• Pediatric Infection and Vaccine
• /
• 제15권1호
• /
• pp.36-44
• /
• 2008

목 적 : 안와주위 봉와직염은 더 위험한 질병인 안와 봉와직염과 감별이 힘들다는 점에서 중요한 의미를 가지고 있다. 저자들은 최근 7년 동안 서울 지역의 두 군데 병원에서 안와와 안와주위 봉와직염으로 진단된 환아의 임상적 특징, 선행요인, 치료 경험 등을 보고하고 자 한다. 또한 감별 진단을 위한 유용한 소견 및 방사선검사의 유용성을 조사하였다. 방 법 : 본 연구는 2000년 1월부터 2006년 12월까지 한일병원과 경희대학교 부속병원에 안와와 안와주위 종창을 주소로 입원하여 안와와 안와주위 봉와직염으로 진단된 18세 이하의 환아 41명을 대상으로 의무기록지를 통한 후향적 연구를 시행하였다. 결 과 : 대상 환아 41명 중 안와 봉와직염으로 진단된 환아는 7명(17.1%)이었고 안와주위 봉와직염으로 진단된 환아는 34명(82.9%)이었다. 발병연령은 0세부터 12세까지 분포하였으며, 대상 환아 중 2세 이하의 환아가 25명(61%)으로 많았고, 41명의 평균연령은 $3.2{\pm}3.4$세였다. 입원 일수는 안와군에서 $8.0{\pm}5.2$일이었고 안와주위군에서는 $5.7{\pm}3.4$일로 안와군에서 의미있게 길었다.(P= 0.04) 동반질환으로는 안와군에서 부비동염 6명, 안구 농포 1명, 누선염 1명, 안구내염 1명, 결막염 1명, 암 3명이었으며 암은 3명 모두 혈액종양인 급성 임파구성 백혈병이였다. 안와주위군에 서는 부비동염 10명, 중이염 3명, 안구농포 12명, 맥립종 5명, 산립종 1명, 곤충 물림 8명, 누낭염 7명, 결막염 5명, 치주염 1명, 균혈증 1명이었다. 백혈구 수의 평균은 안와군에서 $15,280{\pm}9,717/mm^3$와 안와주위군에서의 $10,040{\pm}5,004/mm^3$으로 안와군에서 통계학적으로 유의하게 높았으며 (P=0.03), C-반응 단백 수치의 평균은 각각 $4.57{\pm}3.68mg/dL$, $2.64{\pm}3.43mg/dL$로 안와군에서 통계학적으로 유의하게 높았다(P=0.04). 전체 환아중 혈액 배양검사는 23명이 시행되었고 이중 안와주위군의 1명에서 S. aureus가 자랐으며 MSSA였다. 혈액 배양검사 양성율은 4.3%로 낮았다. 농양부위의 배양검사는 안와주위군의 3명에서 시행되었고 이중 2명에서 각각 S. pyogenes, S. viridans가 동정되었다. 결 론 : 안와와 안와주위 봉와직염은 별개의 질환으로 병인이 서로 다르다. 안와 주위종창으로 내원한 환아들 중 부비동염이 선행되었거나, 안와증상인 안근마비, 결막부종, 안구돌출 등이 보이는 경우, 안검의 종창으로 이학적 검사가 힘들고 안와 봉와직염이 의심스러운 경우 CT scan은 필수적이며 치료를 위해 소아감염, 이비인후과, 안과 등 다양한 과로 구성된 팀(multi-speciality team)의 협진이 필요할 것으로 생각된다.

