請用此 Handle URI 來引用此文件:
http://tdr.lib.ntu.edu.tw/jspui/handle/123456789/85773完整後設資料紀錄
| DC 欄位 | 值 | 語言 |
|---|---|---|
| dc.contributor.advisor | 陳雅美(Ya-Mei Chen) | |
| dc.contributor.author | HUI-HUA CHEN | en |
| dc.contributor.author | 陳惠華 | zh_TW |
| dc.date.accessioned | 2023-03-19T23:23:56Z | - |
| dc.date.copyright | 2022-10-20 | |
| dc.date.issued | 2022 | |
| dc.date.submitted | 2022-09-24 | |
| dc.identifier.citation | Aldridge, M. D., Hasselaar, J., Garralda, E., van der Eerden, M., Stevenson, D., McKendrick, K., Centeno, C., & Meier, D. E. (2016, Mar). Education, implementation, and policy barriers to greater integration of palliative care: A literature review. Palliat Med, 30(3), 224-239. https://doi.org/10.1177/0269216315606645 Amroud, M. S., Raeissi, P., Hashemi, S. M., Reisi, N., & Ahmadi, S. A. (2021). Investigating the challenges and barriers of palliative care delivery in Iran and the World: A systematic review study. J Educ Health Promot, 10, 246. https://doi.org/10.4103/jehp.jehp_1325_20 Bennardi, M., Diviani, N., Gamondi, C., Stüssi, G., Saletti, P., Cinesi, I., & Rubinelli, S. (2020, Apr 13). Palliative care utilization in oncology and hemato-oncology: a systematic review of cognitive barriers and facilitators from the perspective of healthcare professionals, adult patients, and their families. BMC Palliat Care, 19(1), 47. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12904-020-00556-7 Centeno, C., Garralda, E., Carrasco, J. M., den Herder-van der Eerden, M., Aldridge, M., Stevenson, D., Meier, D. E., & Hasselaar, J. (2017, Nov). The Palliative Care Challenge: Analysis of Barriers and Opportunities to Integrate Palliative Care in Europe in the View of National Associations. J Palliat Med, 20(11), 1195-1204. https://doi.org/10.1089/jpm.2017.0039 Chang, H. T., Lin, M. H., Kuo, W. H., Chen, C. K., Chen, T. J., & Hwang, S. J. (2021, Sep 21). Primary care staff's willingness to participate in compassionate community network and palliative care and the barriers they face: a mixed methods study. BMJ Open, 11(9), e046961. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2020-046961 Chen, T. R., Hu, W. Y., Two, S. N., & Chiu, T. Y. (2019, Apr 1). What influences the willingness of cancer patients to receive hospice palliative care at end of life? Jpn J Clin Oncol, 49(4), 361-366. https://doi.org/10.1093/jjco/hyy199 Dai, Y. X., Chen, T. J., & Lin, M. H. (2017, Jan). Branding Palliative Care Units by Avoiding the Terms 'Palliative' and 'Hospice'. Inquiry, 54, 46958016686449. https://doi.org/10.1177/0046958016686449 Dalgaard, K. M., Bergenholtz, H., Nielsen, M. E., & Timm, H. (2014, Dec). Early integration of palliative care in hospitals: A systematic review on methods, barriers, and outcome. Palliat Support Care, 12(6), 495-513. https://doi.org/10.1017/s1478951513001338 Glass, A. P., Chen, L. K., Hwang, E., Ono, Y., & Nahapetyan, L. (2010, Mar). A cross-cultural comparison of hospice development in Japan, South Korea, and Taiwan. J Cross Cult Gerontol, 25(1), 1-19. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10823-009-9108-8 Hui, D., Hannon, B. L., Zimmermann, C., & Bruera, E. (2018, Sep). Improving patient and caregiver outcomes in oncology: Team-based, timely, and targeted palliative care. CA Cancer J Clin, 68(5), 356-376. https://doi.org/10.3322/caac.21490 Jordan, R. I., Allsop, M. J., ElMokhallalati, Y., Jackson, C. E., Edwards, H. L., Chapman, E. J., Deliens, L., & Bennett, M. I. (2020, 2020/11/26). Duration of palliative care before death in international routine practice: a systematic review and meta-analysis. BMC Medicine, 18(1), 368. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12916-020-01829-x Lin, C. P., Evans, C. J., Koffman, J., Sheu, S. J., Hsu, S. H., & Harding, R. (2019, Dec). What influences patients' decisions regarding palliative care in advance care planning discussions? Perspectives from a qualitative study conducted with advanced cancer patients, families and healthcare professionals. Palliat Med, 33(10), 1299-1309. https://doi.org/10.1177/0269216319866641 Lin, W. C., & Fan, S. Y. (2020, Dec). Emotional and cognitive barriers of bereavement care among clinical staff in hospice palliative care. Palliat Support Care, 18(6), 676-682. https://doi.org/10.1017/s147895152000022x Oechsle, K. (2019, Mar 12). Current Advances in Palliative & Hospice Care: Problems and Needs of Relatives and Family Caregivers During Palliative and Hospice Care-An Overview of Current Literature. Med Sci (Basel), 7(3). https://doi.org/10.3390/medsci7030043 Parajuli, J., & Hupcey, J. E. (2021, Nov). A Systematic Review on Barriers to Palliative Care in Oncology. Am J Hosp Palliat Care, 38(11), 1361-1377. https://doi.org/10.1177/1049909120983283 Patton, M. Q. (2014). Qualitative research & evaluation methods: Integrating theory and practice. Sage publications. Peng, J. K., Chiu, T. Y., Hu, W. Y., Lin, C. C., Chen, C. Y., & Hung, S. H. (2013, Mar). What influences the willingness of community physicians to provide palliative care for patients with terminal cancer? Evidence from a nationwide survey. Jpn J Clin Oncol, 43(3), 278-285. https://doi.org/10.1093/jjco/hys222 Phongtankuel, V., Burchett, C. O., Shalev, A., Adelman, R. D., Prigerson, H. G., Czaja, S. J., Dignam, R., Baughn, R., & Reid, M. C. (2019, Sep). Perceptions of a Home Hospice Crisis: An Exploratory Study of Family Caregivers. J Palliat Med, 22(9), 1046-1051. https://doi.org/10.1089/jpm.2018.0511 Rao, S. R., Gupta, M., & Salins, N. (2021, Feb 9). The Concept of Respite in Palliative Care: Definitions and Discussions. Curr Oncol Rep, 23(2), 25. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11912-021-01015-z Rees-Roberts, M., Williams, P., Hashem, F., Brigden, C., Greene, K., Gage, H., Goodwin, M., Silsbury, G., Wee, B., Barclay, S., Wilson, P. M., & Butler, C. (2021, Dec). Hospice at Home services in England: a national survey. BMJ Support Palliat Care, 11(4), 454-460. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjspcare-2019-001818 Sedhom, R., Gupta, A., & Smith, T. J. (2021, Feb). Short Hospice Length of Service in a Comprehensive Cancer Center. J Palliat Med, 24(2), 257-260. https://doi.org/10.1089/jpm.2019.0634 Sepúlveda, C., Marlin, A., Yoshida, T., & Ullrich, A. (2002, 2002/08/01/). Palliative Care: The World Health Organization's Global Perspective. Journal of Pain and Symptom Management, 24(2), 91-96. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/S0885-3924(02)00440-2 Shih, C. Y., Hu, W. Y., Cheng, S. Y., Yao, C. A., Chen, C. Y., Lin, Y. C., & Chiu, T. Y. (2015, Jul). Patient Preferences versus Family Physicians' Perceptions Regarding the Place of End-of-Life Care and Death: A Nationwide Study in Taiwan. J Palliat Med, 18(7), 625-630. https://doi.org/10.1089/jpm.2014.0386 Strauss, A., & Corbin, J. (2018). 質性研究入門:紮根理論研究方法(吳芝儀、廖梅花譯;12版). 濤石。(原著出版於1998). Tatum, P. E., & Mills, S. S. (2020, May). Hospice and Palliative Care: An Overview. Med Clin North Am, 104(3), 359-373. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.mcna.2020.01.001 中央健康保險署(2022,5月20日).安寧療護(住院、居家、共照及社區).https://www.nhi.gov.tw/Content_List.aspx?n=46505DE49DF0AA0B&topn=0B69A546F5DF84DC 田知學(2019).父親教會我的一堂生命之課.安寧照顧會訊,29-31。 李岳庭(2020).預立醫療照護諮商與諮商倫理.應用倫理評論,(69),259-275。 林家伃、胡中傑、劉夷生、李隆軍(2016).安寧居家服務簡介.家庭醫學與基層醫療,31(9),313-318。 林明慧、陳小妮、杜淑文(2016).建立以實證為基礎之安寧居家臨終病人照顧方案.臺北榮民總醫院家庭醫學部安寧療護科研究計畫(編號:V105C-065 ),。 林益卿、盧建中、林盈利、徐慧娟、楊佩玉(2011).台日安寧療護發展之比較.安寧療護雜誌,16(2),133-150。https://doi.org/10.6537/tjhpc.2011.16(2).1 林惠如(2016).活化安寧宅配:居家護理人員提供老人在宅善終之增能發展.國立臺北護理健康大學護理系(所)(計畫編號PC10702-1227 ),。 胡文郁、趙可式、陳慶餘、張黎露、張啟仁、王正旭(2011).民眾與醫護人員對癌末病人使用安寧療護認知與阻礙因素之調查研究.台灣安寧緩和護理學會研究計畫(編號:DOH100-HP-1503 ),。 翁益強(2011).安寧居家療護.健康世界,(302),51-55。https://doi.org/10.6454/hw.201102.0051 翁瑞萱、徐愫萱、施至遠、黃勝堅(2015).臺灣社區安寧居家療護之現在與未來.護理雜誌,62(2),18-24。https://doi.org/10.6224/jn.62.2.18 翁瑞萱、徐愫萱、洪香蓮、劉旭華、李佩璇、洪毓謙、賴俊夫、劉嘉仁、黃勝堅、施至遠(2013).台灣的末期病人有機會壽終正寢嗎?-在宅往生課題之探討.安寧療護雜誌,18(3),320-329。https://doi.org/10.6537/tjhpc.2013.18(3).6 馬瑞菊、林佩璇、蕭嘉瑩、蘇珉一(2020).健康照護者之死亡識能概念分析.馬偕護理雜誌,14(1),7-13。https://doi.org/10.29415/jmkn.202001_14(1).0001 張淑真、机昑惠、黃靜宜(2002).主要照顧者對安寧居家療護照護需求之看法及其滿意度.彰化醫學雜誌,7(3),160-167。 張綉鳳、呂敏吉、劉秀雯(2015).陪伴生命末期病人及家屬居家安寧療護善終之經驗-個案報告.北市醫學雜誌,12,161-167。https://doi.org/10.6200/tcmj.2015.12.Sp.15 張嘉秀、葉淑惠(2014).讓逝者適得其所-臺灣長期照護機構推行安寧療護之現況與展望.長期照護雜誌,18(2),175-192。https://doi.org/10.6317/ltc.18.175 莊美幸、高睿晨、陳瑞泉、許良豪、莊迺傑、楊佳莉、侯君穎、楊秉鈞(2019).居家醫療個案接受安寧療護之相關因素.台灣家庭醫學雜誌,29(2),80-89。https://doi.org/10.3966/168232812019062902003 許禮安(2002).病情世界初探-由病情告知談起.安寧療護雜誌,7(3),239-251。https://doi.org/10.6537/tjhpc.2002.7(3).7 許禮安、黃裕雯、高碧月、高以信、根秀卿、許煌汶(2018).安寧緩和療護(二版,4頁).華杏。 陳品元、李玉春、陳雅美(2017).家庭照顧者之正、負向照顧經驗與健康相關生活品質關係探討.長期照護雜誌,21(3),285-302。https://doi.org/10.6317/ltc.21.285 黃郁珊、黃淑鶴(2017).台灣居家安寧療護面臨困境之探討.安寧療護雜誌,22(2),180-191。https://doi.org/10.6537/tjhpc.2017.22(2).4 趙可式(1996).臨終病人的病情告知.安寧療護雜誌,(1),20-24。https://doi.org/10.6537/tjhpc.1996.1(1).4 趙可式(1997).台灣癌症末期病患對善終意義的體認.安寧療護雜誌,(5),51-61。https://doi.org/10.6537/tjhpc.1997.2(3).7 趙可式(2002).安寧住院暨居家療護服務檢討工作計畫.行政院衛生署國民健康局委託研究計畫(編號:BHP91) 趙可式(2009).台灣安寧療護的發展與前瞻.護理雜誌,56(1),5-10。https://doi.org/10.6224/jn.56.1.5 趙可式(2020).安寧緩和療護中的心理護理.志為護理-慈濟護理雜誌,19(1),30-33。 歐怡秋(2020).探索癌症病人終止抗癌治療及接受安寧療護決策之觀點〔未出版之碩士論文〕。國立臺灣大學健康政策與管理研究所。 潘淑滿(2019).深度訪談法.質性研究理論與應用(初版,144-158頁).心理。 衛生福利部國民健康署(2022,8月1日).即時介入提升病後生命品質.https://www.hpa.gov.tw/Pages/Detail.aspx?nodeid=4306&pid=13907 衛生福利部統計處(2022,8月20日).110年國人死因統計結果.https://dep.mohw.gov.tw/DOS/lp-5069-113-xCat-y110.html 賴維淑、楊婉萍、施雅蘭、趙可式(2009).運用安寧療護理念於癌末病人之出院準備服務.護理雜誌,56(2),94-100。https://doi.org/10.6224/jn.56.2.94 謝秋菊、李麗雲、周繡玲、簡淑慧(2012).探討推動安寧療護之障礙因子及其應對策略建議.腫瘤護理雜誌,12(2),51-59。https://doi.org/10.6880/tjon.201212_12(2).05 鍾昌宏(2014).安寧療護面面觀.聲洋防癌之聲,(146),7-10。https://doi.org/10.6321/sydf.201412_(146).0002 | |
