• 대한간호학회지
• /
• 제13권1호
• /
• pp.7-21
• /
• 1983

For the flexible and rational distribution of limited existing health resources based on measurements of individual risk, the socalled Risk Approach is being proposed by the World Health Organization as a managerial tool in maternal and child health care program. This approach, in principle, puts us under the necessity of developing a technique by which we will be able to measure the degree of risk or to discriminate the future outcomes of pregnancy on the basis of prior information obtainable at prenatal care delivery settings. Numerous recent studies have focussed on the identification of relevant risk factors as the Prior infer mation and on defining the adverse outcomes of pregnancy to be dicriminated, and also have tried on how to develope scoring system of risk factors for the quantitative assessment of the factors as the determinant of pregnancy outcomes. Once the scoring system is established the technique of classifying the patients into with normal and with adverse outcomes will be easily de veloped. The scoring system should be developed to meet the following four basic requirements. 1) Easy to construct 2) Easy to use 3) To be theoretically sound 4) To be valid In searching for a feasible methodology which will meet these requirements, the author has attempted to apply the“Likelihood Method”, one of the well known principles in statistical analysis, to develop such scoring system according to the process as follows. Step 1. Classify the patients into four groups: Group $A_1$: With adverse outcomes on fetal (neonatal) side only. Group $A_2$: With adverse outcomes on maternal side only. Group $A_3$: With adverse outcome on both maternal and fetal (neonatal) sides. Group B: With normal outcomes. Step 2. Construct the marginal tabulation on the distribution of risk factors for each group. Step 3. For the calculation of risk score, take logarithmic transformation of relative proport-ions of the distribution and round them off to integers. Step 4. Test the validity of the score chart. h total of 2, 282 maternity records registered during the period of January 1, 1982-December 31, 1982 at Ewha Womans University Hospital were used for this study and the“Questionnaire for Maternity Record for Prenatal and Intrapartum High Risk Screening”developed by the Korean Institute for Population and Health was used to rearrange the information on the records into an easy analytic form. The findings of the study are summarized as follows. 1) The risk score chart constructed on the basis of“Likelihood Method”ispresented in Table 4 in the main text. 2) From the analysis of the risk score chart it was observed that a total of 24 risk factors could be identified as having significant predicting power for the discrimination of pregnancy outcomes into four groups as defined above. They are: (1) age (2) marital status (3) age at first pregnancy (4) medical insurance (5) number of pregnancies (6) history of Cesarean sections (7). number of living child (8) history of premature infants (9) history of over weighted new born (10) history of congenital anomalies (11) history of multiple pregnancies (12) history of abnormal presentation (13) history of obstetric abnormalities (14) past illness (15) hemoglobin level (16) blood pressure (17) heart status (18) general appearance (19) edema status (20) result of abdominal examination (21) cervix status (22) pelvis status (23) chief complaints (24) Reasons for examination 3) The validity of the score chart turned out to be as follows: a) Sensitivity: Group $A_1$: 0.75 Group $A_2$: 0.78 Group $A_3$: 0.92 All combined : 0.85 b) Specificity : 0.68 4) The diagnosabilities of the“score chart”for a set of hypothetical prevalence of adverse outcomes were calculated as follows (the sensitivity“for all combined”was used). Hypothetidal Prevalence : 5％ 10％ 20％ 30％ 40％ 50％ 60％ Diagnosability : 12% 23% 40% 53% 64% 75% 80%.

