臺灣博碩士論文加值系統

研究背景：近年來，勞工委員會勞工安全衛生研究所、衛福部及教育部等政府機關已將國人健康體能列為重要業務之一，部分政府機關與事業單位亦開始實施疾病預防與健康體能等計畫。我國科學園區現階段的職場健康促進工作成果評估，主要由法規、健康促進計畫及相關健康促進推動成果來顯現。

研究目的：由於高科技廠之員工工作時間長與壓力大之特性，若疏忽職場與個人之健康規劃與管理等，將可能引起與職業安全衛生相關之健康損傷。本研究目的針對科學園區工廠在法規規定之勞工健康保護應辦事項、廠內之年度健康促進計畫及過去相關健康促進推動成果等項目經由專家評分後，分析健康促進成效與工廠產業別、地區性及員工數之相關性。

研究方法：於2013年及2014年進行科學園區專家職場健康促進實施評估表評分分析，評估表內容包含法規規定之勞工健康保護應辦事項、廠內年度健康促進計畫書及相關健康促進推動成果。數據收集原則為高科技廠包含未實施健康保護規則且員工數300人以上、依職場健康促進實施評估表自評分數得分小於70分之工廠及員工數300人以下且有意願加入，後續邀請相關專家學者到廠進行輔導。於2013年共訪視10家工廠；其中6家工廠進行專家輔導前與輔導後之比較。2014年共訪視11家工廠；其中3家工廠進行跨年度輔導後之比較。

結果與討論：本研究發現健康促進之實施成效不會因工廠之所在地區性而有顯著差異。在工廠產業別分析發現，新興科技產業較為重視職場健康促進計畫推動及成果之展現，而傳統科技產業部分可能觀念較為保守，表現顯著不如新興科技產業。研究發現工廠員工人數與部分健康促進實施成效呈現顯著正相關。此外，勞工健康保護法規規定事項較難於短期(三個月)呈現改善，但跨年度輔導後發現健康促進實施成效具有顯著提升，顯示健康促進計畫及相關健康促進成果需要時間方能逐一完成。總結而言，本研究雖有樣本數較低之限制，但此科學分析結果已初步提供未來政府推動職場健康促進的重要參考依據。

Background: In recent years, Institute of Occupational Safety and Health, Ministry of Health and Welfare, and Ministry of Education and other government agencies have been listed health status as one of the important people healthy fitness business. Some governmental agencies and institutions are also beginning to implement disease preventions and health physical fitness program. In Taiwan, workplace health promotion at the present stage of the Science Park has been evaluated to estimate the results of the work, mainly by regulations, proposal of health promotion, and the outcomes of related health promotion activities.

Objectives: Resulting to the long working hours and the high pressure, workers of the high-tech plant if he neglects the professional and personal health planning and management, he will likely cause damage associated with occupational safety and health. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the associations among Science Park factory worker health protection regulations of the matters to be handled, the annual health promotion plans, and other relevant health promotion to promote the project through after expert ratings. We analyzed the effectiveness of health promotion with the correlations of industry, regional and the number of employees.

Methods: Experts from a Science Park in Taiwan were invited to assess the implementation of workplace health promotion in score analysis to evaluate the contents of the table contains the provisions of the legislation to protect workers’ health matters to be handled, the annual Health promotion plans and related achievement in 2013 and 2014. The principle of the data collection was included of the failure to implement health protection rules of more than 300 employees of high-tech plant, according to the implementation of workplace health promotion assessment form from Rating score which is less than 70 points per plant and the number of employees 300 people less, and were willing to join, invite counseling experts to the plants. In 2013, we visited 10 plants, including six plants of the comparison of expert before and after counseling. In 2014, we visited 11 plants, including three plants of comparison of the multi-year coaching.

Results and discussion: We found that there were not significant differences on the effective of implementation of health promotion between two regional. Another found emerging industries emphasis on promoting workplace health promotion program and traditional technology industry may be more conservative, unlike significantly the emerging technology industry. The study found the number of factory workers and the effective of implementation of health promotion section showing significant positive correlation. In addition, labor regulations, health protection matters more difficult in the short term (three months) showing improvement, but the multi-year implementation of the effectiveness of health promotion counseling discovery has been significantly improved, displays of health promotion plans and related health promotion outcomes need time in order to complete one by one. In conclusion, although the limitation of low sample size, the results of scientific analysis have provided an important reference to the government to promote workplace health promotion in the future.

中文摘要 i
英文摘要 ii
致謝 iv
目錄 v
表目錄 vii
圖目錄 viii
第一章 緒論 1
1.1 研究動機 1
1.2 研究目的 4
第二章 文獻探討 5
2.1 職場健康促進發展 5
2.2 職場健康促進相關法規探討 7
2.3 職場健康促進計畫 10
2.4 台灣科學園區簡介 13
2.4.1新竹科學工業園區(竹科)介紹 14
2.4.2南部科學工業園區(南科)介紹 16
2.4.3中部科學工業園區(中科)介紹 17
2.4.4科學工業園區產業別從業人數分析 18
第三章 研究方法與設備 25
3.1 研究方法 25
3.1.1研究對象之篩選 25
3.1.2 研究數據之收集 28
3.2 統計分析 30
第四章 結果 31
4.1 研究結果 31
4.1.1 健康促進實施成效評估調查研究分析 31
4.1.1.1 健康職場自主管理審查表分數與地區性研究分析 36
4.1.1.2 健康職場自主管理審查表分數與產業別研究分析 39
4.1.1.3 健康職場自主管理審查表分數與員工數研究分析 43
4.1.1.4 健康職場自主管理審查表分數與年度研究分析 52
第五章 討論 56
第六章 結論 58
參考文獻 59
中文文獻 59
英文文獻 61
附件一：健康職場自主管理審查表 63

