請用此 Handle URI 來引用此文件：
http://tdr.lib.ntu.edu.tw/jspui/handle/123456789/59159完整後設資料紀錄
| DC 欄位 | 值 | 語言 |
|---|---|---|
| dc.contributor.advisor | 董鈺琪(Yu-Chi Tung) | |
| dc.contributor.author | Keng-Te Lee | en |
| dc.contributor.author | 李耿德 | zh_TW |
| dc.date.accessioned | 2021-06-16T09:16:57Z | - |
| dc.date.available | 2027-07-12 | |
| dc.date.copyright | 2017-09-12 | |
| dc.date.issued | 2017 | |
| dc.date.submitted | 2017-07-13 | |
| dc.identifier.citation | 1. 衛生福利部. 國人十大死因. http://www.mohw.gov.tw/news/572256044. Accessed
2. 衛生福利部國民健康署. 歷年糖尿病盛行率. http://www.hpa.gov.tw/BHPNet/Web/HealthTopic/TopicArticle.aspx?No=201410060012&parentid=201410030001 Accessed 3. Walker J. Field work of a diabetic clinic. The Lancet 1953; 262:445-7. 4. 衛生福利部中央健康保險署. 全民健康保險糖尿病醫療給付改善方案. 第八版 2001. 5. Van Herck P, De Smedt D, Annemans L, Remmen R, Rosenthal MB, Sermeus W. Systematic review: effects, design choices, and context of pay-for-performance in health care. BMC health services research 2010; 10:247:1-13. 6. Cheng SH, Lee TT, Chen CC. A longitudinal examination of a pay-for-performance program for diabetes care: evidence from a natural experiment. Medical care 2012; 50:109-16. 7. Chen TT, Lai MS, Lin IC, Chung KP. Exploring and comparing the characteristics of nonlatent and latent composite scores: implications for pay-for-performance incentive design. Medical decision making : an international journal of the Society for Medical Decision Making 2012; 32:132-44. 8. Hsieh HM, Shin SJ, Tsai SL, Chiu HC. Effectiveness of Pay-for-Performance Incentive Designs on Diabetes Care. Medical care 2016; 54:1063-9. 9. Chen C-C, Cheng S-H. Does pay-for-performance benefit patients with multiple chronic conditions? Evidence from a universal coverage health care system. Health Policy and Planning 2015. 10. Huang Y-C, Lee M-C, Chou Y-J, Huang N. Disease-specific Pay-for-Performance Programs: Do the P4P Effects Differ Between Diabetic Patients With and Without Multiple Chronic Conditions? Medical Care 2016; 54:977-83. 11. Lai CL, Hou YH. The association of clinical guideline adherence and pay-for-performance among patients with diabetes. Journal of the Chinese Medical Association : JCMA 2013; 76:102-7. 12. Lee TT, Cheng SH, Chen CC, Lai MS. A pay-for-performance program for diabetes care in Taiwan: a preliminary assessment. Am J Manag Care 2010; 16:65-9. 13. 張順全, 賴美淑, 徐豈庸. 台灣地理區域社經差異與糖尿病患罹病, 死亡的關聯性探討. 醫護科技學刊 2005; 7:140-8. 14. Ashworth M, Medina J, Morgan M. Effect of social deprivation on blood pressure monitoring and control in England: a survey of data from the quality and outcomes framework. BMJ 2008; 337. 15. Lee JT, Netuveli G, Majeed A, Millett C. The effects of pay for performance on disparities in stroke, hypertension, and coronary heart disease management: interrupted time series study. PloS one 2011; 6:e27236. 16. Victora CG, Vaughan JP, Barros FC, Silva AC, Tomasi E. Explaining trends in inequities: evidence from Brazilian child health studies. The Lancet 2000; 356:1093-8. 17. 衛生福利部綜合規劃司. 2025衛生福利政策白皮書. http://www.mohw.gov.tw/CHT/Ministry/DM2_P.aspx?f_list_no=9&fod_list_no=5727&doc_no=53429 Accessed 18. Organization WH. 針對健康問題社會決定因素採取行動以減少衛生不公平. http://apps.who.int/gb/ebwha/pdf_files/A62/A62_R14-ch.pdf?ua=1. Accessed 19. 