(10), 2312-2316.
Locke, R. G., & Srinivasan, M. (2008). Attitudes toward pay-for-performance initiatives among primary care osteopathic physicians in small group practices. J Am Osteopath Assoc, 108(1), 21-24.
Lurie, N., & Dubowitz, T. (2007). Health disparities and access to health. JAMA, 297(10), 1118-1121.
McDonald, R., Harrison, S., Checkland, K., Campbell, S. M., & Roland, M. (2007). Impact of financial incentives on clinical autonomy and internal motivation in primary care: ethnographic study. BMJ, 334(7608), 1357.
McDonald, R., & Roland, M. (2009). Pay for performance in primary care in England and California: comparison of unintended consequences. Ann Fam Med, 7(2), 121-127.
McGlynn, E. A., Asch, S. M., Adams, J., Keesey, J., Hicks, J., DeCristofaro, A., et al. (2003). The quality of health care delivered to adults in the United States. N Engl J Med, 348(26), 2635-2645.
Mehrotra, A., Pearson, S. D., Coltin, K. L., Kleinman, K. P., Singer, J. A., Rabson, B., et al. (2007). The response of physician groups to P4P incentives. Am J Manag Care, 13(5), 249-255.
Meterko, M., Young, G. J., White, B., Bokhour, B. G., Burgess, J. F., Jr., Berlowitz, D., et al. (2006). Provider attitudes toward pay-for-performance programs: development and validation of a measurement instrument. Health Serv Res, 41(5), 1959-1978.
Murphy, K. M., & Nash, D. B. (2008). Nonprimary care physicians' views on office-based quality incentive and improvement programs. Am J Med Qual, 23(6), 427-439.
Pierce, R. G., Bozic, K. J., & Bradford, D. S. (2007). Pay for performance in orthopaedic surgery. Clin Orthop Relat Res, 457, 87-95.
Roland, M. (2004). Linking physicians' pay to the quality of care--a major experiment in the United kingdom. N Engl J Med, 351(14), 1448-1454.
Rolnick, S. J., Margolis, K. L., Fortman, K. K., Maciosek, M. V., & Grimm, R. H., Jr. (2002). How acceptable are financial incentives and written feedback for improving hypertension control? Perspectives from physicians, clinic administrators, and patients. Am J Manag Care, 8(5), 441-447.
Rosenthal, M. B., & Dudley, R. A. (2007). Pay-for-performance: will the latest payment trend improve care? JAMA, 297(7), 740-744.
Rosenthal, M. B., Fernandopulle, R., Song, H. R., & Landon, B. (2004). Paying for quality: providers' incentives for quality improvement. Health Aff (Millwood), 23(2), 127-141.
Rosenthal, M. B., Frank, R. G., Li, Z., & Epstein, A. M. (2005). Early experience with pay-for-performance: from concept to practice. JAMA, 294(14), 1788-1793.
Rundall, T. G., Shortell, S. M., Wang, M. C., Casalino, L., Bodenheimer, T., Gillies, R. R., et al. (2002). As good as it gets? Chronic care management in nine leading US physician organisations. BMJ, 325(7370), 958-961.
Sautter, K. M., Bokhour, B. G., White, B., Young, G. J., Burgess, J. F., Jr., Berlowitz, D., et al. (2007). The early experience of a hospital-based pay-for-performance program. J Healthc Manag, 52(2), 95-107; discussion 107-108.
Seidel, R. L., & Baumgarten, D. A. (2007). Pay for performance: survey of diagnostic radiology faculty and trainees. J Am Coll Radiol, 4(6), 411-415.
Shortell, S. M., Zazzali, J. L., Burns, L. R., Alexander, J. A., Gillies, R. R., Budetti, P. P., et al. (2001). Implementing evidence-based medicine: the role of market pressures, compensation incentives, and culture in physician organizations. Med Care, 39(7 Suppl 1), I62-78.
Smith, P. C., & York, N. (2004). Quality incentives: the case of U.K. general practitioners. Health Aff (Millwood), 23(3), 112-118.
Sutton, M., & McLean, G. (2006). Determinants of primary medical care quality measured under the new UK contract: cross sectional study. BMJ, 332(7538), 389-390.
Teleki, S. S., Damberg, C. L., Pham, C., & Berry, S. H. (2006). Will financial incentives stimulate quality improvement? Reactions from frontline physicians. Am J Med Qual, 21(6), 367-374.
Young, D. (2003). Promising results revealed in Mississippi disease management program. But program has low pharmacist participation. Am J Health Syst Pharm, 60(17), 1720, 1722, 1724.
Young, G. J., & Conrad, D. A. (2007). Practical issues in the design and implementation of pay-for-quality programs. J Healthc Manag, 52(1), 10-18; discussion 18-19.
