臺灣博碩士論文加值系統

有關老年人生活品質之研究隨著人口結構的改變和不同專業間的共同關懷已有相當豐富的發現，但是針對老榮民的研究卻不多見。就數量而言，民國90年底65歲以上榮民的人口數約佔全國老人的18.5﹪，而且對於居住於機構的老榮民通常又較其他的老榮民，在身體功能上更差，經濟安全、資源擁有或社會支持上都較弱勢。基於對老榮民的關心，本研究主要目的在於探討榮家榮民之健康相關生活品質及其影響因素，本研究設計屬於橫斷性研究，採用台灣簡明版世界衛生組織生活品質問卷，研究對象為台灣北部地區行政院退輔會所屬之榮家或自費安養中心之內住榮民，按照各榮家之內住榮民人數進行方便取樣，共面對面訪問約15﹪之內住榮民為研究樣本，完成692份有效問卷。主要的研究結果發現：
一、受訪榮家榮民之主要基本特質為：平均年齡77.82歲、平均軍中服務
時間21.45年、66.5﹪的榮民退伍階級為士官（含士官長）、平均住
榮家時間為8.99年、57.6﹪的榮民從未結婚、52.0﹪的榮民最高學歷
為識字或小學程度、84.1﹪的榮民主要經濟收入來源為榮民生活給
與。
二、受訪榮家榮民之主要健康狀況為：39.4﹪的榮民自覺健康狀況普通、
57.3﹪的榮民日常活動能力為能夠步行及維持輕度工作、37.6﹪的榮
民自覺快樂程度普通、88.2﹪的榮民有1種以上的慢性病、平均每位
榮民有2.07種慢性病、76.6﹪的榮民近三個月曾看門診、11.2﹪的榮
民近一年曾看急診、22.9﹪的榮民近一年曾住過院，81.0﹪的榮民曾
作過一年一次之老人健康檢查、9.8﹪的榮民近三個月曾跌倒過。
三、受訪榮家榮民自述慢性病種類，罹病率最高的前三種疾病為高血壓
（41.8﹪）、骨骼肌肉系統疾病（32.9﹪）、心臟血管疾病
（26.3﹪）。在榮家榮民健康習慣方面，每天都會從事的最高前兩種
生活習慣為：每天規律運動30分鐘以上（78.6﹪）、每天有抽煙的習
慣（41.2﹪）；從來不會從事的前兩種生活習慣為：嚼食檳榔
（99.6﹪）、服用健康食品，例如中西醫或偏方等（74.9﹪）。
四、受訪榮家榮民之健康生活品質平均總分數為53.03分（
四個範疇總計80分），屬於中上程度。就四個範疇而言，平均得分最
高者為環境範疇生活品質，其次為生理範疇、社會關係範疇生活品
質，心理範疇最低。單項生活品質平均分數最低的前三種為「有享受
生活」、「覺得自己的生命有意義」及「能接受自己的外表」。
五、受訪榮家榮民自評健康平均分數（RS）為63.86分。在時間替代
（TTO）方面，如果在現在的健康狀況下假設可以生活10年的話，是否
願意在最健康的狀況下生活少於10年的時間？62.4﹪的榮民回答不願
意，僅21.7﹪的榮民回答願意，而願意替代的平均時間為8.8年。
六、經由逐步多元迴歸分析，整體範疇之健康相關生活品質，最佳的預測
變項為「自覺健康狀況」、「自覺快樂程度」、「日常活動能力」、
「規律運動30分鐘以上」、「休閒活動」，且此迴歸方程式已達統計
上顯著水準（p=.000），共可解釋整體範疇健康相關生活品質總變異
量的51.7﹪。
台灣簡明版世界衛生組織生活品質問卷經由再測信度、內部一致性及效標關聯效度之評估，發現對於榮家榮民具有不錯的信效度。本研究結果除了可以瞭解榮家榮民健康相關生活品質狀況外，還可以提供政府相關部會更多的訊息，協助榮家榮民提升其健康生活品質，以達成政府照顧榮民的美意。

The studies about the life quality of ageing people developed with the changes of the population structure and the concerns from a variety of professionals. However, there were few researches focused on the old veterans. At the end of 2001, the veterans who were over 65 accounted for 18.5% of the elder population of the country. Compared with their peers who lived on their own, those old veterans who lived in the institutions had worse physical functions and economical securities, and they also got less resources and social supports.
