| Project/Area Number |
23593406
|
|---|
| Research Category |
Grant-in-Aid for Scientific Research (C)
|
| Allocation Type | Multi-year Fund |
|---|
| Section | 一般 |
|---|
| Research Field |
Community health/Gerontological nurisng
|
|---|
| Research Institution | Kagawa Nutrition University |
|---|
Principal Investigator |
OHNUMA KUMIKO 女子栄養大学, 栄養学部, 准教授 (00581216)
|
|---|
| Co-Investigator(Kenkyū-buntansha) |
ENDO Nobuko 女子栄養大学, 栄養学部, 教授 (90310408)
MUTO Shimako 女子栄養大学, 栄養学部, 教授 (40076162)
|
|---|
| Co-Investigator(Renkei-kenkyūsha) |
MIKI Tomiko 女子栄養大学, 栄養学部, 客員教授 (80327957)
HIRAKAWA Toshikou 東京家政大学, 人文学部, 准教授 (20590003)
|
|---|
| Project Period (FY) |
2011 – 2013
|
| Project Status |
Completed (Fiscal Year 2013)
|
| Budget Amount *help |
¥4,940,000 (Direct Cost: ¥3,800,000、Indirect Cost: ¥1,140,000)
Fiscal Year 2013: ¥2,080,000 (Direct Cost: ¥1,600,000、Indirect Cost: ¥480,000)
Fiscal Year 2012: ¥910,000 (Direct Cost: ¥700,000、Indirect Cost: ¥210,000)
Fiscal Year 2011: ¥1,950,000 (Direct Cost: ¥1,500,000、Indirect Cost: ¥450,000)
|
|---|
| Keywords | アセスメント / 心理的 / 社会的 / 養護教諭 / 保健室 / 養護診断 / 学校保健 / 地域看護 |
|---|
| Research Abstract |
The purpose of the study was to make a framework to collect data about Yogo teachers psychological and social evaluation methods. We sent the survey to 3000 schools by mail and we did not ask for names. Our analysis targets were the 1237 school nurses that answered all of the questions. There were 381 elementary, 400 junior high, 403 senior high, and 53 combined junior-senior high school Yogo teachers. The result was that the average value of importance was higher than the average value of implementation for 28 of the 30 questions. Most items were indicated as "Important" or "Very important". Using quantification theory type 3, we showed five evaluation perspectives: "Living habits","Physical symptoms", "Cleanliness", "Personal relationships", and "Strengths". Of those,"Cleanliness", "Personal relationships" and "Strengths" were the highest priority perspectives to improve. The results of the 5 evaluation perspectives were different for elementary, junior high and senior high schools.
|
