請用此 Handle URI 來引用此文件:
http://tdr.lib.ntu.edu.tw/jspui/handle/123456789/60450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 | Pei-Hsuan Huang | en |
| dc.contributor.author | 黃珮萱 | zh_TW |
| dc.date.accessioned | 2021-06-16T10:18:31Z | - |
| dc.date.available | 2020-08-27 | |
| dc.date.copyright | 2020-08-27 | |
| dc.date.issued | 2020 | |
| dc.date.submitted | 2020-07-12 | |
| dc.identifier.citation | World Health Organization. Noncommunicable diseases. Available at: https://www.who.int/news-room/fact-sheets/detail/noncommunicable-diseases. Accessed November 5, 2019. 衛生福利部國民健康署:民國一百零四年中老年身心社會生活狀況長期追蹤調查成果報告。衛生福利部國民健康署臺灣老人研究叢刊系列十三, 2018。 Wagner EH. Chronic disease management: what will it take to improve care for chronic illness? Effective clinical practice: ECP 1998; 1:2. 賴才雅、王慶堯:慢性病照護模式與科技化應用介紹。長期照護雜誌 2008; 12:413-21。 Wagner EH, Austin BT, Davis C, Hindmarsh M, Schaefer J, Bonomi A. Improving chronic illness care: translating evidence into action. Health affairs 2001; 20:64-78. 鄭守夏、陳啓禎:健保制度下的醫療體系。台灣醫學 2014; 18:74-84。 Vogeli C, Shields AE, Lee TA, et al. Multiple chronic conditions: Prevalence, health consequences, and implications for quality, care management, and costs. Journal of General Internal Medicine 2007; 22:391-5. Flanagan S, Damery S, Combes G. The effectiveness of integrated care interventions in improving patient quality of life (QoL) for patients with chronic conditions. An overview of the systematic review evidence. Health and quality of life outcomes 2017; 15:188. Wolff JL, Starfield B, Anderson G. Prevalence, expenditures, and complications of multiple chronic conditions in the elderly. Archives of Internal Medicine 2002; 162:2269-76. Haggerty JL, Reid RJ, Freeman GK, Starfield BH, Adair CE, McKendry R. Continuity of care: a multidisciplinary review. British Medical Journal 2003; 327:1219-21. Tricco AC, Antony J, Ivers NM, et al. Effectiveness of quality improvement strategies for coordination of care to reduce use of health care services: systematic review and meta-analysis. Canadian Medical Association Journal 2014; 186:E568-E78. Jackson CT, Trygstad TK, DeWalt DA, DuBard CA. Transitional Care Cut Hospital Readmissions For North Carolina Medicaid Patients With Complex Chronic Conditions. Health Affairs 2013; 32:1407-15. Sianez M, Pennel C, Tamayo L, Wells R. Navigating medically complex patients through system barriers: Patients' perspectives on care coordination. International Journal of Care Coordination 2018; 21:160-9. Hohmann NS, McDaniel CC, Mason SW, et al. Patient perspectives on primary care and oncology care coordination in the context of multiple chronic conditions: A systematic review. Research in Social and Administrative Pharmacy 2019; 16:1003-1016. Cordeiro A, Davis RK, Antonelli R, et al. Care Coordination for Children and Youth With Special Health Care Needs: National Survey Results. Clinical Pediatrics 2018; 57:1398-408. Randell RL, Long MD, Martin CF, et al. Patient Perception of Chronic Illness Care in a Large Inflammatory Bowel Disease Cohort. Inflammatory Bowel Diseases 2013; 19:1428-33. Desmedt M, Vertriest S, Petrovic M, et al. Seen through the patients' eyes: quality of chronic illness care. Family Practice 2018; 35:446-51. Schmittdiel J, Mosen DM, Glasgow RE, Hibbard J, Remmers C, Bellows J. Patient assessment of chronic illness care (PACIC) and improved patient-centered outcomes for chronic conditions. Journal of General Internal Medicine 2008; 23:77-80. 