| dc.identifier.uri | http://tdr.lib.ntu.edu.tw/jspui/handle/123456789/85773 | - |
| dc.description.abstract | 研究背景:安寧療護是整合人性與科技的醫療,世界衛生組織(WHO)已將其視為公共衛生問題,整合到現有的醫療保健體系中。生命末期的病患應回歸社區照護,減少在院死亡,接受居家安寧療護,舒適尊嚴的走最後一哩路。台灣安寧療護推動30多年,依據健保署統計2021年死亡前接受居家安寧療護比率,在全國為9.6%,而彰化縣僅有7.6%;在彰化社區居家安寧療護申請案件中,9成個案申請到死亡天數小於2週,相較英國從轉介緩和療護至死亡中位時間為41天,這些實證資料顯示彰化縣需要提高安寧療護比率,且需要有充足的時間申請。 目的:本研究目的透過質性訪談主題分析法,探討民眾使用與不使用居家安寧療護的原因,以了解使用居家安寧的障礙因素及促成因素。 方法:主要採用質性研究,透過使用半結構式問卷、深度訪談符合居家安寧療護條件之個案或家屬,完成資料收集,再運用主題分析法,將關鍵字概念化,逐步歸類,選擇能彰顯研究主題的主軸概念。在資料分析方面,依據居家安寧療護使用情形,分為三組,不用組、使用組及晚用組,分別計算關鍵字出現比率,比較三組別在使用居家安寧療護的障礙因素及促成因素之差異。 結果:共訪談10位生命末期個案之家屬,訪談內容常出現的關鍵字共174個、411頻次,將其分類並概念化,得到25個概念,依據研究問題選出24個概念,再歸納彙整成9個次主題及4個主題,最後歸類為「障礙因素」與「促成因素」兩大類別。使用居家安寧療護的兩大障礙因素為「認知差異」及「照顧負荷」,認知差異為對居家安寧療護的看法,在個案、家庭、文化與資訊等因素產生差異;照顧負荷主要是家庭照顧者的負荷,不敢面對親人死亡及照顧疲憊產生的身心負荷,也有被照顧者擔憂增加家人負荷。使用居家安寧療護的兩大促成因素為「照護需求」及「心理平安」,照顧需求意指末期病人受病痛折磨,為求減輕痛苦、希望得到生活照顧及專業服務之照護需求;心理平安為有接受死亡的心理準備,對安寧有正面印象,病患有表達在宅善終的想法。進一步將訪談對象分為「不用」、「使用」及「晚用」居家安寧療護三個組別分析,發現1.使用組相較不用組有較高比率接受死亡 (13.9% vs 0%)、對安寧比較有正面印象(3.9% vs 0%) 及病患有表達想回家或在家往生的想法(15.7% vs 1.9%)、不避談死亡及不隱瞞病情、有較高的照顧心理負擔(14.8% vs 3.7%)。2.不用組相較使用組有較高比率的認知差異(48.2% vs 8.1%)。3.三組(不用、使用及晚用組) 的受訪者表示有病痛折磨這個概念的比率都比其概念高(21.3% vs 22.4% vs 23.7%)。 結論:根據本研究的實證結果建議推動居家安寧療護,首先必須克服認知差異,增進醫病溝通,即早啟動生命議題的討論,並以「舒適醫療」用語替代「安寧療護」,提高病患的接受度。同時必須減輕照顧者心理負擔,建立末期個案返家之「舒適醫療宅配服務」配套與流程,意指病患出院時銜接居家安寧療護,並提供居家照護指導及諮詢專線。另須滿足舒適照護需求,以病患舒適為優先照護目標,減輕病患痛苦的症狀,並結合長照服務,提供生活照顧及專業服務。幫助病患及家屬增進心理平安,以「想不想回家,醫師及護理師到家服務」來啟動安寧的對話,協助返家善終、儘早做死亡準備。這樣做能克服居家安寧療護推動障礙,並增進促成因素。 | zh_TW |
| dc.description.abstract | Research Background:Hospice care is a medical treatment that integrates humanity and technology. The World Health Organization (WHO) has recognized it as a public health issue and integrated it into the existing health care system. Terminally illness patients should return to community care, reduce in-hospital deaths, receive hospice home care, and have peaceful and dignified end-of-life. Hospice care in Taiwan has been promoted for more than 30 years. However, according to the statistics of the National Health Insurance Administration in 2021, the rate of receiving hospice care at home before death in Taiwan is 9.6%, while only 7.6% in Changhua County. In addition, 90% of applicants in Changhua County were less than two weeks before death, shorter than the median days of 41 days from hospice care to death in the United Kingdom. Such us an evidence-based information suggests Changhua County needs to increase the hospice care rate and needs to have enough time to apply. Research Objective:Using the qualitative interview thematic analysis method, to Explore the reasons for adopted and not