¹Î°üÇù·Â ³ëÀα¸°­°Ç°­ÁõÁø»ç¾÷ ¼öÇýÀÚ Æò°¡
Evaluation of an oral health promotion program for elders based on a cooperation model between public and private sectors

´ëÇѱ¸°­º¸°ÇÇÐȸÁö 2014³â 38±Ç 1È£ p.41 ~ p.49

ÀÌÈñ¿ë(Yi Hee-Yong) - ºÎõ »ç°ú³ª¹«Ä¡°ú
À¯±âÁØ(Yu Ki-Jun) - ºÎõ »ç°ú³ª¹«Ä¡°ú
À̼öÁø(Lee Soo-Jin) - ºÎõ »ç°ú³ª¹«Ä¡°ú
Á¤¹ÎÁö(Jeong Min-Ji) - ºÎõ »ç°ú³ª¹«Ä¡°ú
Á¤¼öºó(Jeong Su-Bin) - ºÎõ »ç°ú³ª¹«Ä¡°ú
¹®¾Ö¶õ(Moon Ae-Ran) - ºÎõ »ç°ú³ª¹«Ä¡°ú
¸ñº¸¶÷(Mok Bo-Ram) - ºÎõ »ç°ú³ª¹«Ä¡°ú
¼Û¿¬Èñ(Song Yeon-Hee) - ºÎõ »ç°ú³ª¹«Ä¡°ú

Abstract

Objectives: The purpose of this study was to evaluate the effectiveness of a seniors¡¯ oral health promotionprogram for establishing a cooperation model between public and private sectors.

Methods: This study was carried out targeting the seniors frequenting a community center in the Sosagudistrict of Bucheon-si in the Gyeonggi-do province of South Korea. Data were obtained from selfadministeredquestionnaires or personal interviews with elders after they participated in the oral healthpromotion program. Their perceived satisfaction with their oral health before and after the oral healthprogram was compared. The data were analyzed by t-tests, ANOVA, paired t-tests, and logistic regressionusing SPSS to assess the effects of explanatory factors on the seniors¡¯ satisfaction of the oralhealth promotion program.

Results: In total, 22.7% of participants had a positive idea about the oral health promotion programbefore their participation. The mean score of change in and difference of satisfaction with oral healthtended to increase in each of the following groups: women, aged 80-84 years, number of permanentteeth, full denture wearers, and those who did not require dentures. Satisfaction notably increased 0.4points in the group of full denture wearers (P<0.05). Moreover, after 1 month, the satisfaction level ofthe subjects who participated in the oral health promotion program increased 5.2 times (95% CI, 1.04-25.49) compared to dissatisfaction levels. Ultimately, satisfaction with oral health shows a major impacton the satisfaction with an oral health promotion program.

Conclusions: The subjects who received the oral health promotion program responded very positively,but this program needs overall consideration about work processes and further reliable evaluations.

Å°¿öµå

Cooperation model, Oral health promotion, Private sectors, Public, Senior citizens
¿ø¹® ¹× ¸µÅ©¾Æ¿ô Á¤º¸
µîÀçÀú³Î Á¤º¸
ÇмúÁøÈïÀç´Ü(KCI) KoreaMed 
ÁÖÁ¦ÄÚµå
ÁÖÁ¦¸í(Target field)
¿¬±¸´ë»ó(Population)
¿¬±¸Âü¿©(Sample size)
´ë»ó¼ºº°(Gender)
Áúº´Æ¯¼º(Condition Category)
¿¬±¸È¯°æ(Setting)
¿¬±¸¼³°è(Study Design)
¿¬±¸±â°£(Period)
ÁßÀç¹æ¹ý(Intervention Type)
ÁßÀç¸íĪ(Intervention Name)
Å°¿öµå(Keyword)
À¯È¿¼º°á°ú(Recomendation)
¿¬±¸ºñÁö¿ø(Fund Source)
±Ù°Å¼öÁØÆò°¡(Evidence Hierarchy)
ÃâÆdz⵵(Year)
Âü¿©ÀúÀÚ¼ö(Authors)
´ëÇ¥ÀúÀÚ
DOI
KCDÄÚµå
ICD 03
°Ç°­º¸ÇèÄÚµå