Browse > Article
http://dx.doi.org/10.4332/KJHPA.2020.30.2.199

Analysis of Factors Affecting the Smoking Rates Gap between Regions and Evaluation of Relative Efficiency of Smoking Cessation Projects  

Kim, Heenyun (Department of Health Administration, Yonsei University Graduate School)
Lee, Da Ho (Department of Health Administration, Yonsei University Graduate School)
Jeong, Ji Yun (Department of Health Administration, Yonsei University Graduate School)
Gu, Yeo Jeong (Department of Health Administration, Yonsei University Graduate School)
Jeong, Hyoung Sun (Department of Health Administration, Yonsei University College of Health Sciences)
Publication Information
Health Policy and Management / v.30, no.2, 2020 , pp. 199-210 More about this Journal
Abstract
Background: Based on the importance of ceasing smoking programs to control the regional disparity of smoking behavior in Korea, this study aims to reveal the variation of smoke rate and determinants of it for 229 provinces. An evaluation of the relative efficiency of the cease smoking program under the consideration of regional characteristics was followed. Methods: The main sources of data are the Korean Statistical Information Service and a national survey on the expenditure of public health centers. Multivariate regression is performed to figure the determinants of regional variation of smoking rate. Based on the result of the regression model, clustering analysis was conducted to group 229 regions by their characteristics. Three clusters were generated. Using data envelopment analysis (DEA), relative efficiency scores are calculated. Results from the pooled model which put 229 provinces in one model to score relative efficiency were compared with the cluster-separated model of each cluster. Results: First, the maximum variation of the smoking rate was 16.9%p. Second, sex ration, the proportion of the elder, and high risk drinking alcohol behavior have a significant role in the regional variation of smoking. Third, the population and proportion of the elder are the main variables for clustering. Fourth, dissimilarity on the results of relative efficiency was found between the pooled model and cluster-separated model, especially for cluster 2. Conclusion: This study figured regional variation of smoking rate and its determinants on the regional level. Unconformity of the DEA results between different models implies the issues on regional features when the regional evaluation performed especially on the programs of public health centers.
Keywords
Regional smoke rate; Cease smoking program; Efficiency evaluation; Clustering analysis; Data envelopment analysis;
Citations & Related Records
연도 인용수 순위
  • Reference
1 Charnes A, Cooper WW, Rhodes E. Measuring the efficiency of decision making units. Eur J Oper Res 1978;2(6):429-444. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/0377-2217(78)90138-8.   DOI
2 Banker RD, Charnes A, Cooper WW. Some models for estimating technical and scale inefficiencies in data envelopment analysis. Manag Sci 1984;30(9):1078-1092. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.30.9.1078.   DOI
3 Lasser K, Boyd JW, Woolhandler S, Himmelstein DU, McCormick D, Bor DH. Smoking and mental illness: a population-based prevalence study. JAMA 2000;284(20):2606-2610. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.284.20.2606.   DOI
4 Corburn J. Urban planning and health disparities: implications for research and practice. Plan Pract Res 2005;20(2):111-126. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/02697450500414652.   DOI
5 Lalonde M. A new perspective on the health of Canadians. Ottawa (ON): Minister of Supply and Services Canada; 1974.
6 Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development. Health at a glance 2019. Paris: Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development; 2019.
7 World Health Organization. Report on the global tobacco epidemic. Geneva: World Health Organization; 2018.
8 U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. The health consequences of smoking: 50 years of progress: a report of the surgeon general. Atlanta (GA): U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, National Center for Chronic Disease Prevention and Health Promotion, Office on Smoking and Health; 2014.
9 Ministry of Health and Welfare. Ministry of Health and Welfare white book. Sejong: Ministry of Health and Welfare; 2018.
10 Korea Centers for Disease Control an Prevention. Community Health Survey. Cheongju: Korea Centers for Disease Control and Prevention; 2018.
11 KIM KY. Current status and prospects of smoking cessation services of community health centers. Korea Health Promot Forum 2017;(2):48-59.
12 Song TM. Analysis of relative efficiency of smoking cessation clinics at health center. J Korean Soc Health Inf Stat 2008;33(1):21-32.
13 Yoon KJ. Using DEA to measure the efficiency of local health centers. Korean Policy Stud Rev 1996;5(1):80-109.
14 Park CJ. Measuring production efficiency using data envelopment analysis: the case of public corporation medical centers. Korean J Health Policy Adm 1996;6(2):91-114.
15 Kim JH, Yoo WK. Productivity of the health center and efficient inputs & outputs in Kyungnam province. Korean J Health Policy Adm 1999;9(4):87-119.
16 Yoo KR. Measuring the productivity of public health centers: the case of the Jeollabuk province in Korea. Korean Public Adm Rev 2003;37(4):261-280.
17 Yoo KR. Evaluating the efficiency of local government bureaucracy: with application to public health centers. Korea J Local Public Financ 2008;13(2):1-26.
18 Kim HJ. Relative efficiency analysis and improvement plan of public medical institutions according to the medical delivery system. J Public Soc 2018;8(4):33-58.   DOI
19 Han DW, Joung JY, Song JC. Measuring efficiency of public health program using traditional Korean medicine: a DEA approach. Health Soc Welf Rev 2010;30(2):484-518. DOI: https://doi.org/10.15709/hswr.2010.30.2.484.   DOI
20 Choi JW. A study on dynamic efficiency of health centers in Seoul: focused on DEA-Window. Korean J Policy Anal Eval 2014;24(1):163-189.
21 Kim HH, Lee TS, Kim JM, Ahn TH. Small area categorization by socioeconomic characteristics for local government policy development. Geogr J Korea 2015;49(2):229-240.
22 LEE JD, Oh DH. Theory of efficiency analysis: data envelopment analysis. Paju: Jiphil Media; 2012.
23 Lee JH. The regional health inequity, and individual and neighborhood level health determinants. Health Soc Welf Rev 2016; 36(2): 345-384. DOI: https://doi.org/10.15709/hswr.2016.36.2.345.   DOI
24 Kim SY, Yoon KC. An analysis of the regional differences of health inequality and the exploration of the factors causing the differences. Korean J Local Gov Stud 2011;15(4):31-57.
25 Freedman DA. Ecological inference and the ecological fallacy: report prepared for the International Encyclopedia of the Social and Behavioral Sciences (technical report no. 549) [Internet]. [place unknown]: [publisher unknown]; 1999 [cited 2019 Sep 30]. Available from: http://www.stanford.edu/class/ed260/freedman549.pdf.
26 Piantadosi S, Byar DP, Green SB. The ecological fallacy. Am J Epidemiol 1988;127(5):893-904. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/ oxfordjournals.aje.a114892.   DOI
27 Folland S, Goodman AC, Stano M. The economics of health and health care. 5th ed. Upper Saddle River (NJ): Pearson Prentice Hall; 2007.