林怡潔、陳啟禎、江宜珍、鄭守夏:病患觀點之門診照護連續性與照護協調性的測量工具:臺灣版問卷發展與信效度分析。測驗學刊 2020; 67:1-30。 衛生福利部中央健康保險署:全民健康保險慢性病範圍。Available at: https://www.nhi.gov.tw/Content_List.aspx?n=50D14E038DCBAD28 topn=3185A4DF68749BA9。引用2019/11/5。 World Health Organization. Ten threats to global health in 2019. Available at: https://www.who.int/emergencies/ten-threats-to-global-health-in-2019.Accessed November 5, 2019. World Health Organization. The world health report 2002: reducing risks, promoting healthy life. World Health Organization, 2002. CDC. National Center for Chronic Disease Prevention and Health Promotion. Available at: https://www.cdc.gov/chronicdisease/about/index.htm. Accessed November 6, 2019. 內政部統計處:107年第15週內政統計通報。Available at: https://www.moi.gov.tw/stat/news_detail.aspx?sn=13742。引用2019/11/10。 陳啟禎、陳麗光、鄭守夏:照護連續性議題的省思與未來發展方向。台灣公共衛生雜誌 2017; 36:324-336. 彭于珊:有無習慣就醫地點/醫師與照護連續性及協調性的相關性。健康政策與管理研究所: 臺灣大學, 2019:116p。 Bodenheimer T, Wagner EH, Grumbach K. Improving Primary Care for Patients With Chronic IllnessThe Chronic Care Model, Part 2. JAMA 2002; 288:1909-14. Glasgow RE, Wagner EH, Schaefer J, Mahoney LD, Reid RJ, Greene SA. Development and validation of the patient assessment of chronic illness care (PACIC). Medical Care 2005; 43:436-44. Von Korff M, Gruman J, Schaefer J, Curry SJ, Wagner EH. Collaborative management of chronic illness. Annals of internal medicine 1997; 127:1097-102. Wagner EH, Austin BT, Von Korff M. Organizing care for patients with chronic illness. The Milbank Quarterly 1996; 74:511-44. Wagner EH, Davis C, Schaefer J, Von Korff M, Austin B. A survey of leading chronic disease management programs: are they consistent with the literature? Journal of Nursing Care Quality 2002; 16:67-80. Improving Chronic Illness Care. The Chronic Care Model. Available at: http://www.improvingchroniccare.org/index.php?p=The_Chronic_Care_Model s=2. Accessed October 26, 2019. Calkins E, Boult C, Wagner EH, Md M, Pacala JT. New ways to care for older people: Building systems based on evidence. Springer Publishing Company, 2004. Uijen AA, Schers HJ, Schellevis FG, van den Bosch WJHM. How unique is continuity of care? A review of continuity and related concepts. Family Practice 2011; 29:264-71. McDonald K, Schultz E, Albin L, et al. Care coordination measures atlas update. June 2014. US Department of Health Human Services Washington DC: Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality 2014. McDonald KM, Sundaram V, Bravata DM, et al. Closing the quality gap: a critical analysis of quality improvement strategies (Vol. 7: Care Coordination). June 2007. Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (US) 2007. National Quality Forum. Critical Paths for Creating Data Platforms: Care Coordination. November 2012. Draft Report for Public Comment 2012. Antonelli RC, McAllister JW, Popp J. Making care coordination a critical component of the pediatric health system: a multidisciplinary framework. 