The objective of this study was exploring the Health-Related Quality of Life and connected influential factors of these veterans lived in veterans homes. This was a cross-sectional study, and the questionnaire was from WHOQOL-BREF Taiwan version. The study focused on these veterans who lived in veterans homes, which belonged to Veterans Affairs Commission of Executive Yuan in northern Taiwan, and those who lived in self-supporting nursing homes in the same area. We interviewed 15% of the veterans who lived in these institutions as our samples, and the process of convenient sampling was depended on the number of veterans in each institution. Totally 692 valid samples were collected. After analyzing these data, we found:
1.The property of these veteran participants: the average age was 77.82-year-old, and their mean service period was 21.45 years. 66.5%of them were sergeants (sergeant major included) when they left the army. These participants lived in the veteran-homes for 8.99 years on the average, 57.6%of them never got married. Regarding the highest level of education, 52.0%of these people either could only read characters or just graduated from elementary schools. 84.1% of them relied on the veteran subsidy.
2.The physical condition of these veteran participants: 39.4% of these participants considered that they were in general condition, and 57.3% of them could walk and did some easy work as their daily activities. The percentage of those who self-reported that they were on regular happiness level was 37.6%. 88.2% of these people had more than one chronic diseases, each man got 2.07 kind of chronic diseases on the average. The percentage of these veterans who went to clinics in 3 months, asked for emergency treatments in one year, hospitalized in one year are 76.6%, 11.2%, 22.9% respectively. 81.0%of them had gone to the health check for the old, which was hold once a year. In addition, 9.8% of them had stumbled in lately 3 months.
3.According to the information from the interviews, the first three chronic diseases these veterans diagnosed were hypertension (41.8%), musculoskeletal system disorders (32.9%), and cardiovascular diseases (26.3%). Concerning the healthy habits of these participants lived in veteran-homes, their two favorite day-by-day activities were smoking (41.2%) and regularly exercised more than 30 minutes everyday (78.6%). About the living habits they do not intend to do, they didn’t like chewing betel nuts (99.6%) nor taking “healthy food” such as Chinese traditional medicine, Western herbals, or other irregular prescriptions (74.9%).
4.The mean score of Health-Related Quality of Life of all participants was 53.03 (total 4 sections added up to 80). This was above average. The section that they got the highest point was the environmental life quality. The next one was physiological condition; these participants thought that they could “accept the appearances of themselves ”. Then the life quality of social relationship, these veterans felt that they ”had a meaningful life”. The lowest one was the psychological condition; they thought that they could “enjoy the life”.
5.The Rating Scale (RS) self-estimated by these participants was 63.86. We also investigated a Time Trade-Off (TTO) question: if you could live 10 more years in current physical condition, would you like to live less time but in the best condition? Only 21.7% answered yes, and 62.4% didn’t like this idea. The time they would like to trade off was 8.8 years on the average.
6.We analyzed these data by multi-stepwise regression, the best independent variables of integrated section in Health-Related Quality of Life were: self-reported physical condition, self-reported happiness level, abilities in daily activity, regular exercise more than 30 minutes, and leisure activities. The regression equation reached the level of obvious (p=.000), and we could utilize these data to explain 51.7% of total variance of the integrated section in Health-Related Quality of Life.
WHOQOL-BREF Taiwan version had estimated by Test-Retest Reliability, Internal Consistency, and Criterion-Related Validity, and the researchers found that it could reach good confidence to these veterans lived in veterans homes.This study could not only understand the Health-Related Quality of Life of these veterans, but also provide more messages to the related authorities. Moreover, it could help the government to reach the goal of taking care of these people, and to elevate their Health-Related Quality of Life.

正文目錄…………………………………………………………….Ⅰ
圖表目錄…………………………………………………………….Ⅲ
附錄目錄…………………………………………………………….Ⅵ
中文摘要…………………………………………………………….Ⅶ
英文摘要…………………………………………………………….Ⅸ
第一章 緒論
第一節 問題背景與研究重要性………………………………1
第二節 研究目的………………………………………………..3
第三節 名詞解釋………………………………………………..4
第二章 文獻探討
第一節 榮家榮民概況………………………………………….5
第二節 健康相關生活品質的定義與測量.…………………8
第三節 榮家榮民健康相關生活品質之影響因素………..12
第三章 研究架構與假設
第一節 研究架構………………………………………………16
第二節 研究假設………………………………………………17
第四章 研究工具與方法
第一節 研究工具與信效度檢定…………………………….18
第二節 研究方法與資料蒐集...…………………………….22
第三節 資料的處理與統計分析…………………………….23
第五章 研究結果與分析
第一節 榮家內住榮民訪問結果..…………………………..25
第二節 榮家內住榮民之描述性結果………………………26
第三節 健康相關生活品質（生理範疇）之影響因素…..29
第四節 健康相關生活品質（心理範疇）之影響因素…..32
第五節 健康相關生活品質（社會關係範疇）之影響因素.35
第六節 健康相關生活品質（環境範疇）之影響因素……38
第七節 健康相關生活品質（整體範疇）之影響因素…..41
第六章 討論
第一節 本研究資料代表性之探討………………………….45
第二節 基本資料與健康相關生活品質之探討…………..46
第三節 健康狀況、健康效用與健康相關生活品質之探討….49
第四節 健康相關生活品質評估之探討……………………51
第五節 研究限制………………………………………………53
第七章 討論與建議
第一節 結論…………………………………………………….54
第二節 建議…………………………………………………….58
參考文獻…………………………………………………………….61

英文部分
1.Abbey A , Andrew FM: Modeling the psychological determinants
of life quality. Social Indicator Research 1985; 16: 1-34.
