臺灣博碩士論文加值系統

健康相關的生活品質研究已成為一個十分熱門的話題，生活品質代表的是疾病對病人整體的影響，目前已逐漸成為各類疾病治療成功與否的一個重要指標。頭部外傷病患會因不同受傷程度，而有身體、認知、行為、情緒和社會等問題的差異；頭部外傷也會導致認知功能障礙。而頭部外傷病患，有些常無法完全治療，必須長期醫療控制，因此與健康相關的生活品質對於頭部外傷病患的重要性更不言而喻。本研究選擇北台灣22家醫院，受傷時間為2002年1月1日至2003年6月30日，因創傷性頭部外傷而就醫的患者，年齡為18歲以上。隨機抽選出676位，之後採用台灣簡明版世界衛生組織生活品質問卷（World Health Organization Quality of Life questionnaire，簡稱WHOQOL-BREF），以電話訪視方式收集到135位。結果顯示由傷害嚴重度來評估生活品質各範疇均不顯著，但由延伸轉歸評分（Extended Glasgow Outcome Scale, GOSE）（是八點評分法，將Glasgow Outcome Scale(GOS)復原的程度更加細分，也就是把每一類有意識的存活狀況在分成兩個等級，主要是以意識狀況、在家中的獨立性、離家在外的獨立性、工作、社交及休閒活動、和家庭及朋友關係等為評估的指標。）來評估生活品質各範疇均達到統計上顯著，但經過訪視時間點的分層分析，受傷後未滿一年，發現輕度頭部外傷病患的生活品質較高，在社會關係、環境範疇有達到統計上的差異（P＝0.007,0.027）；受傷後一年以上，發現嚴重及中度頭部外傷病患的生活品質較高，在環境範疇有達到統計上的差異（P＝0.025）。在高度復原良好（Upper GR）的頭部外傷患者，其生活品質每一個範疇都有較高的分數；顯示GOSE對於頭部外傷患者受傷後的預後評估與WHOQOL-BREF問卷的結果一致，可作為良好的預後評分標準。

The health correlation and quality of life research has become an extremely popular topic, the quality of life represents the total effects the disease has on the patient. It is gradually becoming a standard or symbol for either successful or unsuccessful treatment of different classes of disease. Patients with mild, moderate or severe brain injuries suffer from physical, cognitive, behavioral, emotional and social problems. External head injuries can cause the cognition function barrier. Often times, external head injuries are not completely treatable and must use long-term medical control, consequently the importance of health related quality of life research is even more so evident. This research chose 22 hospitals from northern Taiwan, time of injury from January 1, 2002 to June 30, 2003, hospitalized because of the external head injuries, and with age 18 years old and above. 676 individuals were randomly chosen to make use of the World Health Organization Quality of Life questionnaire, or called WHOQOL-BREF, by the making telephone calls to collect a total 135 samples. The result showed that by using the level of injures to evaluate the various categories of quality of life did not show any statistical value, but by using Extended Glasgow Outcome Scale (GOSE) (it is the eight-point, to use GOS subdivide the upper three categories of the scale. These criteria evolved through pilot work and, in the final version, they are easy to apply and reliable, and give a division of the patients in each category.) to evaluate the quality of life achieved statistical results. But through the telephone time survey analysis, those injured for less then one year showed that patients with mild head injuries demonstrated a higher quality of life in the environment and society category has achieved statistical significance (P = 0.007,0.027); Those injured for more than one year, discovered that moderate and severe head injured patients had a higher quality of life and has achieved statistical significance in the environment category (P = 0.025). Head injury patients with upper good recovery presented higher score in all domains of quality of life. The evaluations of prognosis between GOSE and WHOQOL-BREF questionnaire were consistent. GOSE could be a good instrument of prognosis evaluating.

