화상환자의 건강수준과 삶의 질의 관계

다국어 초록 (Multilingual Abstract)

This study is attempted to get device of nursing arbitration promoting health status and quality of life, as find out correlation between health status which burn patients perceive and quality of life
Data was collected through survey which includes patients who received attending a hospital (as an outpatient) and hospital treatment in GS, PS, RM and OPD of hospital, expert burn hospital in seoul, from May 10, 04 to June 10
As tool of study, used BSHS-B(The Burn Specific Health Scale-Brife) which Morten Kildal, et al., translated in English for health status of the burn patients, and used measuring device of quality of life which Ro's developed for quality of life. To this, modified and complemented 40items of 47items. Collected data is computerized with SPSS program. General characteristics of subject is analyzed into real number and percentage, health status and quality of life is analyzed into the mean and the standard deviation.
And on the ground of general characteristics of subject, difference in health status and quality of life is conducted into t-test and ANOVA . For correlation between health status and quality of life, used Pearson's Correlation Coefficient.

Result of this study is as follows ;
1) In general characteristics of this study, male is 73% in sex, 40~50 is 43% in age, married person is 50% in marriage, graduation of high school is 45% in the final school career, an atheist is 51% in religion and an independent enterprise is 34% in job.
In characteristics related to burn, industrial disaster insurance is 49% in a kind of insurance, less than 1,500,000(won) is 28% in a monthly income of family, more than one year and six month is 46% in progress course from the day of accident to present time, flame burn is 43% in the cause of burn, more than 9 times is 22% in frequency of undergoing an operation and place of work is 52% in place of having a burn. Nuclear families is 63% in family type, and spouse is 47% in principal helper for daily life. And person having a burn on hands and arms is person of 84 in part of having a burn. (This is result of plural answers.)

2) Health status of subject is showed more than the middle with the mean value of 2.94 .
Part of personal relations is the highest with 4.04, and part of job is the lowest with 2.35 in parts of nine.
Quality of life is showed the middle with the mean value of 2.99.
In score by part, self-deference is 3.30, relations of neighborhood is 3.29, relations of family is 3.07. And physical status and function is showed the lowest with 2.65 .
3) In Health status on the ground of population sociological and related burn characteristics of the subject, age(F=3.784, P=0.026), marriage (F=3.356, p=0.032), school career (F=10.848 P=0.000) and job (F=4.259, p=0.003), Type of insurance(F=6.093, p=0.001), frequency of undergoing an operation (F=2.938, p=0.024) just is showed significant difference statistically.
In Quality of life on the ground of population sociological and relate burn characteristics of the subject, school career(F=6.956, p=0.002) and job(F=2.648, p=0.038), A kind of insurance(F=4.767, P=0.004), progress course from day of accident(F=2.928, p=0.038) and family type (F=3.050, p=0.014) are showed significant difference statistically.

4) Correlation between Health Status and Quality of life (r=.731, p<.001) is showed significant correlation. This means that health status which burn patients perceive is the higher, quality of life is the higher.

As mentioned above, must make institutional devices of support system which includes change of social recognition to health promotion of burn patients, rehabilitation program of beginning one's work, support system in cost of treatment, realization of cost in all sorts of artificial dermis & dressing material and field of pubic welfare etc. without moment's delay.

목차 (Table of Contents)

• I.서론 1
• 1. 연구의 필요성 1
• 2. 연구의 목적 3
• 3. 용어의 정의 4
• II. 문헌고찰 6
• 1. 화상 6
• 2. 건강수준 9
• 3. 삶의 질 11
• III. 연구 방법 15
• 1. 연구 설계 15
• 2. 연구 대상 15
• 3. 자료수집 방법 15
• 4. 연구 도구 16
• 5. 자료 분석 방법 17
• IV. 연구결과 및 논의 18
• 1. 대상자의 일반적 특성 및 화상관련 특성 18
• 2. 대상자의 건강수준 과 삶의 질 정도 21
• 1) 대상자의 건강수준 정도 21
• 2) 대상자의 삶의 질 정도 26
• 3. 대상자의 건강수준과 삶의 질 정도의 차이 29
• 1) 대상자의 일반적 특성 및 화상관련 특성에 따른 건강수준 정도의 차이 29
• 2) 대상자의 일반적 특성 및 화상관련 특성에 따른 삶의 질 정도의 차이 31
• 4. 대상자의 건강수준과 삶의 질의 관계 34
• V. 결론 및 제언 37
• 1. 결론 37
• 2. 제언 39
• 참고문헌 40
• ABSTRACT 46
• 부록 I. 설문지 49
• 부록 II. 건강수준 측정도구 신뢰도 54
• 부록 III. 삶의 질 측정도구 신뢰도 56