2.Blixen CE, Kippes C: Depression, Social Support, and Quality
of Life in Older Adults With Osteoarthritis. Journal of
Nursing Scholarship 1999; 31（3）: 221-226.
3.Breslow LA: quantitative approach to the World Health
Organization definition of health: physical, mental and
social well-being. International Journal of Epidemiology
1972; 1（4）: 374.
4.Borawaski EA, Kinney JM, Kahana E: The meaning of older
adult’s health appraisal: congruence with health status and
determinant of mortality: Journal of Gerontology 1996; 51:
157-170.
5.Bennett KJ, Torrance GW: Measuring health state preferences
and utilities: rating scale, time trade-off, and standard
gamble techniques. Quality of Life and Pharmacoeconomics in
Clinical Trials. 2nd, B. Spilker. Lippincott-Raven
Publishers, Pholadelphia 1996:253-265.
6.Connell BR, Steven LW: Environment and behavioral
circumstances association with falls at home among healthy
elderly individuals. Arch Phys Med Rehab 1997; 78: 179-186.
7.Campbell A, Converse P, Rodgers w: The quality of American
life. New York: Russel Sage Foundation 1976.
8.Cheng AK, Rubin HR, Powe NR, et al: Cost-utility analysis of
the cochlear implant in children. JAMA 2000; 284（7）: 850-
856.
9.Cohen S: Psychosocial models of the role of social support
etiology of physical disease. Health Psychological 1988; 7:
269-297.
10.Davies AR, Ware JE: Measuring health perception on the
health insurance program. Santa Monica, Calif.: Rand
Corporation, 1981.
11.Drummond MF, Stoddart GL, Torrance GW: Methods for the
economic evaluation of health care programs, 2nd ed. Oxford,
U.K.: Oxford University Press, 1997.
12.Evans RW, Manninen DL, Garrison LP, et al: The quality of
patients with end-stage renal disease. The New England
Journal of medicine 1995; 312（9）: 553-559.
13.Fellenberg GG: Social Context and Self-assessment of Health
Among the Elderly, Journal of Health and Social Behavior
1979; 20（1）: 45-54.
14.Fry CL: Age, Aging, and Culture. In: Binstock RH, George LK:
Handbook of Aging and Social Sciences, fourth Edition.
Academic Press, 1996: 117-136.
15.Fryback DG, Dasbach EJ, Klein R, et al: The Beaver Dam
Health Outcomes Study: initial catalog of health-state
quality factors. Medical decision making 1993; 13: 89-102.
16.Ferrans CE, Power MJ: The employment potential of
hemodialysis patients. Nursing Reseach 1985; 34: 273-277.
17.Grossman M: On the concept of health capital and the demand
for health. Journal Political Economic 1972; 223-255.
18.Humphries KH, Van DE: Income-related health inequality in
Canada. Soc Sci Med 2000; 50:663-671.
19.Holland WW, Detels R, Knox G: Oxford textbook of public
health. Oxford University Press, New York, 1991.
20.Najman JM, Levine S: Evaluation the impact of medical care
and technologies on the quality of life: a review and
critique. Soc, Sci & Med 1981; 15F: 107-115.
21.Kizer KW. Demakis JG. Feussner JR: Reinventing VA health
care: systematizing quality improvement and quality
innovation. Medical Care 2000 Jun; 38(6 Suppl 1): 7-16,
22.Katz S: The science of quality of life. J Chro Dis 1987; 40:
459-463.
23.Kressin NR, Avron SⅢ, Skinner KM: Negative Affectivity and
Health-Related Quality of Life. Medical Care 2000;38（8）：
858-867.
24.Kassirer JP: Incorporating patients’ preferences into
medical decisions. New England Journal of Medicine 1994;
330: 1895-1896.
