Title

台灣地區國小實施健康促進學校現況之研究

Translated Titles

Implementation of health-promoting Schools in the Elementary School in Taiwan

DOI

10.30026/CJSH.200506.0001

Authors

黃淑貞(Sheu-Jen Huang);徐美玲(Meei-Ling Shyu);莊苹(Peing Chuang);姜逸群(I-Chyun Chiang);陳曉玟(Hsiao-Wen Chen);邱雅莉(Ya-Li Chiu)

Key Words

健康促進學校 ; 衛生組長 ; 深度訪談 ; 台灣地區 ; 國民小學 ; health promoting school health ; administrators in-depth interview ; Taiwan elementary school

PublicationName

學校衛生

Volume or Term/Year and Month of Publication

46期(2005 / 06 / 01)

Page #

1 - 23

Content Language

繁體中文

Chinese Abstract

本研究主要目的是瞭解目前台灣地區國小健康促進學校推動的現況以及學校衛生行政人員實際執行的情形。研究者以台北市、高雄市、台灣省以及金馬地區全體國民小學之各校衛生組長及教師為研究對象。依照都下化程度及各區大、中、小型學校所佔教師比率,估算出各該地區需抽出之學校數,實際共抽出83所學校,衛生組長發出問卷後有效回收67份,回收率80.7%;教師部分有效回收1264份,回收率71.0%。 研究者並以方便取樣抽取18位衛生組長做深度訪談。研究結果發現,各校執行衛生政策、健康服務、健康教育課程及活動、物質環境、精神環境、及社區關係等六大項工作內容,雖有部分的基礎,但學校本位的衛生教育工作均有待加強。各校推動健康促進工作,仍以教育部等上級單位的政策為依歸,由上而下完成交辦事項,對於健康促進學校這個名詞並不熟悉,被動而無真正觀念的落實與延續,因而無法掌握健康促進的核心精神,仍有許多努力的空間。都市化程度並不影響學校推動健康促進工作,但是學校規模卻有影響,中型學校表現最好。學校相當重視實施學生的健康活動,但對教職員工的健康活動實施工作重視度最低。學校本身會提供校園場地及舉辦活動供民眾使用,惟教師參與社區活動可再增強。學校對於菸、毒及暴力防制均極為重視。研究建議:(一)相關單位提供足夠的教育與衛生工作資源,加強健康促進工作內容及策略的宣導;(二)學校就健康促進學校的六大範疇工作,全面回顧與檢討。(三)結合學校及社區資源,共同推動健康計畫。

English Abstract

The purpose of this study was to investigate the status quo of implementing health promotion schools and how the health administrators played the role at present. The sample was selected from the health administrators who were in the elementary school in Taiwan. Sixty-three of the health administrators completed the self-administered questionnaire and comprised the response rate as 80.7%. Twelve hundred and sixty-four teachers completed the teacher questionnaire and comprised the response rate as 71.0%. Besides, the researcher used the in-depth interview to collect more data from health administrators. Major findings of this study were as followed: The schools must enhance in action of school health policies, health services, health teaching, physical environment, social environment, and community relationships. Middle-sized schools were best implementing health-promoting school. Most schools implemented health-promoting schools based on policies of governmental health agencies and education agencies. The health administrators at elementary schools didn't have a clear concept of health-promoting school and implementing the health-related programs in a fragmented way. The schools regarded the students' health activities as one of the highest priorities. By contrast, the schools paid less attention to improve the health of teachers and staff. Based on the results, the authors suggested: (1) Health agencies and education agencies should provide adequate resources to advocate and strengthen strategies and tasks of health promoting schools including training and empowerment. (2) The schools should review and evaluate all health-related activities going on at present and develop a school-based strategies and plan of their own. (3) Resources from schools and surrounding communities should be allocated appropriately to develop and expand health programs.