2009. Pollack CE, Weissman GE, Lemke KW, Hussey PS, Weiner JP. Patient Sharing Among Physicians and Costs of Care: A Network Analytic Approach to Care Coordination Using Claims Data. Journal of General Internal Medicine 2013; 28:459-65. Pollack CE, Lemke KW, Roberts E, Weiner JP. Patient Sharing and Quality of Care Measuring Outcomes of Care Coordination Using Claims Data. Medical Care 2015; 53:317-23. Freeman G, Shepperd S, Robinson I, Ehrich K, Richards S, Pittman P. Continuity of care: report of a scoping exercise for the SDO programme of NHS R D. London: NHS Service Delivery and Organisation National Research and Development Programme 2000. Maeng DD, Martsolf GR, Scanlon DP, Christianson JB. Care Coordination for the Chronically Ill: Understanding the Patient's Perspective. Health Services Research 2012; 47:1960-79. Aragones A, Schaefer EW, Stevens D, Gourevitch MN, Glasgow RE, Shah NR. Validation of the Spanish translation of the Patient Assessment of Chronic Illness Care (PACIC) survey. Prev Chronic Dis 2008; 5:A113. Cramm JM, Nieboer AP. The chronic care model: congruency and predictors among patients with cardiovascular diseases and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease in the Netherlands. BMC Health Services Research 2012; 12:242. Gugiu C, Coryn CLS, Applegate B. Structure and measurement properties of the Patient Assessment of Chronic Illness Care instrument. Journal of Evaluation in Clinical Practice 2010; 16:509-16. Maindal HT, Sokolowski I, Vedsted P. Adaptation, data quality and confirmatory factor analysis of the Danish version of the PACIC questionnaire. European Journal of Public Health 2010; 22:31-6. McIntosh CN. Examining the factorial validity of selected modules from the Canadian survey of experiences with primary health care. Statistics Canada, Health Information and Research Division, 2008. Rick J, Rowe K, Hann M, et al. Psychometric properties of the patient assessment of chronic illness care measure: acceptability, reliability and validity in United Kingdom patients with long-term conditions. BMC Health Services Research 2012; 12:293. Chiu H-C, Hsieh H-M, Lin Y-C, et al. Patient assessment of diabetes care in a pay-for-performance program. International Journal for Quality in Health Care 2016; 28:183-90. Himelhoch S, Weller WE, Wu AW, Anderson GF, Cooper LA. Chronic medical illness, depression, and use of acute medical services among Medicare beneficiaries. Medical care 2004; 42:512-21. Islam MK, Kjerstad E. Co-ordination of health care: the case of hospital emergency admissions. European Journal of Health Economics 2019; 20:525-41. 張婷:初級照護品質與可避免急診之探討。健康政策與管理研究所: 臺灣大學, 2017: 109p。 CMS. Measure Information Form: Ambulatory Care-Sensitive Condition (ACSC) Composite Measures used in the 2018 Value Modifier. Available at: https://www.cms.gov/Medicare/Medicare-Fee-for-Service-Payment/PhysicianFeedbackProgram/Downloads/2016-ACSC-MIF.pdf. Accessed December 9, 2019. Skinner HG, Coffey R, Jones J, Heslin KC, Moy E. The effects of multiple chronic conditions on hospitalization costs and utilization for ambulatory care sensitive conditions in the United States: a nationally representative cross-sectional study. Bmc Health Services Research 2016; 16:8. Manzoli L, Flacco ME, De Vito C, et al. AHRQ prevention quality indicators to assess the quality of primary care of local providers: a pilot study from Italy. European Journal of Public Health 2013; 24:745-50. AHRQ. Prevention Quality Indicators Technical Specifications. Available at: https://www.qualityindicators.ahrq.gov/Modules/PQI_TechSpec_ICD10_v2019.aspx. Accessed October 23, 2019. Stewart M, Brown JB, Weston W, McWhinney IR, McWilliam CL, Freeman T. Patient-centered medicine: transforming the clinical method. BMJ 1995; 311:1580. 林佳慧、曾雯琦、蔣尚霖、蔣立琦:以病人為中心照護對臨床的成效。護理雜誌 2012; 59:104-10。 