adopted hospice home care and to understand the impedimental and contributory factors of hospice home care. Method:This qualitative research was conducted with semi-structured in-depth interviews with patients or family members who qualify for home palliative care. Thematic analysis was adopted to conceptualize the keywords of interview transcripts, categorize the concepts, and select the main concept which can highlight the research theme. In addition, the participants were allocated to the three groups according to the different conditions of hospice home care: not adopted vs. adopted vs. late adopted. Finally, the researcher calculated the appearance rate of concepts' keywords, comparing the impedimental and contributory factors between the three groups. Result:A total of 10 family members of Terminally illness patients were interviewed. There were 174 keywords and 411 frequencies frequently appearing in the interview content. They were categorized and conceptualized to obtain 25 concepts. According to the research questions, 24 concepts were selected and summarized into nine sub-themes and four themes, and finally grouped into 'impedimental factors' and ' contributory factors.' The two significant impedimental factors to hospice home care are 'cognitive differences' and ' care burden.' Cognitive differences are perceptions of hospice home care, which vary among individuals, families, cultures, and information differences. The care burden is mainly from family caregivers, who are afraid to face the death of their relatives and their exhaustion from taking care of patients. Some patients are worried about increasing the load on their families. The two major contributory factors to the adopted of hospice home care are 'care needs' and 'psychological safety.' Care needs refer to terminally illness patients suffering from illness and need to relieve their pain and hope to receive life care and professional services. Psychological safety is the psychological preparation to accept death and having a positive impression of hospice care and patient expresses thoughts of wanting to go home or die at home. Comparing three groups, 'not adopted,' ' adopted,' and 'late adopted,' this research demonstrated that 1. Compared with the not adopted groups, the adopted group had a higher rate of accepting death (13.9% vs 0%), having a positive impression of hospice care (3.9% vs 0%), patient expresses thoughts of wanting to go home or die at home (15.7% vs 1.9%), do not avoid talking about death and tell the truth, had a higher rate of care burden (14.8% vs 3.7%). 2.Compared with the adopted group, the not adopted group has higher rate of cognitive differences (48.2% vs 8.1%). 