中文文獻
1.丁志音：生活方式與健康–概念、倫理及政策的探討(上)。公共衛生，1988；15(1)：16-26。
2.丁志音：生活方式與健康–概念、倫理及政策的探討(下)。公共衛生，1988；15(2)：157-173。
3.中部科學工業園區 http://www.ctsp.gov.tw/
4.尤素芬,鄭雅文,&鍾佩樺. (2009). 職業健康服務制度的發展與台灣制度現況.台灣公共衛生雜誌, 28, 255-267.
5.全國法規資料庫 勞工健康保護規則http://law.moj.gov.tw/LawClass/LawAll.aspx?PCode=N0060022
6.行政院國民健康局(2007) 職場健康促進推動指引
7.行政院國家科學委員會 102年年報http://www.most.gov.tw/yearbook/102/index.html
8.李寶玉(2014) 勞工健康保護規則修訂前後職護健康促進執行之比較.長榮大學職業安全與衛生學系碩士論文,1-97
9.南部科學工業園區 http://www.stsp.gov.tw/
10.范國棟&李蘭. (2008). 職場健康促進 國際與台灣經驗之比較. 臺灣公共衛生雜誌, 27(4), 271-281.
11.健康職場資訊網 http://health.hpa.gov.tw/ (2013)
12.國際癌症研究組織IARC(International Agency for Research on Cancer) (2007) http://www.iarc.fr/en/media-centre/pr/2007/pr180.html
13.張家榕. (2009). 職場推行健康促進計畫對員工健康行為影響之研究-以某科技公司為例.臺灣師範大學健康促進與衛生教育學系學位論文, 1-99.
14.陳芬苓(2005) 企業規模與實施職場健康促進之調查研究 台灣管理學刊，5(1)，149-168。
15.陳俊瑜,吳佳蓉,&徐儆暉.(2010). 高科技從業人員職場壓力風險因子與職場疲勞之相關性研究: 以某科學園區為例. 美容科技學刊, 7(2), 5-20.
16.童淑琴 工作場所健康體能促進的影響因素 健康促進通訊，2001；14。
17.黃健富&林貴福. (2010). 職場健康生活形態面向之分析 輔仁大學體育學刊, (9), 274-284.
18.新竹科學工業園區 http://www.sipa.gov.tw/
19.鄭尊仁,李蘭,張蓓貞&陳保中(2000) 工作場所健康促進介入模式計畫. 行政院衛生署89年度委託研究計畫, 1-116
英文文獻
1.Belloc, N. B., and L. Breslow 1972 Relationship of physical health status and health practices.Preventive Medicine 1:409-421.
2.Breslow, L., & Engstrom, J. D. (1980). Persistence of health habits and their relationship to mortality. Preventive Medicine, 9, 469-83.
3.Chen, Y. C., Wu, Y. C., & Chie, W. C. (2006). Effects of work-related factors on the breastfeeding behavior of working mothers in a Taiwanese semiconductor manufacturer a cross-sectional survey. BMC Public Heal
4.DECLARATION OF ALMA-ATA, International Conference on Primary Health Care, Alma-Ata, USSR, 6-12 September 1978, WHO
5.Dermmer H. Worksite Health Promotion: How to Go About It. European Health Promotion Series No.4. Essen: WHO/Europe, BKK BV, 1995.
6.Epstein, R. A. 1979. Possession as the root of title. Georgia Law Review 13: 1221-1243.
7.Fielding JE, Piserchia PV. (1989). Frequency of worksite health promotion activities. American Journal of Public Health, 79:16-20.
8.Lalonde, M. (1974). A New Perspective on the Health of Canadians: A Working Document(Catalog No. H31-1374). Ottawa: Government of Canada.
9.Matarazzo, J.D. (1984), "Behavioral Health: A 1990 Challenge for theHealth Sciences Professions," in Behavioral Health: A Handbook of Health Enhancement and Disease Prevention, J.D. Matarazzo, S.M. Weiss, J.A. Hord, and N.E. Miller, eds. New York: John Wiley &Sons, 3-40.
10.Ottawa Charter for Health Promotion, 1986, WHO
11.Palank, C. L. (1991) Determinants of health-promotive behavior. Nursing Clinics of North America, 26, 815–832.
12.Pelletier KR. A review and analysis of the health and cost-effective outcome studies of comprehensive health promotion and disease prevention programs at the worksite: 1991-1993. American Journal of health Promotion 1993; 8; 60-62.
13.Pender N.J.（1987）Health Promotion in Nursing Practice,East Norwalk：Appleton & Lange.
14.U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Public Health Service. (1993). 1992 national survey of worksite health promotion activities: Summary. American Journal of Health Promotion, 7, 452-464.
15.World Health Organization (1999). Benefits. from: http://www.who.int/occupational_health/topics/workplace/en/index1.html