Remmers C, Hibbard J, Mosen DM, Wagenfield M, Hoye RE, Jones C. Is patient activation associated with future health outcomes and healthcare utilization among patients with diabetes? The Journal of ambulatory care management 2009; 32:320-7. National Quality Forum. Patient Reported Outcomes (PROs) in Performance Measurement. January 2013. 陳曉梅、趙淑員:骨科病人連續性照護與生活品質之相關性研究。澄清醫護管理雜誌 2017; 13:49-59。 陳曉梅、曾勤媛、陳靜敏、紀珮君、葉芳枝:連續性照護量表之發展與信效度檢定-於老年慢性病患出院準備服務之運用。護理暨健康照護研究 2013; 9:261-70。 姚開屏:健康相關生活品質概念與測量原理之簡介。台灣醫學 2002; 6:183-92。 Gargano JW, Reeves MJ. Sex differences in stroke recovery and stroke-specific quality of life: results from a statewide stroke registry. Stroke 2007; 38:2541-8. Siboni FS, Alimoradi Z, Atashi V, Alipour M, Khatooni M. Quality of life in different chronic diseases and its related factors. International journal of preventive medicine 2019; 10:65. Xie G, Laskowitz DT, Turner EL, et al. Baseline health-related quality of life and 10-year all-cause mortality among 1739 Chinese adults. PloS one 2014; 9:e101527. 盧瑞芬、曾旭民、蔡益堅:國人生活品質評量(Ⅰ):SF-36台灣版的發展及心理計量特質分析。台灣公共衛生雜誌 2003; 22:501-11。 Ware Jr JE, Sherbourne CD. The MOS 36-item short-form health survey (SF-36): I. Conceptual framework and item selection. Medical care 1992:473-83. 台灣版世界衛生組織生活品質問卷發展小組:台灣版世界衛生組織生活品質問卷之發展簡介。中華公共衛生雜誌 2000; 19:315-24。 World Health Organization. WHOQOL User Manual. Available at: https://apps.who.int/iris/bitstream/handle/10665/77932/WHO_HIS_HSI_Rev.2012.03_eng.pdf?sequence=1 isAllowed=y ua=1. Accessed January 3, 2020. 張千惠、鄭永福、金慧珍、李昕寧:台灣簡明版世界衛生組織生活品質問卷(WHOQOL-BREF)應用於重度視障成人樣本之信、效度考驗研究。教育心理學報 2013; 44:521-36。 EuroQol Research Foundation. EQ-5D-3L User Guide. Available at: https://euroqol.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/10/EQ-5D-3L-User-Guide_version-6.0.pdf. Accessed January 2, 2020. Lee HY, Hung MC, Hu FC, Chang YY, Hsieh CL, Wang JD. Estimating quality weights for EQ-5D (EuroQol-5 dimensions) health states with the time trade-off method in Taiwan. Journal of the Formosan Medical Association 2013; 112:699-706. The EuroQol Group. EuroQol-a new facility for the measurement of health-related quality of life. Health policy 1990; 16:199-208. Chang TJ, Tarn YH, Hsieh CL, Liou WS, Shaw JW, Chiou XG. Taiwanese version of the EQ-5D: Validation in a representative sample of the Taiwanese population. Journal of the Formosan Medical Association 2007; 106:1023-31. SAS. A Guide to the PROC CALIS Documentation. Available at: https://documentation.sas.com/?docsetId=statug docsetTarget=statug_calis_overview09.htm docsetVersion=15.1 locale=en. Accessed May 12, 2020. Meyer EP, Kaiser HF, Cerny BA, Green BF. MSA FOR A SPECIAL SPEARMAN MATRIX. Psychometrika 1977; 42:153-6. Hu Lt, Bentler PM. Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural equation modeling: a multidisciplinary journal 1999; 6:1-55. Baumgartner H, Homburg C. Applications of structural equation modeling in marketing and consumer research: A review. International journal of Research in Marketing 1996; 13:139-61. McDonald RP, Marsh HW. Choosing a multivariate model: Noncentrality and goodness of fit. Psychological bulletin 1990; 107:247. Bentler PM, Bonett DG. Significance tests and goodness of fit in the analysis of covariance structures. Psychological bulletin 1980; 88:588. Burr RL. STRUCTURAL EQUATIONS MODELING WITH LISREL - HAYDUK,LA. Research in Nursing Health 1988; 11:352-3. MacCallum RC, Browne MW, Sugawara HM. Power analysis and determination of sample size for covariance structure modeling. Psychological Methods 1996; 1:130-49. | |