Young, G. J., Meterko, M., White, B., Bokhour, B. G., Sautter, K. M., Berlowitz, D., et al. (2007). Physician attitudes toward pay-for-quality programs: perspectives from the front line. Med Care Res Rev, 64(3), 331-343.
Young, G. J., White, B., Burgess, J. F., Jr., Berlowitz, D., Meterko, M., Guldin, M. R., et al. (2005). Conceptual issues in the design and implementation of pay-for-quality programs. Am J Med Qual, 20(3), 144-150.

中文文獻
全民健康保險糖尿病醫療給付改善方案試辦計畫(2001)。中央健康保險局。
論質計酬試辦計畫執行情形報告(2007)。中央健康保險局。
全民健康保險糖尿病醫療給付改善方案(2009)。中央健康保險局。
行政院衛生署統計室網站(2009)。http://www.doh.gov.tw/CHT2006/DM/DM2_2.aspx?now_fod_list_no=10327&class_no=440&level_no=4#。
臺灣地區糖尿病防治工作現況(2006)。國民健康局。
李待弟(2007)。 全民健康保險糖尿病醫療給付改善方案初步影響評估 。臺灣大學衛生政策與管理研究所碩士論文。
李智貴、沈茂庭 、 陳錦康(2008)。 The Effects of Providers' Perception of the Diabetes Disease Management Program on Their Participation. 臺灣家庭醫學雜誌(18卷2期),18。
李玉春(2003)。建立全民健保以共同照護模式為基礎的糖尿病疾病管理計畫先導性研究。台北市:行政院衛生署委託計畫。
林佳樺(2006)。 加入論質計酬之糖尿病病患其遵醫性與照護結果之相關性。 中國醫藥大學碩士論文。
林紹雯、柯碧玲、陳素娥、陳明琪、 張雅芬 (2003)。糖尿病共同照護網實施成效:中部某區域醫院為例。 健康促進暨衛生教育雜誌(23期),12。
徐郁雯 (2005)。 病人積極度測量之發展,及其與病人行為間關係之研究-以糖尿 病病人為例。 臺灣大學醫療機構管理研究所碩士論文。
徐珮容 (2008)。 探討醫師使用中央健康保險局健保資訊網服務系統之影響因素─以糖尿病指標回饋為例。 臺灣大學醫管所碩士論文。
徐慧君、翁慧卿、 林育慈、 陳淑銘、 李佩儒、 李集美(2004)糖尿病患介入疾病管理在經濟面、臨床面及滿意度成效評估之初探-以南部某區域醫院糖尿病病患為例。 醫務管理期刊(5卷2期), 21。
翁瑞亨、 徐瑞祥、 謝玉娟(2002)。台灣地區糖尿病共同照護現況。 臺灣醫學(6卷4期), 5。
國民健康局網站(2002),http://www.bhp.doh.gov.tw/health91/1-3-4.htm。
糖尿病防治推動現況與展望在台灣 (2006)。國民健康局。
張媚 (2009)。 糖尿病個案管理。 護理雜誌(56卷2期), 6。
許惠恒(2002)。 糖尿病醫療給付改善方案在某醫學中心實施成效探討。台灣大學醫療機構管理研究所碩士論文
陳宗泰、鍾國彪、 賴美淑(2007)。 另一種流行趨勢-論成效計酬的趨勢與展望。 臺灣公共衛生雜誌(26卷5期),18。
彭台光、高月慈、 林鉦棽(2006)。 管理研究中的共同方法變異:問題本質、影響、測試和補救, 管理學報,23卷1期, 22。
劉見祥、曲同光、 陳玉敏(2002)。 糖尿病共同照護與健保給付。臺灣醫學,6卷 4期, 4。
劉棻(2006)。 台灣糖尿病共同照護網推行現況與挑戰。領導護理,7卷2期, 7。
賴美月(2005)。探討糖尿病論質計酬改善方案對於中部某醫學中心糖尿病病患之實
施效果。中國醫藥大學醫務管理研究所碩士論文。
賴美淑、 邱淑媞(2002)。 糖尿病共同照護之概念與內涵。 臺灣醫學,6卷4期, 9。
顏幸達(2008)。參與糖尿病照護論質計酬計畫之社會不平等。國立成功大學公共衛 生研究所碩士論文。
dc.identifier.urihttp://tdr.lib.ntu.edu.tw/jspui/handle/123456789/44315-
dc.description.abstract背景與目的:台灣於2001年推出五大疾病論質計酬,其中糖尿病論質計酬於2007年開始依醫療院所照護病人結果面指標作為獎勵條件,跨出真正論「質」的第一步。國外已有許多調查醫師對於論質計酬的認知與態度的研究,用以評估計畫的成效及了解現況,然而國內的研究仍付之闕如。因此本研究將針對參與糖尿病論質計酬的醫師進行調查,了解其對於論質計酬的態度,並探討其與醫師認知、個人特質及醫療院所特質的相關性。
研究方法:本研究引用國外學者Meterko等人發展之「Provider Attitudes toward Incentives」問卷,並依研究目的增加題項。透過三位專家學者進行效度檢測及八位醫師進行前測,對部分題項進行修擬後完成定稿。本研究為橫斷性研究,對象為全台參與糖尿病醫療給付改善方案院所之醫師,以立意取樣的方式進行。問卷發放期間為2009年4月24日至6月3日,共發放585份問卷,回收有效問卷207份,有效問卷回收率為35.38%。
研究結果:研究結果顯示醫師對於論質計酬支付制度的理念大多持有正面的看法,有83.6%的醫師認為當醫師達到較好的照護品質時,健保局應給予財務獎勵,75.4%的醫師相信給予財務獎勵是增進醫療照護品質的有效方法,並有71%的醫師認為財務獎勵相較於非財務獎勵,為較佳的獎勵方式。多數的醫師認同糖尿病論質計酬的「預期效果」,但對於「組織支持」的認同較低,特別是在財務支持的部份,有40.6%的醫師不同意「糖尿病醫療給付改善方案」給付的金額,足以補償達到品質指標獎勵目標。本研究結果亦得到醫師個人特質中的最高學歷、機構特質與醫師對於論質計酬的認知會影響醫師對於論質計酬的態度。其中當醫師對於國內論質計酬的自評了解越高、對論質計酬的財務分配越了解,對於論質計酬的態度越呈正向關係;此外,機構中領導者的鼓勵也能提升醫師對於論質計酬正面的態度。
建議:對於未來研究的建議包括:可增加質性的部份,補強機構特質在執行論質計酬時的差異與影響,以及了解院所對於財務獎勵的分配方式;探討態度與行為的關連;可從護理人員、營養師、衛教師,甚至病患的角度來加以分析比較;將研究對象擴大到其他論質計酬方案進行探究。
zh_TW