25.Litwin MS: How to Measure Survey Reliability and validity.
SAGE Publications 1995: 5-31.
26.Maddox GL, Douglass EB: Self-assessment of Health and Social
Behavior 1973; 14（10）:87-93.
27.Marks R G., Designing a Research Project. Belmont: Wadsworth
1982: 115-128.
28.Meeberg GA: Quality of Life: Aconcept analysis. J Adv Nurs
1993; 18（1）:32-38.
29.Najman JM, Levine S: Evaluation the impact of medical care
and technologies on the quality of life: a review and
critique. Soc Sci ＆ Med 1981; 15F: 107-115.
30.Post PN, Stiggelbout AM, Wakker PP: The utility of health
states after stroke: a systematic review of the literature.
Stroke 2001; 32（6）: 1425-1429.
31.Patrick DL, Erickson P: Health status and health policy:
Allocating resources to health care. New York: Oxford
University Press, 1993.
32.Read JL: The New Era of Quality of Life Assessment. In:
Walker SR, Rossew RM: Quality of Life Assessment: Key Issue
in the 1990s. Dordrecht; Kluwer Academic Publishers, 1993.
33.Stormberg MF: Instruments for clinical nursing research,
Norwalk, CO: Appletion ＆ Lange, 1988.
34.Santeree RE, Neun SP: Health economic: theories, insights,
and industry studies. Irwin, 1996.
35.Stuck AE, Arrow HU, Steiner A, et al: A trial of annual in-
home comprehensive geriatric assessment for elderly people
living in the community. New England Journal of Medicine
1995; 333: 1184-1189.
36.SUPPORT（the Study to Understand Prognoses and Preferences
for Outcomes and Risks of Treatments）. The Writing Group
for the SUPPORT Investigators. A controlled trial to improve
care for seriously ill hospitalized adults. JAMA 1995; 274:
1591-1598.
37.Torrance GW, Thomas WH, Sackett DL: A utility maximization
model for evaluation of health care programs. Health Serv
Res 1972; 7: 118-133.
38.Torrance GW: Measurement of health utilities for economic
appraisal. A review. J Health Econ 1986; 5: 1-30.
39.Torrance GW: Feeny. Utilities and quality-adjusted life
years. International Journal of Technology Assessment for
Health Care 1989; 5: 559-575.
40.Tsevat J, Goldman L, Kuntz KM, et al: Functional status
versus utilities in survivors of myocardial infarction.
Medical Care 1991; 29: 1153-1159.
41.Tsevat J, Solzan JG, Kuntz KM, et al: Health values of
patients infected with human immunodeficiency virus:
relationship to mental health and physical functioning.
Medical Care 1996; 34: 44-57.
42.Tsevat J, Dawson NV, Wu AW, et al: for the HELP
Investigators. JAMA 1998; 279（5）: 371-375.
43.Williams AH: Economics of coronary artery bypass grafting.
British Medical Journal 1985; 291:326-329.
44.WHO（World Health Organization）: Health and Ageing. A
discussion paper, 2000.
http://www.who.int/hpr/ageing/publications.htm
45.WHO（World Health Organization）: Alma-Ata 1978. Primary
health care. Report of the international conference on
primary health care. USSR 1978 September: 6-12.
46.Zatzick DF, Weiss DS, Marmar CR, et al: Post-Traumatic
Stress Disorder and Functioning and quality of Life Outcome
in Female Vietnam Veterans. Military Medicine 1997; 162: 661-
665.