衛生福利部中央健保署. 全民健康保險醫療品質資訊公開網. https://www.nhi.gov.tw/mqinfo/Content.aspx?Type=DM&List=1 Accessed 20. Organization WH. 全球糖尿病報告. http://apps.who.int/iris/bitstream/10665/204874/3/WHO_NMH_NVI_16.3_chi.pdf?ua=1. Accessed 21. Guariguata L, Whiting D, Hambleton I, Beagley J, Linnenkamp U, Shaw J. Global estimates of diabetes prevalence for 2013 and projections for 2035. Diabetes research and clinical practice 2014; 103:137-49. 22. International Diabetes Federation EPIDEMIOLOGY AND PREVENTION. http://www.idf.org/diabetesatlas/download-book Accessed 23. Association AD. Association AD. http://www.diabetes.org/diabetes-basics/statistics/?loc=db-slabnav. Accessed 24. 衛生福利部國民健康屬. 糖尿病防治專區. http://www.hpa.gov.tw/Pages/List.aspx?nodeid=359. Accessed 25. Association AD. Diagnosing Diabetes and Learning About Prediabetes. http://www.diabetes.org/diabetes-basics/diagnosis/ Accessed 26. Cashin C CY-L, Smith P, Borowitz M, Thomson S. Paying for Performance in Health Care Implications for health system performance and accountability. http://www.euro.who.int/__data/assets/pdf_file/0020/271073/Paying-for-Performance-in-Health-Care.pdf Accessed 27. 行政院衛生署全民健康保險醫療品質委員會. 配合二代健保之論質計酬. http://www.mohw.gov.tw/MOHW_Upload/dmc_history/UpFile/LoadFile/%E9%85%8D%E5%90%88%E4%BA%8C%E4%BB%A3%E5%81%A5%E4%BF%9D%E4%B9%8B%E8%AB%96%E8%B3%AA%E8%A8%88%E9%85%AC.pdf. Accessed 28. Care NCfQH. National Quality Health Care Award. http://www.qualityforum.org/uploadedFiles/ncqhc2006.pdf. Accessed 29. Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services. Pay-for-Performance / Quality Incentives. https://www.cms.gov/Regulations-and-Guidance/Guidance/FACA/downloads/tab_H.pdf. Accessed 30. 陳宗泰, 鍾國彪, 賴美淑. 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 2007; 26:353-70. 31. Donaldson MS, Corrigan JM, Kohn LT. To err is human: building a safer health system. National Academies Press, 2000. 32. Richardson WC, Berwick DM, Bisgard J, Bristow L, Buck C, Cassel C. Crossing the quality chasm: a new health system for the 21st century. Institute of Medicine, National Academy Press Washington, DC, 2001. 33. Van Amringe M. The JCAHO guidelines for pay for performance. Manag Care 2005; 14:11-2. 34. Association AM. guidelines for pay-for-performance programs. https://www.ama-assn.org/ama1/pub/upload/mm/368/guidelines4pay62705.pdf. Accessed 35. Smith PC, York N. Quality incentives: the case of UK general practitioners. Health Affairs 2004; 23:112-8. 36. 陳明進, 黃崇謙. 全民健保支付制度改變前後公立醫院與財團法人醫院服務量及醫療利益之比較. 當代會計 2001; 2:169-94. 37. 楊志良. 健康保險. 巨流圖書公司 1995. 38. 廖慧娟. 論質計酬之健保制度. 醫療品質雜誌 2012; 6:44-9. 39. Hsieh H-M, Tsai S-L, Mau L-W, Chiu H-C. Effects of Changes in Diabetes Pay-for-Performance Incentive Designs on Patient Risk Selection. Health Services Research 2015:n/a-n/a. 40. 林文德, 謝其政, 邱尚志, 吳慧俞, 黃一展. 以傾向分數配對法評估糖尿病論質計酬方案之成效. 台灣公共衛生雜誌 2010; 29:54-63. 41. Campbell SM, Reeves D, Kontopantelis E, Sibbald B, Roland M. Effects of pay for performance on the quality of primary care in England. New England Journal of Medicine 2009; 361:368-78. 42. Doran T, Fullwood C, Gravelle H, et al. Pay-for-performance programs in family practices in the United Kingdom. New England Journal of Medicine 2006; 355:375-84. 