dc.description.abstractBackground and Objectives: In 2001, the pay-for-performance programs was applied in 5 main diseases in Taiwan. Among them, the program for diabetes mellitus firstly adopted clinical outcome indicators as the reward basic. That was the real first step in rewarding the “performance.” Studies from foreign countries have investigated physicians’ knowledge and attitudes toward the pay-for-performance system in order to understand the implementation conditions and evaluate its effectiveness. However, local studies related to this issue are limited. This study aimed at understanding the knowledge and attitudes toward the pay-for-performance among physicians who participated in the diabetes mellitus pay-for-performance program. In addition, the relationships among physician’s attitudes, knowledge, personal characteristics, and characteristics of healthcare institutions were examined.
Methods: The investigation instrument in this study was based on the “Provider Attitudes toward Incentives” questionnaire developed by Meterko and his colleagues. Additional questions were added to fit the research purposes. According to the validity test by three experts and a pilot test for 8 physicians, several questions were revised. This was a cross-sectional study focusing on physicians participated in the diabetes mellitus pay-for-performance program in Taiwan. A purposive sampling method was adopted. 585 questionnaires were distributed between April 24th and June 3rd, 2009 and 207 valid questionnaires were returned. The valid response rate was 35.38%.
Results: Study results showed that most of the physicians held a positive attitude toward the pay-for-performance mechanism. 83.6% of the physicians thought that the Bureau of National Health Insurance should provide financial incentives to a physician when his/ her services achieved a better quality. 75.4% of the physicians believed that the financial incentive was an effective approach to improving quality of health care. 71% of the physicians suggested that financial incentives were better than non-financial incentives. Most of the physicians applauded the “anticipated outcome” under the diabetes mellitus pay-for-performance program, while they approved with the “organizational support” less. This situation was especially significant with respect to the “financial support”, that 40.6% of the physicians did not think the amount of reimbursement under the “Medical Benefit Improvement Project in Diabetes Mellitus” could compensate the effort they spent to fulfill the goal. This study also found that physician’s education level, characteristics of the healthcare institution, and physician’s knowledge of the program could impact the physician’s attitudes toward the program. Through the self-administered questionnaires, those who understood the program and the financial distribution more were more likely to have a positive attitude toward the pay-for-performance program. Furthermore, the encouragement from the chief of an institution could contribute to physician’s positive attitudes toward the program.