中文部分
1.內政部社會司，近年我國老年人口數一覽表，2002。
http://vol.moi.gov.tw/sowf3w/04/07/07_1.1.htm
2.王雅臣，自費安養中心老人經濟支持與生活適應之研究－以頤苑為例，
國立中山大學中山學術研究所，1998。
3.王慶中，有信仰的人生活品質是否不同，輔仁學致－法、管理學院之
部，26：313-336，1994.06。
4.行政院國軍退除役官兵輔導委員會網站，統計指標，2002。
http://www.vac.gov.tw/stattab/benefit/bene0.htm。
5.行政院國軍退除役官兵輔導委員會編印，榮民服務白皮書，1998。
6.行政院國軍退除役官兵輔導委員會編印，問題與說明，1999。
7.行政院衛生署，中華民國九十年版公共衛生年報，2001。
8.朱慧凡，台灣榮民住院利用之分析研究，國立陽明大學公共衛生研究所
碩士論文，2000。
9.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
品質問卷之發展及使用手冊（第一版），1999.09。
10.台灣版世界衛生組織生活品質問卷發展小組，台灣簡明版世界衛生組
織生活品質問卷之發展及使用手冊（第一版），2000。
11.呂秀玲，眷村的社會流動與社會資源－一個榮民社區之田野研究，東
海大學社會學研究所碩士論文，1997。
12.杜明勳，南部某榮民安養之家住家榮民健康狀況調查，中華衛誌，
1996，15(1)：97-107。
13.杜明勳，衛生教育對於榮民之家高血壓老人自我照顧行為與血壓控制
之影響，中華衛誌，1999，18(1)：54-65。
14.李茹萍、李仁智、邱豔芬，榮譽國民之家肺結核病人用直接觀察治療
法之成效探討，胸腔醫學，1999，14：17-23。
15.邱亨嘉、陳怡君、毛莉雯等人，中文版多元功能評估問卷之信效度考
驗，中華衛誌，1997，16（2）：119-132。
16.林佳蓉，老人生活滿意模式之研究，國立體育學院體育研究所碩士論文，2001。
17.林正祥，研究設計之樣本數決定，中華衛誌，1993，12（3）：282-
290。
18.林佳儒，家庭照顧者社會支持之研究－以慢性精神分裂病人之照顧為
例，陽明大學社區護理研究所碩士論文，1990。
19.林嘉玲，自費安養機構老人睡眠品質及其相關因素之探討，國立台灣
大學護理學研究所碩士論文，1999。
20.高森永，社區老人與慢性病患對長期照護需求之探討，行政院衛生署
八十八年度委辦業務計畫，計畫編號DOH88-HI-1008。
21.徐慧娟、吳淑瓊、江東亮，跌倒對社區老人健康生活品質的影響，中華衛誌，1996，15（6）：525-532。
22.姚開屏、陳坤虎，如何編製一份問卷：以「健康相關生活品質」問卷
為例。職能治療學會雜誌，1998，16：1-24。
23.姚開屏，簡介與評論常用的一般性健康相關生活品質量表兼談對未來
研究的建議，測驗年刊，47（2）：111-138，2000。
24.翁志遠，1990年台灣地區人口之婚姻狀況分佈的省籍差異探討，國立
政治大學社會學系碩士論文，1999。
25.許游雅，影響社區老人自評健康之因素，國立台灣大學公共衛生研究
所碩士論文，1998。
26.陳亦暉，影響安養機構內老人生活滿意度的因素─以中部某榮民之家
為例，國立雲林科技大學工業工程與管理研究所碩士論文，1995。
27.陳美光，老人健康生活品質與健康習慣及社會心理因素關係之探討，
國立台灣大學心理學系研究所碩士論文，1997。
28.陸洛、劉宏文，功能性社會支持與老人整體健康之相關性研究，高學
醫學院行為科學研究所，行政院衛生署八十三年度委辦業務計畫，計
畫編號DOH83-HP-47。
29.陸玓玲，健康促進觀點之運動生活品質研究，國立台灣大學公共衛生
學院博士論文，1999。
30.曾淑汝，護理之家老年住民的生活品質及相關因素探討，高雄醫學院
護理學研究所碩士論文，1998。
31.黃常玲，國民黨對外省族群的統治分析，國立政治大學政治學系碩士
論文，2000。
32.傅麗蘭、楊政峰，獨居老人跌倒情形、步態、居家環境及身體功能評
估，中華物療誌，1999，24（2）：53-62。
33.萬育維、張英鎮、張素英，軍旅生活對居住安養機構老榮民生活品質
之影響----以某私立安養機構四個個案為例，國立政治大學社會學
報，1997.09，27：121-145。
34.梁金麗，社區老人生活品質及其相關因素之探討，國立台北護理學院
護理研究所碩士論文，2000。
35.粱繼權、吳英璋，老人健康相關生活品質評估工具之發展，行政院衛
生署八十三年度委辦業務計畫，計畫編號DOH84-HP-52-5M01。
36.雷玉華、邱周萍，生活品質概念分析，國防醫學，2000，31（2）：
163-169。
37.楊瑞宗，台灣地區與大陸地區退伍軍人安置制度比較研究，國立政治
大學東亞研究所博士論文，1998。
38.張明正、林惠生，台灣地區老人人口的社會結構變遷及其醫療需求，
台灣老人研究叢刊系列（二），1988，1-19。
39.藍忠孚，機構照顧老人之生活品質：其健康福祉之政策意義，行政院
衛生署八十二年度委辦業務計畫，計畫編號DOH88-HP-94。
40.譚開元、蔡誾誾、陳秀玫，老人長期照護發展現況及新世紀新醫療
網－長期照護之規劃，長期照護，2001，5（1）：1-12。