43. Scott A, Schurer S, Jensen PH, Sivey P. The effects of an incentive program on quality of care in diabetes management. Health economics 2009; 18:1091-108. 44. Indicators AHRQ Quality Guide to prevention quality indicators: hospital admission for ambulatory care sensitive conditions. Rockville, MD: Agency for Health Care Research and Quality 2001. 45. Niefeld MR, Braunstein JB, Wu AW, Saudek CD, Weller WE, Anderson GF. Preventable hospitalization among elderly Medicare beneficiaries with type 2 diabetes. Diabetes care 2003; 26:1344-9. 46. Lin TY, Chen CY, Huang YT, Ting MK, Huang JC, Hsu KH. The effectiveness of a pay for performance program on diabetes care in Taiwan: A nationwide population-based longitudinal study. Health policy (Amsterdam, Netherlands) 2016; 120:1313-21. 47. Yu HC, Tsai WC, Kung PT. Does the pay-for-performance programme reduce the emergency department visits for hypoglycaemia in type 2 diabetic patients? Health policy and planning 2013. 48. <「思覺失調症醫療給付改善方案」成效探討－以台灣北部某精神專科醫院為例.pdf>. 49. Whitehead M. The concepts and principles of equity and health. International journal of health services 1992; 22:429-45. 50. 世界衛生組織. 健康問題社會決定因素. https://translate.google.com.tw/translate?hl=zh-TW&sl=zh-CN&u=http://www.who.int/social_determinants/thecommission/finalreport/key_concepts/zh/&prev=search Accessed 51. Mensah GA. Eliminating disparities in cardiovascular health. Circulation 2005; 111:1332-6. 52. Yu T-H, Hou Y-C, Tung Y-C, Chung K-P. Why do outcomes of CABG care vary between urban and rural areas in Taiwan? A perspective from quality of care. International Journal for Quality in Health Care 2015:mzv050. 53. Yu T-H, Hou Y-C, Chung K-P. Do low-income coronary artery bypass surgery patients have equal opportunity to access excellent quality of care and enjoy good outcome in Taiwan? International journal for equity in health 2014; 13:64. 54. Yu TH, Chung KP, Wei CJ, Chien KL, Hou YC. Do the Preferences of Healthcare Provider Selection Vary among Rural and Urban Patients with Different Income and Cause Different Outcome? PloS one 2016; 11:e0152776. 55. Brown AF, Ettner SL, Piette J, et al. Socioeconomic position and health among persons with diabetes mellitus: a conceptual framework and review of the literature. Epidemiologic reviews 2004; 26:63-77. 56. 顏幸達. 參與糖尿病照護論質計酬計畫之社會不平等. 成功大學公共衛生研究所2008. 57. Hsieh HM, Lin TH, Lee IC, Huang CJ, Shin SJ, Chiu HC. The association between participation in a pay-for-performance program and macrovascular complications in patients with type 2 diabetes in Taiwan: A nationwide population-based cohort study. Preventive medicine 2016; 85:53-9. 58. Billings J, Zeitel L, Lukomnik J, Carey TS, Blank AE, Newman L. Impact of socioeconomic status on hospital use in New York City. Health affairs (Project Hope) 1993; 12:162-73. 59. Yen SM, Kung PT, Sheen YJ, Chiu LT, Xu XC, Tsai WC. Factors related to continuing care and interruption of P4P program participation in patients with diabetes. Am J Manag Care 2016; 22:e18-30. 60. Lin C-C, Ko C-Y, Liu J-P, Lee Y-L, Chie W-C. Nationwide periodic health examinations promote early treatment of hypertension, diabetes and hyperlipidemia in adults: experience from Taiwan. public health 2011; 125:187-95. 