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
第三節 名詞界定…………………………………………………..………4
第二章 文獻探討……………………………………………….6
第一節 生活品質概念……………………………………….……………6
第二節 生活品質的測量…………………………………….……………8
第三節 頭部外傷與生活品質之相關研究………………….…………9
第三章 研究方法與步驟………………………….………..12
第一節 研究架構………………………………………….….…………..12
第二節 研究對象………………………………………….….…………..13
第三節 資料收集…………………………………………….…….……..15
第四節 研究工具…………………………………….……………….…..16
第五節 統計分析…………………………………………..……………..19
第四章 結 果………………………………………………….20
第一節 頭部外傷病患之基本特性分析………………………………20
第二節 人口學屬性與生活品質的關係………………………………22
第三節 傷害嚴重度及預後與生活品質的關係……………………..24
第四節 受傷時間至訪視時間之分層分析………………………...…29
第五章 討 論……………………………………………….…32
第六章 結 論………………………………………………….39
參考文獻…………………………………………………………..40
附 錄………………………………………………………………59

1.劉建雄、邱文達、林烈生、洪慶章：外傷指數及外傷嚴重度指數應用於國內外傷病患之初報：兩所醫院外科急診1000病例分析。中華醫學雜誌1991;48(4):297-304。
2.傅中玲：神經學的新趨勢－與健康相關的生活品質研究。臺灣神經醫學會雜誌2002;11(1):33-39.
3.陳真瑗：頭部外傷病患之認知訓練。榮總護理1988;15(3):237-242.
4.張慈惠、黃秀梨：生活品質評量之臨床應用。台灣醫學2000;4(1):86-90.
5.陳柏熹、王文中：生活品質量表的發展。測驗年刊1999;46(1):57-74.
6.陸玓玲：台灣地區生活品質研究概況。中華衛誌1998;17(6):442-457.
7.雷玉華、邱周萍：生活品質的概念分析。國防醫學2000;3(2):163-169.
8.臺灣版世界衛生組織生活品質問卷發展小組：臺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(4):315-324.
9.林茂榮、姚開屏、黃景祥、王榮德：臺灣版世界衛生組織生活品質問卷量尺詞與的選擇。中華民國公共衛生雜誌1999;18(4):262-270.
10.姚開屏：台灣版世界衛生組織生活品質問卷之發展與應用。台灣醫學2002;6(3):193-200.
11.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.
12.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2000a;47(2):111-138.
13.Annegers, J.F., Grabow, J.D., Kurland, L.T., Louis, E.R. The incidence, cause trends of head trauma in Olmstedt County, Minnesota, 1935-1974. Neurology 1980; 30: 912-9.
14.Bergner, M. Quality of life, health status, and clinical research. Medical Care 1989;27(3):148-156.
15.Bowling, A What things are important in people’s lives?-A survey of the public’s judgment to inform scales of health related quality of life. Social Science and Medicine 1995;41(10):1447-1462
16.Brandt J, Spencer M, Folstein M. The Telephone Interview for Cognitive Status. Neuropsychiatry Neuropsychol Behav Neurol 1988;1:111-7
17.Brown M, Vandergoot D. Quality of life for individuals with traumatic brain injury: comparison with others living in the community. J Head Trauma Rehabil 1998;13”1-23.
18.Bullinger, M Quality of life in patients with traumatic brain injury - basic issues, assessment and recommendations - Results of a consensus meeting. Restorative Neurology and Neuroscience 2002; 20:111-124.
19.Cella, D.F. Quality of Life: the concept. Palliative Care 1992;8:8-13.
20.Chris Paniak, Geraldine Toller, Shawn Reynolds, Amy Melnyk and Julianna Nagy. A randomizer trial of two treatments for mild traumatic brain injury: 1 year follow-up. Brain Injury 2000;14:219-226.
21.Colantonio A, Dawson DR, McClellan BA. Head injury in young adults: long-term outcome. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 1998;79:550-558.
22.Christensen AL, Pinner EM, Moller Pedersen P, Teasdale TW, Trexler LE. Psychosocial outcome following individualized neuropsychological rehabilitation of brain damage. Acta Neurol Scand 1992;85:32-38.
23.Dikmen S, Machamer J, H.R.Winn and N.R.Temkin. Neuropsychological outcome at 1-year post head injury. Neuropsychology 1995;4/1:80-90.
24.Dikmen S, Machamer J, Temkin N. Psychosocial outcome in patients with moderate to severe head injury: 2-year follow-up. Brain Injury 1993;7:113-124.
25.Dikmen SS, Machamer JE, Powell JM, Temkin NR. Outcome 3 to 5 Years After Moderate to Severe Traumatic Brain Injury. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 2003;84:1449-1457.
26.Ellen J. MacKenzie, Melissa L. McCarthy, John F. Ditunno, Carol Forrester-Staz, Gary S. Gruen, Donald W. Marion, and William C. Schwab. Using the SF-36 for Characterizing Outcome after Multiple Trauma Involving Head Injury.The Journal of Trauma Injury, Infection, and Critical Care 2002;52:527-534.