• 한국가정과교육학회지
• /
• 제19권4호
• /
• pp.91-117
• /
• 2007

이 연구는 우리나라 가정과 교육과정과 실천적 문제 중심 교육과정을 개발 적용하는데 선구적 역할을 해온 미국의 오레곤 주와 오하이오 주의 가정과 교육과정의 비교를 통하여 교육과정에서 다루는 교육내용과 실천적 문제를 분석하고, 교수 학습 과정과 평가 방법을 살펴보았다. 연구 결과 우리나라의 경우 가정학의 주요 개념을 중심으로, 오레곤 주는 중학교는 가족의 기능을 중심으로, 고등학교는 청소년의 6가지 역할을 중심으로 가정교과 전체를 통합한 실천적 문제를 다루고 있었으며, 오하이오 주의 경우 실천적 문제를 해결하는데 요구되는 능력을 내용영역으로 구분하여 관심분야, 모듈, 지지개념으로 세분하고 교수 학습 활동은 모듈 단위로 지지개념이 포함된 실천적 문제를 다루고 있었다. 우리나라의 교수 학습 과정은 지식과 이론 위주의 주입식 수업이 주를 이루고 있는데 앞으로는 실천적 문제 해결을 위한 수행 활동 중심으로 바뀌어야 한다. 단순한 지식이나 이론의 전달만이 아닌 구체적이고 실천적인 문제를 다루고 문제 해결 과정도 다양한 학생 활동으로 구성하여야 한다. 미국 오레곤 주와 오하이오 주의 실천적 문제 중심 교육과정의 교수 학습 방법은 주로 학생들의 그룹별 협동 학습을 강조하였고 기술적 행동과 해석적 행동 및 해방적 행동으로 교수 학습 과정이 이루어진다. 평가의 경우 오레곤 주나 오하이오 주 모두 실천문제를 다루다 보니 지필 평가 보다 활동 평가가 주를 이루고 있다. 오레곤 주의 경우 학년을 수료할 때 통합교과적인 평가도 시행하고 있다. 우리나라도 수행평가를 반영하도록 권장하고 있으나, 개념 중심 교육과정에서는 지식과 개념의 이해를 묻는 지필평가가 주를 이루고 있으며, 수행평가의 경우 신뢰성과 타당성 문제를 야기하고 있어서 평가의 주는 지필평가에 의존하고 있는 상황이다. 그러나 우리나라의 가정과 교육과정이 실천적 문제 중심으로 전환된다면, 수행평가가 주를 이루어야 할 것이며 이에 따르는 문제점도 연구되어야 할 것이다.inserting a lock field in data file header structure. The lock field intensifies the security of a data file. Finally we proposed a data file search mechanism and free space search mechanism using only data file header. The file system using these mechanisms spends smaller memory than that using a file description table and record of unallocated space. 촉매로 사용하여 아이소옥탄 내에서 라세믹 나프록센 2,2,2-트리플로로에틸 씨오에스터의 효소적 DKR 반응을 수행해 보았다. 그 결과 DIAION WA30을 사용하지 않은 경우에 비해 반응 전환율과 생성물의 광학 순도는 급격히 향상되었다. 전통적 광학분할 반응의 최대 50%라는 전환율의 제한이 본 연구에서 찾은 DIAION WA30을 첨가함으로써 성공적으로 극복되었다. 또한 고체 염기촉매인 DIAION WA30의 사용은 라세미화 촉매의 회수 및 재사용이 가능하게 해준다.해준다.다. TN5 세포주를 0.2 L 규모 (1 L spinner flask)oJl에서 세포간의 응집현상 없이 부유배양에 적응,배양시킨 후 세포성장 시기에 따른 발현을 조사한 결과 1 MOI의 감염조건 하에서는 $0.6\times10^6$cell/mL의 early exponential시기의 세포밀도에서 72시간 배양하였을 대 최대 발현양을 나타내었다. 나타내었다. $\beta$4 integrin의 표현이 침투 능력을 높이는 역할을 하나 이때에는 laminin과 같은 리간드와의 특이 결합에 의존하지는 않는 것으로 사료된다.상경적 결합시험의

