0
Àá½Ã¸¸ ±â´Ù·Á ÁÖ¼¼¿ä. ·ÎµùÁßÀÔ´Ï´Ù.

ÀϺΠ»ç¾÷Àå ±Ù·ÎÀÚÀÇ ¾÷Á¾º° °Ç°­¹®Á¦, °Ç°­»óÅÂ, °Ç°­ÁõÁøÇàÀ§ ¹× À¯ÇØȯ°æÁ¤µµ ºñ±³

Comparison of Health Problems, Conditions, & Health Promoting Behavior and Risky Environment among Various Industrial Workers

»ê¾÷°£È£ÇÐȸÁö 2009³â 18±Ç 1È£ p.71 ~ 83
KMID : 0384920090180010071
±èÀºÁÖ ( Kim Eun-Joo ) - °è¸í´ëÇб³ µ¿»êÀÇ·á¿ø »ê¾÷ÀÇÇаú

¹ÚÁ¤¼÷ ( Park Jeong-Sook ) - °è¸í´ëÇб³ °£È£´ëÇÐ

Abstract

º» ¿¬±¸´Â »ç¾÷Àå ±Ù·ÎÀÚÀÇ ¾÷Á¾º° °Ç°­»óÅÂ, °Ç°­¹®Á¦, °Ç°­ÁõÁøÇàÀ§, À¯ÇØȯ°æÁ¤µµ¸¦ ÆľÇÇϱâ À§ÇØ 2007³â 4¿ù 17ÀϺÎÅÍ 28ÀϱîÁö D½Ã¿¡ ¼ÒÀçÇÏ´Â 7°³ ¾÷Á¾ 43°³ »ç¾÷ÀåÀÇ ±Ù·ÎÀÚ 1,075¸íÀ» ´ë»óÀ¸·Î ÇÑ Á¶»ç¿¬±¸ÀÌ´Ù. ¿¬±¸µµ±¸´Â ÃøÁ¤µµ±¸·Î °Ç°­¹®Á¦ ÃøÁ¤À» À§ÇÑ C. M. I. °Ç°­ Á¶»çÇ¥, ÁÖ°üÀû °Ç°­»óÅ ÃøÁ¤À» À§ÇÑ Health rating scale, °Ç°­ÁõÁøÇàÀ§ ÃøÁ¤À» À§ÇÑ HPLP ¥±µµ±¸¿Í À¯ÇØȯ°æÁ¤µµ ÃøÁ¤µµ±¸¸¦ »ç¿ëÇÏ¿´°í, SPSS WIN 12.0À» ÀÌ¿ëÇÏ¿© ÀÚ·á ºÐ¼®À» ÇÏ¿´À¸¸ç, ´ë»óÀÚÀÇ ÀϹÝÀû Ư¼ºÀº ½Ç¼ö¿Í ¹éºÐÀ², ¾÷Á¾º° º¯¼ö Â÷À̸¦ ¾Ë¾Æº¸±â À§Çؼ­´Â One-way ANOVA, º¯¼ö°£ÀÇ »ó°ü°ü°è´Â Pearson Correlation Coefficient, ÃøÁ¤µµ±¸ÀÇ ½Å·Úµµ °ËÁ¤À» À§Çؼ­´Â Cronbach¡®s ?¸¦ ±¸ÇÏ¿´´Ù. ¿¬±¸°á°ú´Â ´ÙÀ½°ú °°´Ù. ¾÷Á¾¿¡ µû¸¥ ´ë»óÀÚÀÇ °Ç°­¹®Á¦´Â Åë°èÀûÀ¸·Î À¯ÀÇÇÑ Â÷ÀÌ°¡ ÀÖ¾ú´Ù(F=4.70, p=.000). Scheffe »çÈÄ°ËÁ¤¿¡¼­ ¼­ºñ½º¾÷°ú Á¶¸³±Ý¼Ó¾÷ ±Ù·ÎÀÚ°¡ ¹æ¼ÛÅë½Å¾÷ ±Ù·ÎÀÚº¸´Ù °Ç°­¹®Á¦°¡ ´õ ¸¹Àº °ÍÀ¸·Î ³ªÅ¸³µ´Ù. °Ç°­»óŵµ À¯ÀÇÇÑ Â÷ÀÌ°¡ ÀÖ´Â °ÍÀ¸·Î ³ªÅ¸³µÀ¸¸ç(F=2.47, p=.022), ±Ù·ÎÀÚÀÇ ÁÖ°üÀû °Ç°­»óÅÂÁ¡¼ö´Â ÀÚµ¿Â÷ºÎÇ°¾÷ü, ¹æ¼ÛÅë½Å¾÷ü, ¼¶À¯¾÷ü, ¼­ºñ½º¾÷, ºñ±Ý¼Ó ¹× ±âŸÁ¦Á¶¾÷, Àü±â¤ýÀüÀÚ¾÷ü, Á¶¸³±Ý¼Ó¾÷ü ±Ù·ÎÀÚ ¼øÀ¸·Î ³ªÅ¸³µ´Ù. °Ç°­ÁõÁøÇàÀ§µµ Åë°èÀûÀ¸·Î À¯ÀÇÇÑ Â÷ÀÌ°¡ ÀÖ¾ú°í(F=5.67, p=.000), Scheffe »çÈÄ°ËÁ¤ °á°ú ¹æ¼ÛÅë½Å¾÷ ±Ù·ÎÀÚ°¡ Àü±â, ÀüÀÚ¾÷°ú Á¶¸³±Ý¼Ó¾÷ ±Ù·ÎÀÚº¸´Ù °Ç°­ÁõÁøÇàÀ§¸¦ ´õ ¸¹ÀÌ ÇÏ´Â °ÍÀ¸·Î ³ªÅ¸³µ´Ù. ¾÷Á¾¿¡ µû¸¥ À¯ÇØȯ°æÁ¤µµµµ Åë°èÀûÀ¸·Î À¯ÀÇÇÑ Â÷ÀÌ°¡ ³ªÅ¸³µ´Ù(F=14.75, p=.000). Scheffe »çÈÄ°ËÁ¤ °á°ú ¼­ºñ½º¾÷ÀÌ ÀÚµ¿Â÷ºÎÇ°, ¼¶À¯, ¹æ¼ÛÅë½Å, ºñ±Ý¼Ó ¹× ±âŸÁ¦Á¶¾÷º¸´Ù ³ô¾Ò°í, ¹æ¼ÛÅë½Å¾÷ÀÇ À¯ÇØȯ°æÁ¤µµ°¡ °¡Àå ³·Àº °ÍÀ¸·Î ³ªÅ¸³µ´Ù. ÀÌ»óÀÇ °á°ú¸¦ ¹ÙÅÁÀ¸·Î ÇÏ¿© ¾÷Á¾º° °Ç°­¹®Á¦¿Í ȯ°æÀ» °í·ÁÇÑ »ç¾÷À庰 °Ç°­°ü¸®ÇÁ·Î±×·¥À» ¸ÂÃãÇüÀ¸·Î °³¹ßÇÏ°í, Â÷º°È­µÈ ¾÷Á¾º° º¸°Ç°ü¸®¸¦ ÇØ¾ß ÇÒ Çʿ伺°ú ¾÷Á¾º° ÀÛ¾÷ȯ°æÀ» ºñ±³ÇÏ¿© À¯ÇØȯ°æ¿äÀÎÀ» ÁÙÀÏ ¼ö ÀÖ´Â ´ëÃ¥À» °³¹ßÇϱâ À§ÇÑ ÃßÈÄ ¹Ýº¹¿¬±¸°¡ ÇÊ¿äÇÔÀ» Á¦¾ðÇÑ´Ù.

