學校衛生工作模式與青少年健康之研究
No Thumbnail Available
Date
2009-06-01
Authors
姜逸群
黃雅文
胡益進
黃春太
林怡杉
謝嘉珍
Journal Title
Journal ISSN
Volume Title
Publisher
中華民國學校衛生學會
Abstract
本研究目的在探討國中生的學校聯結與健康之現況，以及比較不同學校衛生工作模式下兩者之異同。以南部七縣市公立學校國中生為研究母群體，採機率比率抽樣方式，利用結構式問卷進行資料收集，共得有效問卷4216份，有效回收率98.5%，其重要結果如下：一、國中生與學校聯結來看，以學校承諾最好，學校涉入次之，歸屬感再次之，以學校信念最差。二、國中生在落實健康促進行為上，整體而言相當良好，其中以安全行為最佳，營養行為次之，運動行為表現最差。三、國中生的幸福感在中等程度。四、健康促進學校與傳統衛生計畫學校比較時，在學校聯結上，健康促進學校優於傳統衛生計畫學校，但其差異主要是在學生對學校承諾上，而在歸屬感、師生關係、學校涉入和學校信念上則無顯著差異；在健康促進行為上，健康促進學校只有在安全行為上優於傳統衛生計畫學校，在營養行為、運動行為、壓力管理行為、健康責任行為則沒有顯著差異。五、幸福感方面，健康促進學校與傳統學校衛生計畫則無顯著差異。研究者針對研究結果加以討論，並且提出建議以供未來研究與實務應用上之參考。
The purpose of this study was to investigate the school connectedness and health of junior high school students, and to further examine differences in two models of school health work. The students of junior high schools at 7 counties and cities in Southern Taiwan were the target population of the study, and the samples were selected by using probability proportionate to size sampling method. The data collection was based on structural questionnaire method, and there were 426 valid samples, which presented a 98.5% of valid response rate. The main results of the study are summarized as follows: 1. As far as the connectedness with junior high school students and schools, were concerned the best was school commitment, the second was school involvement, the third was belonging, and the worst was school belief. 2. The health promoting behaviors of junior high school students were good as the whole. Among the health promoting behaviors, the best was safety behavior, the second was nutrition behavior, and the worst was exercise behavior. 3. The wellbeing of junior high school students was mediuml. 4. The comparison of health promoting schools and traditional health program schools, health promoting schools were better than traditional health program schools in school connectedness, but the difference mainly to school commitment in students. There were no significant difference in belonging, teacher-student relationship, school involvement and school belief. On the health promoting behavior, the health promoting schools were only superior to traditional health program schools on the safety behavior. There were no significant difference in nutrition behavior, exercise behavior, stress management behavior, health responsibility behavior. 5. In wellbeing, health promotion schools and traditional health program schools were no significant difference. The results of the study and applications of the program were discussed and the recommendations for future research were proposed.
The purpose of this study was to investigate the school connectedness and health of junior high school students, and to further examine differences in two models of school health work. The students of junior high schools at 7 counties and cities in Southern Taiwan were the target population of the study, and the samples were selected by using probability proportionate to size sampling method. The data collection was based on structural questionnaire method, and there were 426 valid samples, which presented a 98.5% of valid response rate. The main results of the study are summarized as follows: 1. As far as the connectedness with junior high school students and schools, were concerned the best was school commitment, the second was school involvement, the third was belonging, and the worst was school belief. 2. The health promoting behaviors of junior high school students were good as the whole. Among the health promoting behaviors, the best was safety behavior, the second was nutrition behavior, and the worst was exercise behavior. 3. The wellbeing of junior high school students was mediuml. 4. The comparison of health promoting schools and traditional health program schools, health promoting schools were better than traditional health program schools in school connectedness, but the difference mainly to school commitment in students. There were no significant difference in belonging, teacher-student relationship, school involvement and school belief. On the health promoting behavior, the health promoting schools were only superior to traditional health program schools on the safety behavior. There were no significant difference in nutrition behavior, exercise behavior, stress management behavior, health responsibility behavior. 5. In wellbeing, health promotion schools and traditional health program schools were no significant difference. The results of the study and applications of the program were discussed and the recommendations for future research were proposed.