기관회원 [로그인]
소속기관에서 받은 아이디, 비밀번호를 입력해 주세요.
개인회원 [로그인]

비회원 구매시 입력하신 핸드폰번호를 입력해 주세요.
본인 인증 후 구매내역을 확인하실 수 있습니다.

회원가입
서지반출
모자건강관리를 위한 위험요인별 감별평점분류기준 개발에 관한 연구
[STEP1]서지반출 형식 선택
파일형식
@
서지도구
SNS
기타
[STEP2]서지반출 정보 선택
  • 제목
  • URL
돌아가기
확인
취소
  • 모자건강관리를 위한 위험요인별 감별평점분류기준 개발에 관한 연구
  • A Study on the Risk Factors for Maternal and Child Health Care Program with Emphasis on Developing the Risk Score System
저자명
이광옥
간행물명
대한간호학회지= Journal of Korean academy of nursing
권/호정보
1983년|13권 1호|pp.7-21 (15 pages)
발행정보
한국간호과학회
파일정보
정기간행물|
PDF텍스트
주제분야
기타
이 논문은 한국과학기술정보연구원과 논문 연계를 통해 무료로 제공되는 원문입니다.
서지반출

기타언어초록

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%..