| dc.identifier.uri | http://tdr.lib.ntu.edu.tw/jspui/handle/123456789/60450 | - |
| dc.description.abstract | 背景:慢性疾病成為全球健康十大威脅之一,臺灣又因醫療專業高度分工導致片段式醫療問題,然而透過照護協調性的提升可有效的解決片段式照護問題,進而提升慢性病患之照護結果。目的:採用病患照護評估問卷,探討慢性病患照護評估與健康生活品質之關係。方法:本研究針對20歲以上患有糖尿病、高血壓、慢性阻塞性肺疾病、氣喘、心臟衰竭以及慢性腎臟病中任一種疾病以上滿六個月之慢性病患進行收案。因應COVID-19疫情影響,問卷收集共有兩種方式,紙本問卷的收案於2020年1月12日至2020年2月20日進行,紙本有效問卷115份,疫情爆發前與台北市北投區社區醫療群合作進行收案,疫情爆發後於無法繼續於北投社區醫療群收案,改以訪員居住地新北市新店區進行立意取樣搭配滾雪球的方式收案,針對填寫紙本問卷的對象進行首次收案日後30/90日內的電訪追蹤照護結果;網路問卷的收案疫情爆發後的2020年2月7日至2020年3月1日進行一次性的調查,網路有效問卷200份。本研究使用中文版病人慢性病照顧評估(Patient Assessment of Chronic Illness Care, PACIC)問卷測量病患照護評估,以EQ-5D量表及EQ視覺化量表(Visual Analogue Scale, VAS)測量健康生活品質,及追蹤30及90日健康生活品質,以複線性迴歸探討慢性病患照護評估與健康生活品質之關係,再以逐步複迴歸探討PACIC哪些面向與健康生活品質有關。結果:較高的PACIC分數,有較高的90日EQ-VAS;再者,無論在橫斷性或30/90日追蹤研究中,PACIC問卷中「問題解決」面向的分數愈高,皆有愈高的健康生活品質。結論:慢性病患照護評估與較高的90日健康生活品質有相關。透過病患的觀點了解到,醫療提供者於制定治療計畫時,考慮潛在的障礙,包含了解病人其疾病對日常生活的影響並於制定治療方案時考量病患的價值觀或文化習慣、提供日常生活就能做到的治療方案以及訂定病情加重時的應變措施等,可促進慢性病患之健康生活品質。 | zh_TW |
| dc.description.abstract | Background: Chronic conditions have been listed among the top ten global health threats. In Taiwan, high degrees of work specialization in medical fields have contributed to the existence of fragmented medical care problem. However, by improving care coordination, we can effectively solve the problems of fragmented care and further enhance the outcomes of care for patients with chronic conditions. Objective: We explore the relationship between chronic care assessment and health-related quality of life using patient assessment of chronic care questionnaire. Method: Our research subjects included patients over 20 years of age who suffered from chronic diabetes, hypertension, obstructive pulmonary disease, asthma, heart failure, or chronic kidney disease for six months or more. Due to the COVID-19 pandemic, questionnaires were collected in two manners. First, hard copies were collected from January 12, 2020 through February 20, 2020, with a total of 115 valid responses. However, prior to the outbreak of COVID-19, we partnered with the community medical group in the Beitou District, Taipei City to collect data. However, after the onset of the pandemic, we were unable to continue our original plan. Instead, we collected data from subjects in the Xindian District, New Taipei City, where the interviewer resided, by means of purposive sampling alongside with snowball sampling. For subjects who filled out hard copies, telephone interviews were conducted 30 and 90 days after first data collection to track their care outcomes. After the outbreak of COVID-19, a one-off online questionnaire was conducted from February 7, 2020 through March 1, 2020, with a total of 200 valid responses recovered. In this study, the Chinese version of Patient Assessment of Chronic Illness Care (PACIC) was used to measure patient care assessment, and the EQ-5D and EQ Visual Analogue Scale (VAS) were employed to measure and track the health-related quality of life in 30 and 90 days. Multiple linear regression analysis was performed to explore the relationship between chronic patient care assessment and health-related quality of life; furthermore, stepwise multiple regression analysis was carried out to investigate which aspects of PACIC were related to health-related quality of life. Results: Patients with a higher PACIC score showed a higher EQ-VAS value in 90 days. Moreover, both in the cross-sectional study or the 30/90 day follow-up study, patients obtaining higher