Browse > Article
http://dx.doi.org/10.5762/KAIS.2014.15.12.7179

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

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)
Publication Information
Journal of the Korea Academia-Industrial cooperation Society / v.15, no.12, 2014 , pp. 7179-7186 More about this Journal
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.
Keywords
Evaluation indicators; Communicable disease control and prevention; Public health center; Local government;
Citations & Related Records
연도 인용수 순위
  • Reference
1 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   DOI
2 Suchman EA. Evaluative Research. New York. Russel Sage Foundation, 1968.
3 Teutsch SM, Churchill RE. Principles and Practice of Public Health Surveillance. Oxford University Press, 1994.
4 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   DOI
5 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.
6 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.
7 WHO. Communicable disease surveillance and response systems-Guide to monitoring and evaluating. 2006.
8 CDC. Framework for Evaluating Public Health Surveillance Systems for Early Detection of Outbreaks. MMWR, 53, RR-5, 2004.
9 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   DOI   ScienceOn
10 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   DOI