61. Doran T, Fullwood C, Kontopantelis E, Reeves D. Effect of financial incentives on inequalities in the delivery of primary clinical care in England: analysis of clinical activity indicators for the quality and outcomes framework. The Lancet 2008; 372:728-36. 62. Katz A, Enns JE, Chateau D, et al. Does a pay-for-performance program for primary care physicians alleviate health inequity in childhood vaccination rates? International journal for equity in health 2015; 14:1. 63. 陳榮陞. 為何臺灣糖尿病論質計酬的加入率無法提升? 獲得照護機會的地區不平等及其影響因素探討. 成功大學公共衛生研究所學位論文 2015:1-92. 64. Hsu CC, Tai TY. Long-term glycemic control by a diabetes case-management program and the challenges of diabetes care in Taiwan. Diabetes research and clinical practice 2014; 106 Suppl 2:S328-32. 65. Alshamsan R, Lee JT, Majeed A, Netuveli G, Millett C. Effect of a UK pay-for-performance program on ethnic disparities in diabetes outcomes: interrupted time series analysis. The Annals of Family Medicine 2012; 10:228-34. 66. Chien AT, Wroblewski K, Damberg C, et al. Do physician organizations located in lower socioeconomic status areas score lower on pay-for-performance measures? Journal of general internal medicine 2012; 27:548-54. 67. Chang H-Y, Bodycombe DP, Huang W-F, Weiner JP. Risk-Adjusted Resource Allocation Using Taiwan’s National Health Insurance as an Example. Asia-Pacific Journal of Public Health 2013:1010539512471073. 68. 孫偉宸. 個人收入, 早期復健與缺血性腦中風病人照護結果之相關性. 臺灣大學健康政策與管理研究所學位論文 2016:1-99. 69. Chang H-Y, Bodycombe DP, Huang W-F, Weiner JP. Risk-adjusted resource allocation: using Taiwan’s National Health Insurance as an example. Asia Pacific Journal of Public Health 2015; 27:NP958-NP71. 70. Huang I-C, Frangakis C, Dominici F, Diette GB, Wu AW. Application of a propensity score approach for risk adjustment in profiling multiple physician groups on asthma care. Health services research 2005; 40:253-78. 71. Tung Y-C, Chang G-M, Chen Y-H. Associations of physician volume and weekend admissions with ischemic stroke outcome in Taiwan: a nationwide population-based study. Medical care 2009; 47:1018-25. 72. Hirano K, Imbens GW, Ridder G. Efficient estimation of average treatment effects using the estimated propensity score. Econometrica 2003; 71:1161-89. 73. Tung YC, Chang GM, Chang HY, Yu TH. Relationship between Early Physician Follow-Up and 30-Day Readmission after Acute Myocardial Infarction and Heart Failure. PloS one 2017; 12:e0170061. 74. Yang G. A review of propensity score application in healthcare outcome and epidemiology. 2007. 75. 黃光華. 評論：以傾向分數配對法評估糖尿病論質計酬方案之成效. 台灣公共衛生雜誌 2010; 29:64-. 76. Lee T-T, Cheng S-H, Chen C-C, Lai M-S. A pay-for-performance program for diabetes care in Taiwan: a preliminary assessment. The American journal of managed care 2010; 16:65-9. 77. Chen B, Fan VY. Strategic Provider Behavior under Global Budget Payment with Price Adjustment in Taiwan. Health economics 2014. 78. Abadie A. Semiparametric Difference-in-Differences Estimators. The Review of Economic Studies 2005; 72:1-19. 79. Tai-Seale M, Freund D, LoSasso A. Racial disparities in service use among Medicaid beneficiaries after mandatory enrollment in managed care: a difference-in-differences approach. INQUIRY: The Journal of Health Care Organization, Provision, and Financing 2001; 38:49-59. 