scores in the “problem solving” subscale in the PACIC questionnaire all displayed higher health-related quality of life. Conclusion: Chronic care assessment is related with higher health-related quality of life in 90 days. Through the perspective of patients, it can be seen that while formulating treatment plans, it will be helpful in improve the health-related quality of life for patients with chronic conditions if medical providers consider their potential obstacles, which include the impact of the patients’ conditions on their daily lives, while also taking into account of the patients’ values or cultural practices. In addition, providing treatment plans that can be easily executed in their everyday life, as well as devising contingency measures to deal with worsening conditions should also be considered. | en |
| dc.description.provenance | Made available in DSpace on 2021-06-16T10:18:31Z (GMT). No. of bitstreams: 1 U0001-0607202013312700.pdf: 6624923 bytes, checksum: 378bc829116d562a334eaf2c22f4332d (MD5) Previous issue date: 2020 | en |
| dc.description.tableofcontents | 誌謝 i 中文摘要 ii Abstract iii 目錄 v 圖目錄 viii 表目錄 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 慢性疾病之定義與重要性 4 一、 慢性疾病的定義 4 二、 慢性疾病的現況 4 三、 慢性疾病照護的重要性 5 四、 慢性病照護模式之介紹 5 第二節 照護協調性之介紹 8 一、 照護協調性的定義 8 二、 照護協調性測量框架 11 三、 病患觀點的照護協調性 12 四、 測量工具選擇與介紹 13 第三節 慢性疾病之照護結果測量 15 一、 臨床結果 15 二、 以病人為中心的照護結果 17 第四節 病患照護評估對慢性病照護結果影響之實證研究 21 第五節 文獻小節 24 第三章 研究方法 25 第一節 研究架構 25 第二節 研究假說 27 第三節 研究對象 28 第四節 資料收集方法 29 一、 資料收集方法 29 二、 研究工具 30 三、 資料處理 34 第五節 研究變項 35 第六節 統計分析方法 39 第四章 研究結果 41 第一節 問卷信效度檢驗分析 41 第二節 受訪者特徵與各變項分布情形 43 第三節 研究自變項與各變項之雙變量分析 50 一、 研究目的(一):研究自變項之雙變量分析 50 二、 研究目的(二):研究自變項之雙變量分析 54 三、 研究目的(三):研究自變項之雙變量分析 57 第四節 研究依變項與控制變項之雙變量分析 66 一、 研究目的(一):研究依變項之雙變量分析 66 二、 研究目的(二):研究依變項之雙變量分析 70 三、 研究目的(三):研究依變項之雙變量分析 73 第五節 研究變項與照護結果之多變量分析 85 一、 研究目的(一)之多變量分析 85 二、 研究目的(二)之多變量分析 88 三、 研究目的(三)之多變量分析 90 四、 PACIC問卷面向與健康生活品質之多變量分析 99 第五章 討論 100 第一節 研究方法討論 100 第二節 研究結果討論 102 第三節 研究限制 107 第六章 結論與建議 108 第一節 結論 108 第二節 建議 109 參考文獻 110 附錄一 病人慢性病照顧評估問卷 117 附錄二 研究受試者說明及同意書 122 附錄三 EQ-5D-3L使用授權書 127 | |
| dc.language.iso | zh-TW | |
| dc.subject | 病患照護評估 | zh_TW |
| dc.subject | EQ-5D | zh_TW |
| dc.subject | 健康生活品質 | zh_TW |
| dc.subject | 病患觀點照護協調性 | zh_TW |
| dc.subject | PACIC | zh_TW |
| dc.subject | 慢性病 | zh_TW |
| dc.subject | Patient assessment of care | en |
| dc.subject | health-related quality of life | en |
| dc.subject | PACIC | en |
| dc.subject | EQ-5D | en |
| dc.subject | Chronic diseases | en |
| dc.subject | Care coordination from patient’s perspective | en |
| dc.title | 病患評估慢性病照護與健康生活品質之關係 | zh_TW |
| dc.title | The Association Between Patient Assessment of Chronic Illness Care and Health-Related Quality of life | en |
| dc.type | Thesis | |
| dc.date.schoolyear | 108-2 | |
| dc.description.degree | 碩士 | |
| dc.contributor.oralexamcommittee | 楊銘欽(Ming-Chin Yang),李玉春(Yue-Chune Lee) | |
| dc.subject.keyword | 慢性病,病患照護評估,PACIC,病患觀點照護協調性,健康生活品質,EQ-5D, | zh_TW |
| dc.subject.keyword | Chronic diseases,Patient assessment of care,PACIC,Care coordination from patient’s perspective,health-related quality of life,EQ-5D, | en |
| dc.relation.page | 127 | |
| dc.identifier.doi | 10.6342/NTU202001337 | |
| dc.rights.note | 有償授權 | |
| dc.date.accepted | 2020-07-13 | |
| 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 | |
|---|---|---|---|
| U0001-0607202013312700.pdf 未授權公開取用 | 6.47 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。