• 대한방사선기술학회지:방사선기술과학
• /
• 제39권1호
• /
• pp.51-57
• /
• 2016

뇌 자기공명영상(Magnetic Resornance Imaging; MRI)에서 검사 중 발생되는 소음을 줄이기 위한 기법으로 경사 파형을 변경한 Quiet $T_2$-weighted Turbo Spin-Echo(이하 Q-$T_2$)와 일반적으로 사용되는 $T_2$-weighted Turbo Spin-Echo(이하 $T_2$) 영상의 소음수준 및 영상의 질을 비교하여 그 유용성을 알아보고자 하였다. 3.0T MR 기기로 뇌 MR 검사를 받은 60명(남자 29명, 여자 31명, 평균 연령 60.1세)의 환자를 대상으로 하였다. Q-$T_2$와 $T_2$ 각각의 영상에서 소음 및 심박동수를 측정하였다. 정량적 분석은 Q-$T_2$와 $T_2$의 SNR, CNR, SIR 값을 측정한 뒤 독립표본 T검정을 이용하여 통계적 분석을 하였다. 정성적 분석은 Q-$T_2$와 $T_2$의 전체적인 영상의 질에 대하여 육안으로 평가하였다. 평가는 5점 척도로서 우수(excellent) 5점, 양호(good) 4점, 보통(fair) 3점, 불량(poor) 2점, 평가불가(unacceptable) 1점으로 평가하였다. Q-$T_2$와 $T_2$ 검사 중 평균소음과 peak소음은 Q-$T_2$가 기존 $T_2$에 비해 각각 $15dB_A$, $10dB_A$ 감소하였다. 또한 각각의 검사 중 120초 동안 심박동수의 평균값은 Q-$T_2$에서 더 낮은 값으로 나타났지만 통계적인 유의성은 없었다. 정량적 분석의 결과 CNR과 SIR은 유의한 차이가 없었으며, SNR은 Q-$T_2$가 더 낮은 평균값을 보임으로서 유의한 차이를 보였다(p<0.05). 정성적 분석은 59개의 Q-$T_2$와 $T_2$ 영상의 질이 동일하게 우수(excellent) 5점으로 평가되었으며, 1개의 영상에서 모션 아티팩트로 인해 양호(good) 4점으로 평가되었다. Q-$T_2$는 기존의 $T_2$와 같이 검사시간 및 진단의 정확도는 동일하지만 소음을 효과적으로 감소시킬 수 있으며, 이로인하여 환자 편의를 향상시킬 수 있을 것으로 사료된다.

• 마케팅과학연구
• /
• 제20권1호
• /
• pp.89-97
• /
• 2010

本文研究共同特性对于无选择权的影响, 并涉及到了调节焦点理论. 本文主要着眼于这三个因子以及他们之间的关系. 之前的研究已经广泛涉及到这三个方面. 第一, 共同特性影响已经被广为研究. Tversky (1972) 开创了这个理论, EBA 模型: 通过消除方面. 根据这个理论, 消费者在比较的过程中更易于注意特殊的特性, 而忽略共同特性. 最近, 更多的研究开始针对于此模型对于消费者行为的影响. Chernev (1997) 认为增加共同特性可以减少选择距离. 但是, 随后Chernev (2001) 的研究指出共同特性可能是消费者认知上的负担, 所以他们更喜欢启发式的过程而不是系统式的过程. 这些研究提出了一系列问题: 共同特性是否影响顾客选择? 如果是的话, 这些影响是什么样子的? 第二, 一些研究指出没有选择的状况是消费者最好的选择, 他们在犹豫不决时用这种方法回避选择. 其他关于这一理论的研究是时间的压力, 消费者自信, 以及可供选择的数量. 第三, 调节聚焦理论在目前非常流行. 消费者有两个焦点目标: 促进和制止. 促进聚焦主要和希望, 野心, 成功, 获得等有关; 而制止聚焦和责任, 职责, 安全, 规避等有关. 调节聚焦理论预测了顾客的感情, 创造, 态度, 记忆, 表现, 和判断. 而这些都是市场营销研究的领域这些文献为本文的研究提供了一些理论支持. 特别是增加共同特征而不是忽略他们可以增加选择过程中克制消费者的没有选择状况的比重, 其对于促进消费者的作用确实相反的. 本文通过两个试验进行验证. 第一个是2 X 2 组间的设计(共同特性X调节聚焦), 数码相机作为相关的客体. 特别的是, 调节聚焦变量是从11个问题中取得的. 共同特性包括焦距, 重量, 记忆卡, 电池, 而像素和价格作为独特特性. 结果证明了我们的假设, 那就是增加共同特性增加了克制消费者的无选择比重, 而对促进消费者没有作用. 第二个试验被用来复制第一个实验的结果. 这个实验和之前的基本相同, 只有两个方面不同—主要控制和研究客体. 在促进的前提下, 研究对象必须一些词例如: 利润, 野心, 高兴, 成功, 发展等. 在克制的前提下, 他们必学写下坚持, 安全, 保护, 规避, 损失, 责任等词. 实验证明我们假设是成立的. 本研究说明了共同特性对于顾客选择的二重效果. 增加共同特性可以提高或者降低无选择状况. 本文对于理论研究和实践上都有着贡献. 对于市场营销人员来说, 他们可能需要根据顾客的划分来考虑产品的共同特性. 理论上, 研究结果支持共同特性和无选择状况的调节变量. 最后, 本文也有一些不足, 例如过于强调态度的重要性等. 我们希望本文能够为未来的研究做出抛砖引玉的作用.