• 마케팅과학연구
• /
• 제19권2호
• /
• pp.68-79
• /
• 2009

The interplay between hedonic and utilitarian attributes has assumed special significance in recent years; it has been proposed that consumption offerings should be viewed as experiences that stimulate both cognitions and feelings rather than as mere products or services. This research builds on previous work on hedonic versus utilitarian benefits, regulatory focus theory, customer satisfaction to address two question: (1) Is the shopping goal at the point of purchase different from the shopping value? and (2) Is the customer loyalty after the use different from the shopping value and shopping goal? We surveyed 345 peoples those who have bought the electronic-goods within 6 months. This research dealt with the shopping value which is consisted of 2 types, hedonic and utilitarian. Those who pursue the hedonic shopping value may prefer the pleasure of purchasing experience to the product itself. They tend to prefer atmosphere, arousal of the shopping experience. Consistent with previous research, we use the term "hedonic" to refer to their aesthetic, experiential and enjoyment-related value. On the contrary, Those who pursue the utilitarian shopping value may prefer the reasonable buying. It may be more functional. Consistent with previous research, we use the term "utilitarian" to refer to the functional, instrumental, and practical value of consumption offerings. Holbrook(1999) notes that consumer value is an experience that results from the consumption of such benefits. In the context of cell phones for example, the phone's battery life and sound volume are utilitarian benefits, whereas aesthetic appeal from its shape and color are hedonic benefits. Likewise, in the case of a car, fuel economics and safety are utilitarian benefits whereas the sunroof and the luxurious interior are hedonic benefits. The shopping goals are consisted of the promotion focus goal and the prevention focus goal, based on the self-regulatory focus theory. The promotion focus is characterized into focusing ideal self because they are oriented to wishes and vision. The promotion focused individuals are tend to be more risk taking. They are more sensitive to hope and achievement. On the contrary, the prevention focused individuals are characterized into focusing the responsibilities because they are oriented to safety. The prevention focused individuals are tend to be more risk avoiding. We wanted to test the relation among the shopping value, shopping goal and customer loyalty. Customers show the positive or negative feelings comparing with the expectation level which customers have at the point of the purchase. If the result were bigger than the expectation, customers may feel positive feeling such as delight or satisfaction and they would want to share their feelings with other people. And they want to buy those products again in the future time. There is converging evidence that the types of goals consumers expect to be fulfilled by the utilitarian dimension of a product are different from those they seek from the hedonic dimension (Chernev 2004). Specifically, whereas consumers expect the fulfillment of product prevention goals on the utilitarian dimension, they expect the fulfillment of promotion goals on the hedonic dimension (Chernev 2004; Chitturi, Raghunathan, and Majahan 2007; Higgins 1997, 2001) According to the regulatory focus theory, prevention goals are those that ought to be met. Fulfillment of prevention goals in the context of product consumption eliminates or significantly reduces the probability of a painful experience, thus making consumers experience emotions that result from fulfillment of prevention goals such as confidence and securities. On the contrary, fulfillment of promotion goals are those that a person aspires to meet, such as "looking cool" or "being sophisticated." Fulfillment of promotion goals in the context of product consumption significantly increases the probability of a pleasurable experience, thus enabling consumers to experience emotions that result from the fulfillment of promotion goals. The proposed conceptual framework captures that the relationships among hedonic versus utilitarian shopping values and promotion versus prevention shopping goals respectively. An analysis of the consequence of the fulfillment and frustration of utilitarian and hedonic value is theoretically worthwhile. It is also substantively relevant because it helps predict post-consumption behavior such as the promotion versus prevention shopping goals orientation. Because our primary goal is to understand how the post consumption feelings influence the variable customer loyalty: word of mouth (Jacoby and Chestnut 1978). This research result is that the utilitarian shopping value gives the positive influence to both of the promotion and prevention goal. However the influence to the prevention goal is stronger. On the contrary, hedonic shopping value gives influence to the promotion focus goal only. Additionally, both of the promotion and prevention goal show the positive relation with customer loyalty. However, the positive relation with promotion goal and customer loyalty is much stronger. The promotion focus goal gives the influence to the customer loyalty. On the contrary, the prevention focus goal relates at the low level of relation with customer loyalty than that of the promotion goal. It could be explained that it is apt to get framed the compliment of people into 'gain-non gain' situation. As the result, for those who have the promotion focus are motivated to deliver their own feeling to other people eagerly. Conversely the prevention focused individual are more sensitive to the 'loss-non loss' situation. The research result is consistent with pre-existent researches. There is a conceptual parallel between necessities-needs-utilitarian benefits and luxuries-wants-hedonic benefits (Chernev 2004; Chitturi, Raghunathan and Majaha 2007; Higginns 1997; Kivetz and Simonson 2002b). In addition, Maslow's hierarchy of needs and the precedence principle contends luxuries-wants-hedonic benefits higher than necessities-needs-utilitarian benefits. Chitturi, Raghunathan and Majaha (2007) show that consumers are focused more on the utilitarian benefits than on the hedonic benefits of a product until their minimum expectation of fulfilling prevention goals are met. Furthermore, a utilitarian benefit is a promise of a certain level of functionality by the manufacturer or the retailer. When the promise is not fulfilled, customers blame the retailer and/or the manufacturer. When negative feelings are attributable to an entity, customers feel angry. However in the case of hedonic benefit, the customer, not the manufacturer, determines at the time of purchase whether the product is stylish and attractive. Under such circumstances, customers are more likely to blame themselves than the manufacturer if their friends do not find the product stylish and attractive. Therefore, not meeting minimum utilitarian expectations of functionality generates a much more intense negative feelings, such as anger than a less intense feeling such as disappointment or dissatisfactions. The additional multi group analysis of this research shows the same result. Those who are unsatisfactory customers who have the prevention focused goal shows higher relation with WOM, comparing with satisfactory customers. The research findings in this article could have significant implication for the personal selling fields to increase the effectiveness and the efficiency of the sales such that they can develop the sales presentation strategy for the customers. For those who are the hedonic customers may be apt to show more interest to the promotion goal. Therefore it may work to strengthen the design, style or new technology of the products to the hedonic customers. On the contrary for the utilitarian customers, it may work to strengthen the price competitiveness. On the basis of the result from our studies, we demonstrated a correspondence among hedonic versus utilitarian and promotion versus prevention goal, WOM. Similarly, we also found evidence of the moderator effects of satisfaction after use, between the prevention goal and WOM. Even though the prevention goal has the low level of relation to WOM, those who are not satisfied show higher relation to WOM. The relation between the prevention goal and WOM is significantly different according to the satisfaction versus unsatisfaction. In addition, improving the promotion emotions of cheerfulness and excitement and the prevention emotion of confidence and security will further improve customer loyalty. A related potential further research could be to examine whether hedonic versus utilitarian, promotion versus prevention goals improve customer loyalty for services as well. Under the budget and time constraints, designers and managers are often compelling to choose among various attributes. If there is no budget or time constraints, perhaps the best solution is to maximize both hedonic and utilitarian dimension of benefits. However, they have to make trad-off process between various attributes. For the designers and managers have to keep in mind that without hedonic benefit satisfaction of the product it may hard to lead the customers to the customer loyalty.