보건행정학회지 (Health Policy and Management)

  • 제22권1호
  • /
  • Pages.49-64
  • /
  • 2012
  • /
  • 1225-4266(pISSN)
  • /
  • 2289-0149(eISSN)
한국보건행정학회 (Korean Academy of Health Policy and Management)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

건강검진 수검의 결정요인 및 건강증진행위 변화 효과

Determinants of health screening and its effects on health behaviors

  • 여지영 (연세대학교 보건행정학과) ;
  • 정형선 (연세대학교 보건행정학과)
  • 투고 : 2011.11.06
  • 심사 : 2012.01.17
  • 발행 : 2012.03.31
PDF 다운로드
⟨ 이전 논문 다음 논문 ⟩

초록

With the burden of chronic diseases mounting among the population as a result of its aging, the importance of health examination is being stressed in order to identify and manage diseases in the early stage. Health examination in Korea is divided largely into periodic health examination provided as a national health screening program and individual physical checkups. The advantages of the former include little economic burden on the examined and those of the latter include the freedom of the individual to select various examination headings depending on the individual's characteristics and preferences. With both examinations now being expanded, empirical analyses from various standpoints are needed. This study proposes to analyze traits of the examined and non-examined as shown in the facts and figures of the 1st and 2nd Korean Longitudinal Study of Ageing (KLoSA), thereby make the determinant factors clear leading to the acceptance of the examinations, and analyze the effects of the examinations upon maintaining or moving to healthy lifestyle. It was confirmed that demographic features such as gender and age, socioeconomic features such as the level of education, place of residence and household income, physical and mental state of health such as chronic disease and dementia, and daily living habits are significantly related with whether to accept physical examination. It is also confirmed that physical examination leads to non-smoking, regular physical exercises and regular dietary habits. It is suggested that, to enhance effects of health examinations, follow-up management programs making use of results of health examinations be further expanded, and the national health screening program be more actively put into operation for the bracket lying in the blind spot of the program.

키워드

참고문헌

  1. 강성욱, 유창훈, 권영대. 민간검진 서비스의 이용 현황과 결정요인. 예방의학회지 2009; 42(3): 177-182.
  2. 국민건강보험공단. 건강검진 이용자 만족도 조사. 서울: 국민건강보험공단; 2007.
  3. 국민건강보험공단. 2009국가건강검진통계연보. 서울: 국민건강보험공단; 2010.
  4. 김한숙. 민간 검진과 국가 검진 이용자의 특성 비교를 통한 건강검진 정책 효율화 연구[박사학위 논문]. 서울: 경희대학교 대학원; 2010.
  5. 신연수, 박종연, 정상혁, 정혜영, 강혜영. 건강보험공단 건강검진과 자비 건강검진 수검자간의 만족도 비교. 한국의료QA학회지 2006; 12(1): 40-51.
  6. 윤영덕, 서수라, 김현철. 일반건강검진사업의 효과 평가. 서울: 국민건강보험공단; 2010.
  7. 이상아, 최귀선, 황순영, 이지영, 박은철, 이경재 등. 한국인의 건강 검진 행태에 영향을 미치는 사회경제적 지표 및 건강관련요인에 대한 분석. 대한암예방학회지 2004; 9(3): 188-198.
  8. 이상일, 조민우. 우리 나라 자궁경부암 조기발견 사업의 비용-효과 분석. 대한임상건강증진학회지 2003; 3(1): 43-52.
  9. 이애경, 한준태, 강임옥, 박일수, 강민아. 건강검진결과 사후관리의 실태 및 효과분석. 서울: 국민건강보험공단; 2006.
  10. 이애경, 이상이, 강임옥, 정백근, 한준태, 박일수 등. 건강검진 사후관리 서비스의 건강 증진 효과. 보건교육.건강증진학회지 2007; 24(1): 127-138.
  11. 이애경, 고민정, 한준태, 오상우, 서순려. 생애전환기 건강진단사업의 평가 연구. 서울:국민건강보험공단; 2008.
  12. 이애경, 이상이, 윤태호, 정백근. 국민건강보험공단 건강검진 결과 비만으로 판정된 사람들을 대상으로 한 사후관리사업의 효과. 보건교육.건강증진학회지 2009; 26 (3): 75-83.
  13. 이정석. 생애전환기 건강진단 수검자 만족도 및 건강행태 변화-2차 건강검진 생활습관 평가 및 처방을 중심으로. 건강보장정책 2010; 8:80-101.
  14. 임재영. 개인의 건강증진행위에 대한 건강검진의 정보효과: 한국의 경우를 중심으로. 한국대발연구 2011; 33(1): 73-91.
  15. 장숙랑, 조성일, 황승식, 정최경희, 임소영, 이지애 등. 자궁경부암 검진 수검률의 불평등 추이. 예방의학회지 2007; 40(6): 505-511.
  16. 전은정, 장숙랑, 조성일, 조영태, 문옥륜. 사회경제적 위치에 따른 건강검진 수검률의 차이: 서울시 성인 거주자를 대상으로. 예방의학회지 2007; 40(5): 345-350.
  17. 정형선. 건강보험 보장성 지표 개발 연구. 서울: 국민건강보험공단; 2010.
  18. 조비룡, 이철민. 우리나라 국가검진체계의 실상. 대한의사협회지 2011; 54(7): 666-669. https://doi.org/10.5124/jkma.2011.54.7.666
  19. 천희란, 김일호. 노년기 예방검진에서 사회경제적 불평등. 대한예방의학회 2007; 40 (5): 404-410.
  20. 최용준. 국가 건강검진 사업의 경제성 평가 체계 개발에 관한 연구. 춘천: 한림대학교; 2008.
  21. Ashton HA, Buxton MJ, Day NE, Kim LG, Marteau TM, Scott RA, et al. The Multicentre Aneurysm Screening Study (MASS) into the effect of abdominal aortic aneurysm screening on mortality in men: a randomised controlled trial. Lancet 2002; 360: 1531-1539. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(02)11522-4
  22. Broyles, R, Narine, L, Brandt, E, Biard-Holmes, D. Health risks, ability to pay, and the use of primary care: is the distribution of service effective and equitable?. Preventive Medicine 2000; 30: 453-462. https://doi.org/10.1006/pmed.2000.0672
  23. David H. Howard. Life expectancy and the value of early detection. Journal of Health Economics 2005; 24: 891-906. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhealeco.2005.03.002
  24. Eastman RC, Javitt JC, Herman WH, Dasbach EJ, Zbrozek AS, Dong F, et al. Model of Complications of NIDDM: I. Model construction and assumptions. Diabetscare 2007; 20(5): 725-734.
  25. Finkelstein, M. Preventive screening. What factors influence testing. Canadian Family Physician 2002; 48: 1494-1501.
  26. Thomas J. Hoerger, Russell Harris, Katherine A. Hicks, Katrina Donahue, Stephen Sorensen, Michael Engelgau. Screening for type2 Diiabetes Melitus: A Cost-Effectiveness Analysis. Annals of Internal Medicine 2004; 140(9): 689-699. https://doi.org/10.7326/0003-4819-140-9-200405040-00008
  27. Katz, S.; Hofer, T. Socioeconomic disparities in preventive care persist despite universal coverage, Breast and cervical cancer screening in Ontario and United States. JAMA 1994; 272: 530-534. https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.1994.03520070050037
  28. Lorant V, Boland B, Humblet P, Deliege, D. Equity in prevention and health care. J Epidemiol Community Health 2002; 56: 510-516. https://doi.org/10.1136/jech.56.7.510
  29. Rohlfs, I, Borrel, C, Pasarin, I, Plasencia, A. The role of sociodemographic factors in preventive services. European Journal of Public Health 1999; 9: 278-284. https://doi.org/10.1093/eurpub/9.4.278
  30. Sambamoorhti, U, McAlapine, D. Racial, ethnic, socioeconomic and access disparities in the use of preventive services among women. Preventive Medicine 2003; 37: 475-484. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0091-7435(03)00172-5
  31. Stephen Wu. Sickness and preventive medical behavior. Journal of Health Economics 2003; 22: 675-689. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0167-6296(03)00042-0
  32. Viera, A, Thorpe, J, Garrett, M. Effects of sex, age and visits on receipt of preventive healthcare services: a secondary analysis of national data. BMC Health Services Research 2006; 6: 15. https://doi.org/10.1186/1472-6963-6-15