Objective: This study was conducted to compare health conditions and problems, health promoting behavior, and risky environment of industrial workers.

Methods: The subjects of this study were 1,075 workers in 40 factories, located in Daegu, Korea. Survey data were collected from April 17th, 2006 to April 28th, 2006. CMI (Cornell Medical Index) Health Checklist was used to assess the health problems, Health Rating Scale for health status, HPLP II for health promoting behavior, and environmental risk assessment tool for risky environment. The data were analyzed by One-way ANOVA and Pearson Correlation Coefficient using SPSS 12.0 for windows.

Results: The results indicated a significant difference in health problems (F=4.70, p=.000), health conditions (F=2.47, p=.022), health promoting behavior (F=5.67, p=.000), and risky environment (F=14.75, p=.000) among these industrial workers.

Conclusion: The results of this study suggest that there is a need to develop customized health care programs for each company to provide differentiated health care to different types of work places. Further studies are required to assess differences in work environment among different types of work places for measures to reduce harmful factors to the environment.
KeyWords
»ê¾÷Àå, °Ç°­¹®Á¦, °Ç°­»óÅÂ, °Ç°­ÁõÁøÇàÀ§, À¯ÇØȯ°æ
Industry, Health problem, Health condition, Health promotion, Environment
¿ø¹® ¹× ¸µÅ©¾Æ¿ô Á¤º¸
µîÀçÀú³Î Á¤º¸
ÇмúÁøÈïÀç´Ü(KCI)