Journal of the Korea Academia-Industrial cooperation Society (한국산학기술학회논문지)

The Korea Academia-Industrial cooperation Society (한국산학기술학회)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

Actual Analysis of the Interrelationship between Evaluation Indicators of Communicable Disease Control and Prevention Activities and Communicable Disease Incidence Data

법정감염병 발생자료와 감염병관리사업 평가지표와의 관계 실증분석

  • Kim, Min-Jun (Department of Preventive Medicine and Public Health, College of Medicine, Konyang University) ;
  • Hong, Jee-Young (Department of Preventive Medicine and Public Health, College of Medicine, Konyang University) ;
  • Lee, Moo-Sik (Department of Preventive Medicine and Public Health, College of Medicine, Konyang University)
  • 김민준 (건양대학교 의과대학 예방의학교실) ;
  • 홍지영 (건양대학교 의과대학 예방의학교실) ;
  • 이무식 (건양대학교 의과대학 예방의학교실)
  • Received : 2014.07.14
  • Accepted : 2014.12.11
  • Published : 2014.12.31
Download PDF
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

This study examined the interrelationship between the evaluation indicators of communicable disease control and prevention activities, and the communicable disease incidence data. This study analyzed the incidence data of communicable disease in local governments of south Korea and evaluated the data of communicable disease control and prevention activities by the Ministry of Health of the central government in South Korea during 2004-2005. Frequency analysis was carried out to understand the character of the participant, t-test to compare the mean value between the two groups and stepwise multiple regression analysis to understand the significance between the dependent and independent variables. In this study, the finance related to communicable diseases (group I diseases in both city and rural center), keep rate of periodic reports on notifiable communicable diseases based on the law for communicable disease control and prevention (group II in city), the level of education on personal hygiene (group II in rural center), level of education on AIDS prevention and the reporting rate of cases of tuberculosis (group III in city), and reporting rate of incident cases of tuberculosis (tuberculosis and Hansen disease in both rural and city) were significant indicators. The level of education on AIDS prevention and the reporting rate of the cases of tuberculosis (in city), and number of adverse reactions after immunization (in rural area), reporting rate of cases of tuberculosis (in total center) were significant indicators in total communicable disease and all types of public health centers. The authors verified core evaluation indicators as actual proof. This study provides useful data for a summative evaluation, standardization, and guidelines on communicable disease control and prevention activities of public health centers and local government.

이 연구는 감염병 발생자료와 감염병 관리사업 평가지표와의 관계를 실증적으로 분석함으로써 감염병 관리사업의 평가지표의 타당성을 실증적으로 분석함을 목적으로 하였다. 자료는 2004년과 2005년 2개년간의 시군구(보건소) 감염병 환자 발생 수 합계와 2005년도 감염병관리사업 평가지표 등 이었다. 자료의 분석은 빈도분석, 분산분석, 다중회귀분석 등을 이용하였다. 보건소 유형 및 법정감염병 각 군별로 각기 상이한 지표들이 도출되었으며, 각 군로도 특이한 지표 보다는 다양한 분야의 지표들이 혼재되어 있는 양상으로 도출되었다. 특히, 교육실적 등이 발생건수와 유의한 관계를 보이는 경우가 많아 발생건수는 신고건수 즉, 사업의 성과의 결과로 판단하는 것이 더욱 타당할 것으로 판단된다. 전체적인 지표의 개선이 필요하거나 사업의 투입시간 및 추이를 본 후 재평가가 필요할 것으로 생각되며, 각 사업별로 분리하여 특이한 평가지표를 생산할 필요가 있어 보인다. 감염병관리사업의 평가지표 개발은 기초자치단체별 감염병관리사업 종합평가체계를 구축하는데 핵심적인 역할을 할 것이며, 감염병관련업무 표준화를 촉진하고 관련지침을 개정에 활용될 것이며, 향후 보건사업 및 보건의료조직의 계량적인 성과 평가에 활용될 것이다. 또한 시군구 보건소에서 수행한 성공적인 감염병 관리 사업의 사례를 발굴, 제시함으로써 보다 성공적인 감염병관시업의 접근이 가능케 할 것이다.

Keywords

References

  1. Miller CA, Moore KS, Richards TB, Monk JD. A proposed method for assessing the performance of local public health functions and practices. Am J Public Health. 84(11), 1743-1749, 1994. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.2105/AJPH.84.11.1743
  2. McNabb SJ, Surdo AM, Redmond A, Cobb J, Wiley J, Chakrabarti S, Duncan H, Qualls N, Moore M. Applying a new conceptual framework to evaluate tuberculosis surveillance and action performance and measure the costs, Hillsborough County, Florida, 2002. Ann Epidemiol, 14(9), 640-645, 2004. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.annepidem.2003.09.021
  3. Suchman EA. Evaluative Research. New York. Russel Sage Foundation, 1968.
  4. Teutsch SM, Churchill RE. Principles and Practice of Public Health Surveillance. Oxford University Press, 1994.
  5. Reedy AM, Luna RG, Olivas GS, Sujeer A. Local public health performance measurement: implementation strategies and lessons learned from aligning program evaluation indicators with the 10 essential public health services. J Public Health Manag Pract, 11(4), 317-25. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1097/00124784-200507000-00010
  6. Windsor R, Clark N, Boyd NR, Goodman RM. Evaluation of health promotion, health education, and disease prevention programs, 3rd edition. New York. McGraw-Hill, 2004.
  7. Department of Communicable Disease Surveillance and Response, WHO. Technical review on monitoring and evaluation protocol for communicable disease surveillance and response systems. Report of a WHO meeting. Geneva Switzerland, 2004.
  8. WHO. Communicable disease surveillance and response systems-Guide to monitoring and evaluating. 2006.
  9. CDC. Framework for Evaluating Public Health Surveillance Systems for Early Detection of Outbreaks. MMWR, 53, RR-5, 2004.
  10. Lee MS, Lee KS, Yang BK, Kim DS, Ha BM, Park KD, Kim EY, Kim YI. A Framework for Monitoring the Malaria Eradication Programme in Korea. Asia-Pacific Journal of Public Health. 15(1), 44-49, 2003. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/101053950301500108