Topic Category 醫藥衛生 > 預防保健與衛生學
醫藥衛生 > 社會醫學
社會科學 > 教育學
Reference
  1. Australian Health Promoting Schools Association(1997).National action plan for health Promoting schools 1998-2001.Sydney:Australian Health Promoting Schools Association.
  2. Australian Health Promoting Schools Association(2001).National Framework for Health Promoting Schools 2000-2003.Sydney:Australian Health Promoting Schools Association.
  3. Mase, L.,Lievens, J.(2003).Can the school make a difference? A multilevel analysis of adolescent risk and health behaviour.Social Science & Medicine,56,517-529.
  4. Web sites: Responsible self-regulation
  5. Web sites: Responsible self-regulation
  6. Swart, D.,Reddy, P.(1999).Establishing Networks for health promoting schools in South Africa.The Journal of School Health,69(2),47-50.
  7. WHO(1996).School Health Promotion Series 5: Regional Guidelines: Development of Health Promoting Schools: A Framework for Action.Manila:WHO.
  8. WHO(1997).Report of a WHO Expert Committee on Comprehensive School Health Education and Promotion.Hong Kong:
  9. WHO(1998).WHO`S global school health initiative: helping schools to become "Health-Promoting Schools" Fact Sheet (92).
  10. 行政院衛生署(2002)。行政院衛生署學校健康促進計畫。台北:行政院衛生署。
  11. 行政院衛生署(2003)。健康促進學校工作指引。台北:行政院衛生署。
  12. 李大拔(2002)。健康促進學校工作指引。香港:健康教育及促進健康中心。
  13. 李朝賢(1998)。台灣農業勞動的發展策略。台灣經濟,256,1-11。
  14. 法務部(2003)。學校廳廚房員工消費合作社衛生管理辦法。台北:法務部。
  15. 陳毓璟(2001)。健康促進學校的發展與推動。學校衛生,39,40-62。
  16. 陳燕慧(2002)。碩士論文(碩士論文)。台中師範學院國民教育研究所。
  17. 黃淑貞(1998)。世界健康促進學校計畫簡介。學校衛生通訊,19(4),2-6。
Times Cited
  1. 鄭如珍(2012)。學校氣氛、學生閱讀態度影響學生閱讀素養之多層次分析–以PISA 2009上海資料庫為例。中興大學教師專業發展研究所學位論文。2012。1-106。 
  2. 廖長荷(2011)。新北市國民小學實施健康促進學校計畫認知與執行之研究。國立臺北教育大學教育經營與管理學系學位論文。2011。1-186。 
  3. 譚燕婉(2006)。彰化縣國民中小學校長對健康促進學校工作之認知及執行研究。臺灣師範大學衛生教育學系在職進修碩士班學位論文。2006。1-97。
  4. 劉芝伶(2006)。台北市國中八年級學生知覺學校氣氛、學業成就與危害健康行為研究。臺灣師範大學衛生教育學系學位論文。2006。1-135。
  5. 何智靖(2007)。某大學學生對學校飲食政策和飲食環境之認知與飲食行為相關研究。臺灣師範大學衛生教育學系在職進修碩士班學位論文。2007。1-101。
  6. 吳雯菁(2008)。彰化縣國民中小學衛生組長對健康促進學校的認知、態度及執行程度之研究。臺灣師範大學健康促進與衛生教育學系在職進修碩士班學位論文。2008。1-179。
  7. 魏珮嘉(2009)。台北縣市國中衛生組長健康促進學校執行情形及相關因素研究。臺灣師範大學健康促進與衛生教育學系在職進修碩士班學位論文。2009。1-125。
  8. 林蕙王亭(2010)。以RE-AIM模式評價健康促進學校計畫之執行情形。臺灣師範大學健康促進與衛生教育學系學位論文。2010。1-111。
  9. 鍾哲萍(2010)。苗栗公務人員健康生活型態與健康體適能之研究。中興大學國家政策與公共事務研究所學位論文。2010。1-122。
  10. 陳美嬿(2010)。健康促進學校與社區夥伴關係之現況及其相關因素研究。臺灣師範大學健康促進與衛生教育學系學位論文。2010。1-128。