80. 李待弟. 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2007. 81. 劉介宇, 洪永泰, 莊義利, et al. 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 2006; 4:1-22. 82. Charlson M, Szatrowski TP, Peterson J, Gold J. Validation of a combined comorbidity index. Journal of clinical epidemiology 1994; 47:1245-51. 83. Deyo RA, Cherkin DC, Ciol MA. Adapting a clinical comorbidity index for use with ICD-9-CM administrative databases. Journal of clinical epidemiology 1992; 45:613-9. 84. 朱育增, 吳肖琪. 回顧與探討次級資料適用之共病測量方法. 臺灣公共衛生雜誌 2010; 29:8-21. 85. 朱育增, 吳肖琪, 李玉春, 賴美淑, 譚醒朝. 探討共病測量方法於健保次級資料之應用. 臺灣公共衛生雜誌 2010; 29:191-200. 86. Young BA, Lin E, Von Korff M, et al. Diabetes complications severity index and risk of mortality, hospitalization, and healthcare utilization. The American journal of managed care 2008; 14:15. 87. 衛生福利部統計處. 醫療機構現況及醫院醫療服務量統計. http://www.mohw.gov.tw/cht/DOS/Statistic.aspx?f_list_no=312&fod_list_no=2161 Accessed 88. 李健誠. 糖尿病患加入腎臟病照護計畫之成效評估. 臺灣大學健康政策與管理研究所學位論文 2014:1-127. 89. 魏郁純. 健康狀態對就業影響-以癌症病人為例. 2006. 90. Gruber J, Poterba J. Tax incentives and the decision to purchase health insurance: Evidence from the self-employed. The Quarterly Journal of Economics 1994; 109:701-33. 91. Chen PC, Lee YC, Kuo RN. Differences in patient reports on the quality of care in a diabetes pay-for-performance program between 1 year enrolled and newly enrolled patients. International journal for quality in health care : journal of the International Society for Quality in Health Care / ISQua 2012; 24:189-96. 92. Rosenthal MB, Landrum MB, Robbins JA, Schneider EC. Pay for performance in Medicaid: evidence from three natural experiments. Health services research 2015. 93. Molla S. Donaldson KDY, Kathleen N. Lohr, and Neal A. Vanselow, . America's Health in a New Era. https://www.nap.edu/read/5152/chapter/1. Accessed 94. 蔡如怡, 胡慧蘭. 第二型糖尿病合併症之危險因子控制－ABC管理. 護理雜誌 2005; 52:65-70. 95. 衛生福利部中央健康保險署. 全民健康保險山地離島地區醫療給付效益提昇計畫. https://www.nhi.gov.tw/Resource/webdata/16991_2_1020001831-IDS%E4%BF%AE%E6%AD%A3%E6%A2%9D%E6%96%87-%E5%85%AC%E5%91%8A%E7%89%88.pdf. Accessed | |
| dc.identifier.uri | http://tdr.lib.ntu.edu.tw/jspui/handle/123456789/59159 | - |
| dc.description.abstract | 研究背景：糖尿病列為我國十大死因中第五名，為使照護結果提升，我國於西元2001年推動「全民健康保險糖尿病醫療給付改善方案」藉具有誘因的支付制度，期許能為糖尿病病患獲得持續且完整的照護。目前國內針對該改善方案之研究，較少探討對於照護利用及照護結果之影響，是否因城鄉不同而有不同。
研究目的：探討「全民健康保險糖尿病醫療給付改善方案」的推動，在論質計酬計畫下，糖尿病患者是否因為城鄉差距的存在，因方案的介入而有不同的照護利用及結果。 研究方法：本研究透過全民健康保險研究資料庫百萬歸人檔進行資料分析，以2005年之糖尿病患者為研究對象。使用傾向分數加權法、差異中的差異分析法以及差異中的差異中的差異分析法，探討糖尿病論質計酬計畫實施前後，對於不同城鄉，其糖尿病相關照護利用及結果之影響。 研究結果：在糖尿病論質計酬方案推行以後，在參與論質計酬方案的糖尿病患者其檢驗/檢查次數顯著增加，糖尿病相關醫療費用顯著減少，糖尿病相關門診就診次數顯著減少；居住在鄉村地區的糖尿病個案較於居住在城市地區的個案，其糖尿病相關可避免住院次數顯著降低。 結論：論質計酬方案推行後，在糖尿病照護利用面、結果面，有改善成效；居住鄉村比起居住都市有較低的糖尿病可避免住院次數。 | zh_TW |
| dc.description.abstract | Background: Diabetes ranks fifth among the top 10 causes of death in Taiwan. To improve care, Taiwan introduced the “National Health Insurance Diabetes Medical Payment Improvement Program” in 2001 as an incentivized payment system to allow diabetes patients to obtain continued and complete care. Currently, Taiwan is focused on studies to improve this program, and there have been few investigations on utilization and effects of care and rural–urban differences, if any.
