| Project/Area Number |
22390427
|
|---|
| Research Category |
Grant-in-Aid for Scientific Research (B)
|
| Allocation Type | Single-year Grants |
|---|
| Section | 一般 |
|---|
| Research Field |
Clinical nursing
|
|---|
| Research Institution | Kitasato University |
|---|
Principal Investigator |
|
|---|
| Co-Investigator(Kenkyū-buntansha) |
CHAEN Mika 慶応義塾大学, 看護医療学部, 准教授 (10269516)
SHINDO Etsuko 慶応義塾大学, 看護医療学部, 准教授 (20310245)
HAYASHI Naoko 聖路加看護大学, 看護学部, 教授 (30327978)
KUMATA Natsuki 北里大学, 看護学部, 助手 (50614187)
石井 美智子 北里大学, 看護学部, 助手 (60560240)
|
|---|
| Project Period (FY) |
2010-04-01 – 2014-03-31
|
| Project Status |
Completed (Fiscal Year 2013)
|
| Budget Amount *help |
¥17,030,000 (Direct Cost: ¥13,100,000、Indirect Cost: ¥3,930,000)
Fiscal Year 2013: ¥4,290,000 (Direct Cost: ¥3,300,000、Indirect Cost: ¥990,000)
Fiscal Year 2012: ¥3,120,000 (Direct Cost: ¥2,400,000、Indirect Cost: ¥720,000)
Fiscal Year 2011: ¥2,860,000 (Direct Cost: ¥2,200,000、Indirect Cost: ¥660,000)
Fiscal Year 2010: ¥6,760,000 (Direct Cost: ¥5,200,000、Indirect Cost: ¥1,560,000)
|
|---|
| Keywords | 子宮頸がん / 子宮頸がん予防ワクチン / リスクコンロトール / オンライン教育 / Moodle / transtheoretical model / 特性的自己効力感 / 看護学生 / リスクコントロール / transtheoretical modle / 動機づけ / 予防ワクチン / Prochaskaによる変化ステージモデル / オンライン学習 / オンライン質問紙 / 子宮頸がんリスクコントロール / 予防ワクチン接種 / 子宮頚がん検診 / 電子メール相談 / 中国の看護系大学生 / ヒトパピロマウイルス / 教育介入 / トランスセオレティカルモデル / 健康意識 / 中国の看護大学生 |
|---|
| Research Abstract |
The purpose of the present study was to evaluate online education designed to motivate nursing college students to control their risk of cervical cancer and to assess the effectiveness of that education. This study used a one-group pre-intervention versus post-intervention design. Participants were asked the following question: "What do you currently think about undergoing cervical cancer vaccination? Please click on the one answer that most accurately describes your current thinking." Based on their responses, the participants were classified according to 4 programs. As the results, they obtained information on the prevention and early detection of cervical cancer after intervention, indicating an increase in interest. This did not lead to improvement to the final stage for prophylactic vaccination and screening. We thought a notification saying that it would not affirmatively recommend prophylactic vaccination issued by the MHLW (in June 2013) would influence the results.
|