Suggestions: Suggestions for future study include: using the qualitative method to strengthen the healthcare institution aspect to understand its impact on the implementation of the pay-for-performance program and the distribution of financial incentives within an institution; exploring the relationship between attitudes and behavior; broaden the investigation targets to include nurses, nutrition consultants, health education practitioners, and even patients; studying the effect of this program in other diseases.
en
dc.description.provenanceMade available in DSpace on 2021-06-15T02:50:37Z (GMT). No. of bitstreams: 1
ntu-98-R96843014-1.pdf: 703886 bytes, checksum: 7f55fe195e50b304d71e09aad733575e (MD5)
Previous issue date: 2009
en
dc.description.tableofcontents誌謝……………………………………………………………………………….….....i
中文摘要………………………………………………………………………………..ii
英文摘要………………………………………………………………………………..iii
表目錄……………………………………………………………………………….....vii
圖目錄……………………………………………………………………………….....ix
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
第二章 文獻探討………………………………………………………………….…4
第一節 論質計酬支付制度介紹………………………………………….…..4
第二節 影響醫師認知態度之相關因素探討…………………………….…..9
第三節 醫師對於論質計酬的態度面向………………………………….…13
第四節 醫師對於論質計酬認知與態度之實證研究…………………….…16
第五節 糖尿病醫療給付改善方案………………………………………… 23
第六節 文獻總結…………………………………………………………….28
第三章 研究方法………………………………………………………………….29
第一節 研究流程…………………………………………………………….29
第二節 研究架構…………………………………………………………….30
第三節 研究假說…………………………………………………………….31
第四節 研究設計與資料來源……………………………………………….32
第五節 研究工具…………………………………………………………….33
第六節 資料處理與分析方法……………………………………………….42
第四章 研究結果………………………………………………………………….43
第一節 問卷回收情形………………………………………………………...43
第二節 共同方法變異檢定…………………………………………………...43
第三節 因素分析與信度…………………………………………………… ..43
第四節 描述性統計分析…………………………………………………… ..49
第五節 雙變項分析………………………………………………………… ..66
第六節 多變項分析……………………………………………………….85
第五章 研究討論……………………………………………………………..101
第一節 醫師參與「糖尿病醫療給付改善方案」情形………………..101
第二節 描述性結果討論………………………………………………..103
第三節 研究假說驗證………………………………………………… .106
第四節 影響醫師對於論質計酬態度的相關因素結果探討…………..110
第五節 研究限制……………………………………………………… .112
第六章 結論與建議…………………………………………………………..114
第一節 結論……………………………………………………………..114
第二節 建議……………………………………………………………..115
參考文獻…………………………………………………………………………117
英文文獻……………………………………………………………………117
中文文獻……………………………………………………………………121
附錄一 專家效度名單…………………………………………………………123
附錄二 研究問卷………………………………………………………………124
附錄三 填答之「診所醫師」描述性分析……………………………………130
附錄四 填答之「醫院醫師」描述性分析……………………………………138
dc.language.isozh-TW
dc.subject糖尿病醫療給付改善方案zh_TW
dc.subject論質計酬zh_TW
dc.subject醫師認知zh_TW
dc.subject醫師態度zh_TW
dc.subjectPhysician’s attitudeen
dc.subjectPhysician’s knowledgeen
dc.subjectMedical Benefit Improvement Project in Diabetes Mellitusen
dc.subjectPay-for-performanceen
dc.title醫師對於論質計酬支付制度的認知及態度研究-以糖尿病醫療給付改善方案為例zh_TW
dc.titlePhysician Knowledge and Attitudes Toward Pay-for-Performance Programs: An Example of Medical Benefit Improvement Project in Diabetes Mellitusen
dc.typeThesis
dc.date.schoolyear97-2
dc.description.degree碩士
dc.contributor.oralexamcommittee翁慧卿,游能俊,蔡淑鈴
dc.subject.keyword論質計酬,糖尿病醫療給付改善方案,醫師態度,醫師認知,zh_TW
dc.subject.keywordPay-for-performance,Medical Benefit Improvement Project in Diabetes Mellitus,Physician’s attitude,Physician’s knowledge,en
dc.relation.page145
dc.rights.note有償授權
dc.date.accepted2009-08-05
dc.contributor.author-college公共衛生學院zh_TW
dc.contributor.author-dept醫療機構管理研究所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-98-1.pdf
  未授權公開取用
687.39 kBAdobe PDF
顯示文件簡單紀錄


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。

社群連結
聯絡資訊
10617臺北市大安區羅斯福路四段1號
No.1 Sec.4, Roosevelt Rd., Taipei, Taiwan, R.O.C. 106
Tel: (02)33662353
Email: ntuetds@ntu.edu.tw
意見箱
相關連結
館藏目錄
國內圖書館整合查詢 MetaCat
臺大學術典藏 NTU Scholars
臺大圖書館數位典藏館
本站聲明
© NTU Library All Rights Reserved