3. All three groups have higher rates of pain and illness suffering (21.3% vs 22.4% vs 23.7%). Conclusion:The current findings, the result suggest that promoting hospice home care must first overcome cognitive differences, improve clinician-patient communication, initiate discussions on life issues as early as possible and replace 'hospice care' with the term 'comfortable medical care' to improve patient acceptance. Meanwhile, reducing caregiver psychological burden and establishing a 'comfortable medical home delivery'. Linking hospice home care with the discharge of hospitalization provides. provide home care guidance and consultation hotlines. In addition, the care team must meet the care needs, prioritize patient comfort, and alleviate the patient's distressing symptoms, and provide professional and daily life care in combination with long-term care services. Help patients and their families to improve their psychological safety, 'Would you like to go home? Doctors and nurses will serve at home” to start a hospice dialogue, assist in returning home for good death and prepare for death early. So doing will promote hospice home care to overcome the impedimental and enhance the contributory factors. | en |
| dc.description.provenance | Made available in DSpace on 2023-03-19T23:23:56Z (GMT). No. of bitstreams: 1 U0001-2009202200120800.pdf: 2288975 bytes, checksum: dca42d248c8df351c12c3130b74ef3e5 (MD5) Previous issue date: 2022 | en |
| dc.description.tableofcontents | 口試委員審定書 i 謝辭 ii 中文摘要 iii Abstract v 目錄 viii 圖目錄 x 表目錄 xi 第一章 導論 1 第一節 實習單位特色與簡介 1 第二節 研究背景 2 第三節 研究問題與目的 2 第二章 文獻回顧 3 第一節 緩和治療與安寧療護 3 第三節 台灣推動居家安寧療護的經驗 5 第四節 國外推動緩和治療及居家安寧療護的經驗 8 第五節 推動居家安寧療護的因子與相關建議 9 第三章 研究方法 11 第一節 研究設計 11 第二節 研究對象 11 第三節 研究架構 12 第四節 研究流程 12 第五節 研究工具 13 第六節 資料分析 14 第七節 研究嚴謹性與研究倫理 16 第四章 研究結果 17 第一節 資料飽和檢視 17 第二節 研究對象背景描述 18 第三節 訪談資料分析結果 19 第四節 綜合整理 30 第五章 討論與限制 36 第一節 受訪對象 37 第二節 居家安寧療護的障礙因素 37 第三節 居家安寧療護的促成因素 38 第四節 心理平安促成不後悔在宅善終的選擇 39 第五節 使用居家安寧療護對家屬的心理負擔較高 39 第六節 末期病患喘息服務使用少 40 第七節 談論死亡的藝術 41 第八節 研究限制 42 第六章 結論與建議 43 參考文獻 45 附錄1 50 附錄2 51 | |
| dc.language.iso | zh-TW | |
| dc.subject | 促成因素 | zh_TW |
| dc.subject | 在宅善終 | zh_TW |
| dc.subject | 安寧療護 | zh_TW |
| dc.subject | 障礙因素 | zh_TW |
| dc.subject | 居家安寧 | zh_TW |
| dc.subject | good death at home | en |
| dc.subject | hospice home care | en |
| dc.subject | hospice care | en |
| dc.subject | impedimental factors | en |
| dc.subject | contributory factors | en |
| dc.title | 探討使用居家安寧療護的障礙因素及促成因素-以彰化縣為例 | zh_TW |
| dc.title | Impedimental and Contributory Factor of Hospice Home Care the Example of Changhua County | en |
| dc.type | Thesis | |
| dc.date.schoolyear | 110-2 | |
| dc.description.degree | 碩士 | |
| dc.contributor.coadvisor | 陳秀熙(Hsiu-Hsi Chen),葉彥伯(Yen-Po Yeh) | |
| dc.contributor.oralexamcommittee | 林盈利(Ying-Li Lin) | |
| dc.subject.keyword | 居家安寧,安寧療護,障礙因素,促成因素,在宅善終, | zh_TW |
| dc.subject.keyword | hospice home care,hospice care,impedimental factors,contributory factors,good death at home, | en |
| dc.relation.page | 51 | |
| dc.identifier.doi | 10.6342/NTU202203614 | |
| dc.rights.note | 同意授權(全球公開) | |
| dc.date.accepted | 2022-09-26 | |
| dc.contributor.author-college | 公共衛生學院 | zh_TW |
| dc.contributor.author-dept | 公共衛生碩士學位學程 | zh_TW |
| dc.date.embargo-lift | 2023-09-26 | - |
| 顯示於系所單位: | 公共衛生碩士學位學程 | |
文件中的檔案:
| 檔案 | 大小 | 格式 | |
|---|---|---|---|
| U0001-2009202200120800.pdf | 2.24 MB | Adobe PDF | 檢視/開啟 |
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。