Purpose: To investigate the introduction of the “National Health Insurance Diabetes Medical Payment Improvement Program,” whether rural–urban differences exist among diabetes patients in this pay-for-performance program, and differences in the utilization and results of intervention with this program. Methods: This study analyzed diabetes patients in the 2005 Longitudinal Health Insurance Database of the National Health Insurance Research Database (NHIRD). The difference-in-difference (DID) and difference-in-difference-in-difference (DDD) methods were used to investigate results before and after implementation of the pay-for-performance program, rural–urban differences in diabetes-related care utilization, and the effect of results. Results: After implementation of the diabetes pay-for-performance program, the number of examinations among diabetes patients who participated in the program was significantly increased, diabetes-related medical costs were significantly decreased, and the number of diabetes-related medical visits was significantly decreased. Compared to urban diabetes patients, the number of avoidable diabetes-related hospitalizations among rural diabetes patients was significantly decreased. Conclusions: After implementing of the pay-for-performance program, there were improvements in diabetes care utilization and results. Rural residents had lower avoidable hospitalization due to diabetes compared to urban residents. | en |
| dc.description.provenance | Made available in DSpace on 2021-06-16T09:16:57Z (GMT). No. of bitstreams: 1 ntu-106-R04848031-1.pdf: 2793673 bytes, checksum: 878abcedb59d0b241edfa49831f8e602 (MD5) Previous issue date: 2017 | en |
| dc.description.tableofcontents | 目錄
口試委員會審定書 i 誌謝 ii 摘要 iii Abstract iv 目錄 vi 圖目錄 viii 表目錄 ix 第一章 緒論 1 第一節 研究背景及動機 1 第二節 研究目的 3 第三節 研究重要性 4 第二章 文獻探討 5 第一節 糖尿病概況 5 第二節 論質計酬支付制度介紹 7 第三節 論質計酬支付制度對於糖尿病患者照護利用、結果影響之實證研究 11 第四節 論質計酬制度之下對於不同城鄉差距之影響研究 16 第五節 文獻探討小結 22 第三章 研究設計與方法 23 第一節 研究設計與架構 23 第二節 研究假說 26 第三節 研究對象 27 第四節 資料來源與處理流程 28 第五節 研究變項與操作型定義 32 第四章 研究結果 42 第一節 描述性及雙變項分析 43 第二節 多變項分析 68 第五章 討論 76 第一節 研究方法討論 76 第二節 研究結果討論 78 第三節 研究限制 81 第六章 結論與建議 82 第一節 結論 82 第二節 建議 83 參考文獻 84 圖目錄 圖 3.1 研究架構 25 表目錄 表 2.1 糖尿病論質計酬實證研究 14 表 2.1 糖尿病論質計酬實證研究(續) 15 表 2.2 論質計酬制度之下對於不同城鄉差距之影響研究 21 表 3.1 自變項操作型定義 36 表3.2依變項操作型定義 37 表 3.3 控制變項操作型定義 38 表 4.1 介入前後描述性分析與各變項之雙變量分析 57 表 4.1 介入前後描述性分析與各變項之雙變量分析(續) 58 表 4.2 糖尿病相關檢驗檢查次數與各變項之雙變量分析 59 表 4.2 糖尿病相關檢驗檢查次數與各變項之雙變量分析(續) 61 表 4.3 糖尿病相關門診次數與各變項之雙變量分析 62 表 4.3 糖尿病相關門診次數與各變項之雙變量分析(續) 62 表 4.4 糖尿病相關醫療費用與各變項之雙變量分析 64 表 4.4 糖尿病相關醫療費用與各變項之雙變量分析(續) 65 表4.5 糖尿病相關可避免住院次數各變項之雙變量分析 66 表4.5 糖尿病相關可避免住院次數各變項之雙變量分析(續) 66 表 4.6 以廣義估計方程式模型估計各變項對於糖尿病相關檢驗檢查次數以及糖尿病相關門診就診次數之影響 72 表 4.6 以廣義估計方程式模型估計各變項對於糖尿病相關檢驗檢查次數以及糖尿病相關門診就診次數之影響(續) 73 表 4.7 以廣義估計方程式模型估計各變項對於糖尿病相關醫療費用糖尿病以及相關可避免住院次數之影響 74 表 4.7 以廣義估計方程式模型估計各變項對於糖尿病相關醫療費用糖尿病以及相關可避免住院次數之影響(續) 75 | |
| dc.language.iso | zh-TW | |
| dc.subject | 城鄉差距 | zh_TW |
| dc.subject | 論質計酬 | zh_TW |
| dc.subject | 糖尿病 | zh_TW |
| dc.subject | rural-urban dfferences | en |
| dc.subject | pay-for-performance | en |
| dc.subject | Diabetes | en |
| dc.title | 論質計酬支付對於糖尿病照護城鄉差距之影響 | zh_TW |
| dc.title | Impact of Pay for Performance on Rural-Urban Differences in Diabetes Care | en |
| dc.type | Thesis | |
| dc.date.schoolyear | 105-2 | |
| dc.description.degree | 碩士 | |
| dc.contributor.oralexamcommittee | 楊銘欽(Ming-Qin Yang),陳楚杰(Chu-Chieh Chen) | |
| dc.subject.keyword | 糖尿病,論質計酬,城鄉差距, | zh_TW |
| dc.subject.keyword | Diabetes,pay-for-performance,rural-urban dfferences, | en |
| dc.relation.page | 89 | |
| dc.identifier.doi | 10.6342/NTU201701510 | |
| dc.rights.note | 有償授權 | |
| dc.date.accepted | 2017-07-13 | |
| 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-106-1.pdf 未授權公開取用 | 2.73 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。