피인용 문헌

  1. Analysis of Utilization Characteristics, Health Behaviors and Health Management Level of Participants in Private Health Examination in a General Hospital vol.14, pp.1, 2013, https://doi.org/10.5762/KAIS.2013.14.1.301
  2. A Study on the Efficient Flow of Health Examinees vol.12, pp.2, 2014, https://doi.org/10.14400/JDC.2014.12.2.379
  3. Factors Influencing the Health Examination in Unmarried Women vol.20, pp.1, 2014, https://doi.org/10.4069/kjwhn.2014.20.1.92
  4. The Effects of Adherence on Hypertension Control among Newly Diagnosed Hypertension Patients vol.24, pp.2, 2014, https://doi.org/10.4332/KJHPA.2014.24.2.136
  5. Trends and Factors Affecting Participation Rate in Korean National Health Screening among People with Disabilities vol.24, pp.2, 2014, https://doi.org/10.4332/KJHPA.2014.24.2.172
  6. What Factors Cause a Complete Examination of Infant Health Checkup? vol.24, pp.3, 2014, https://doi.org/10.4332/KJHPA.2014.24.3.261
  7. A Study on the Determinants of Rescreening for Using the Private Health Screening Program vol.13, pp.1, 2015, https://doi.org/10.14400/JDC.2015.13.1.383
  8. The Effects of Adherence and Hypertension Control on Complication among Newly Diagnosed Hypertension Patients vol.25, pp.2, 2015, https://doi.org/10.4332/KJHPA.2015.25.2.90
  9. Examinees' Knowledge of the Result Form of Korean National Health Examination vol.17, pp.3, 2017, https://doi.org/10.15384/kjhp.2017.17.3.168
  10. Why Do Some People Choose Opportunistic Rather Than Organized Cancer Screening? The Korean National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (KNHANES) 2010-2012 vol.49, pp.3, 2017, https://doi.org/10.4143/crt.2016.243
  11. Information Technology in Healthcare: HHC-MOTES, a Novel Set of Metrics to Analyse IT Sustainability in Different Areas vol.10, pp.8, 2018, https://doi.org/10.3390/su10082721
  12. Effects of socioeconomic status, health behavior, and physical activity on the prevalence of metabolic syndrome vol.14, pp.2, 2018, https://doi.org/10.12965/jer.1836074.037