27.Emanuelson I, Andersson Holmkvist E, Björklund R, Stålhammar D Quality of life and post-concussion symptoms in adults after mild traumatic brain injury: a population-based study in western Sweden. Acta Neurol Scand 2003; 108: 332-338.
28,Galski T, Tompkins C, Johnston MV. Competence in discourse as a measure of social integration and quality of life in persons with traumatic brain injury. Brain Injury 1998;12:769-782.
29.Granger CV, Divan N, Fiedler RC. Functional assessment scales. A study of persons after traumatic brain injury. Am J Phys Med Rehabil 1995;74:107-113.
30.Greenwood RJ, McMillan TM, Brooks DN, Dunn G, Brock D, Dinsdale S, Murphy LD, Price JR. Effects of case management after severe head injury. BMJ 1994;308:1199-1205.
31.Jennett, B., Bond, M. Assessment of outcome after severe brain demage-apractical scale. Lancet 1975; 1: 480-484.
32.Klonoff PS, Snow WG, Costa LD. Quality of life in patients 2 to 4 years after closed head injury. Neurosurgery 1986;19:735-43.
33.Kraus, J.F. The epidemiologic relevance of the medical literature published from 1960-1978. J Neurosurg 1980; 53: 803-10.
34.Lai YC, Chen FG, Goh MH, Koh KF. Predictors of long-term outcome in severe head injury. Ann Acad Med Singapore 1998;27:326-331.
35.Mackenzie EJ, McCarthy ML, Ditunno JF, et al. Using the SF-36 for characterizing outcome after multiple trauma involving head injury. J Trauma 2002;52:527-34.
36.Mahoney FI, Barthel DW. Functional evaluation: the Barthel Index. Md State Med J 1965;14:61-5.
37.Marianne Findler, Joshua Cantor, Lisa Haddad, Wayne Gordon and Teresa Ashman. The reliability and validity of the SF-36 health survey questionnaire for use with individuals with traumatic brain injury. Brain Injury 2001;15:715-723.
38.Meeberg GM Quality of life: A concept analysis. Journal of Advanced Nursing 1993; 18: 32-38.
39.Moore AD, Stambrook M, Peters LC, Cardoso ER, Kassum DA. Long-term multi-dimensional outcome following isolated traumatic brain injuries and traumatic brain injuries associated with multiple trauma. Brain Injury 1990;4:379-389.
40.O''''Neill J, Hibbard MR, Brown M, Jaffe M, Sliwinski M, Vandergoot D, Weiss MJ. The effect of employment on quality of life and community integration after traumatic brain injury. J Head Trauma Rehabil 1998;13:68-79.
41.Rothweiler B, Temkin NR, Dikmen SS. Aging effect on psychosocial outcome in traumatic brain injury. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 1998;79:881-887.
42.Sherbourne CD, Stewart AL. The MOS Social Support Survey. Soc Sci Med 991;32:705-14.
43.Sherman C. Stein, Claire Spettell The Head Injury Severity Scale (HISS): a practical classification of closed-head injury. BRAIN INJURY 1995; 9:437-444.
44.Teasdale, G., Jennett, B. Assessment of coma and impaired consciousness-a practical scale. Lancet 1974; 11: 81-83.
45.The WHOQOL-Taiwan Group. Introduction to the development of the WHOQOL-Taiwan version. Chin J Public Health (Taipei): 2000;19(4):315-24.
46.Tor Ingebrigtsen, MD, PhD, Bertil Romner, MD, PhD, and Carsten Kock-Jensen, MD Scandinavian Guidelines for Initial Management of Minimal, Mild,and Moderate Head Injuries. The journal of Trauma: Injury, Infection, and Critical Care 2000;48:760-766.
47.Webb CR, Wrigley M, Yoels W, Fine PR Explaining Quality of Life for Persons With Traumatic Brain Injuries 2 Years After Injury. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 1995;76:1113-9.
48.Wilson J T L, Pettigrew L E L, G M Teasdale Structured Interviews for the Glasgow Outcome Scale and the Extended Glasgow Outcome Scale: Guidelines for Their Use. Journal of Neurotrauma 1998;15:573-585.
49.Wilson J T L, Pettigrew L E L, G M Teasdale Emotional and cognitive consequences of head injury in relation to the Glasgow outcome scale. J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry 2000;69:204-209.
50.Zhan L: Quality of life Conceptual and measurement issues. Journal of Advanced Nursing 1992; 17: 795-800.