본문 바로가기
KERD
논문KCI 등재

계층 분석법을 적용한 부산시 건강도시 사업의 우선순위 설정

Priority Setting for the Healthy City Program in Busan Using the Analytic Hierarchy Process

정규석|김윤희|김건엽|정백근|윤태호|최민혁
한국보건교육건강증진학회 (Korean Society for Health Education and Promotion)|2011.09|보건교육건강증진학회지 (KOREAN JOURNAL OF HEALTH EDUCATION AND PROMOTION)|제28권 제3호|pp. 31-42

0

조회

0

다운로드

4

인용

0

참고문헌

키워드

Healthy cityAnalytic hierarchy processPriority setting
주제분류예방의학/직업환경의학

초록

Busan had the highest mortality and the shortest life expectancy at birth among 16 provinces in Korea in 2008 and there were considerable health inequalities within the region. This study was performed to build up a priority setting framework in Healthy City Busan project. Methods: Analytic hierarchy process was used to determine the relative priority weight for different strategic and program dimensions along with the consistency of response. An on-site workshop-based meeting (calculating importance) and online survey (calculating risk) were conducted to obtain data from 8 experts. Results: The results showed that in strategic criteria “active health promotion & diseases prevention” and “building infrastructure for the Health City project” were two most important factors. In program criteria,considering both importance and risk scores, “making a healthy community” and “building community health centers” in disadvantaged areas were a top priority group. In addition, “enacting an ordinance for the Healthy City”, “building the infrastructure for health impact assessment” and “making health care safety net for vulnerable population” were also higher priorities group. Conclusions: Our findings suggest that the Healthy City project in Busan should be focused on strengthening health equity and building infrastructure for sustainability of the project.

Abstract

Busan had the highest mortality and the shortest life expectancy at birth among 16 provinces in Korea in 2008 and there were considerable health inequalities within the region. This study was performed to build up a priority setting framework in Healthy City Busan project. Methods: Analytic hierarchy process was used to determine the relative priority weight for different strategic and program dimensions along with the consistency of response. An on-site workshop-based meeting (calculating importance) and online survey (calculating risk) were conducted to obtain data from 8 experts. Results: The results showed that in strategic criteria “active health promotion & diseases prevention” and “building infrastructure for the Health City project” were two most important factors. In program criteria,considering both importance and risk scores, “making a healthy community” and “building community health centers” in disadvantaged areas were a top priority group. In addition, “enacting an ordinance for the Healthy City”, “building the infrastructure for health impact assessment” and “making health care safety net for vulnerable population” were also higher priorities group. Conclusions: Our findings suggest that the Healthy City project in Busan should be focused on strengthening health equity and building infrastructure for sustainability of the project.

참고문헌 (35)

  1. "Full member status"[URL]
  2. Buse, K., "Making health policy" (2005), Open University Press
  3. Chang, C. L., "Using case-based reasoning to establish a continuing care information system of discharge planning", Expert Systems with Applications, 26, pp.601~613 (2004)
  4. Cho, K. T., "Selecting medical devices and materials for development in Korea: the analytic hierarchy process approach", The International Journal of Health Planning and Management, 18(2), pp.161~174 (2003)
  5. Choi, S. J., "Priority setting for expanding health insurance benefit package using Analytic Hierachy Process", Health Insurance Forum, 5(1), pp.112~129 (2005)
  6. Commission on Social Determinants of Health (CSDH), "Closing the gap in a generation: Health equity through action on the social determinants of health" (2008), World Health Organization
  7. Dey, P. K., "Performance measurement of intensive care services in hospitals: the case of Barbados", International Journal of Services Technology and Management, 5(5), pp.579~595 (2004)
  8. Dolan, J., "Involving patients in complex decisions about their care", Journal of General Internal Medicine, 8(4), pp.204~209 (1993)
  9. Goldstein, G., "A healthy city is a better city", World Health, 49(1), pp.4~10 (1996)
  10. Hancock,T, "The Evolution, Impact, and Significance of Health Cities", Healthy Communities, 1993, pp.14(1), 5~18
  11. Hannan, E. L., "A priority assignment model for standards and conditions in a long term care survey", Socio-Economic Planning Sciences, 15(6), pp.277~289 (1981)
  12. Hariharan, S., "A new tool for measurement of process-based performance of multispecialty tertiary care hospitals", International Journal of Health Care Quality Assurance, 17(6), pp.302~312 (2004)
  13. 김정희, "건강도시에 대한 비판적 고찰: 열린 담론을 기대하며", 보건과 사회과학, 21(21), pp.141~160 (2007), 한국보건사회학회
  14. 김지현, "표준사망비를 활용한 우리나라 소지역별 건강불평등 비교", 예방의학회지, 41(5), pp.300~306 (2008), 대한예방의학회
  15. Kim, S. C., "Priority Aggregation for AHP based on Experts Opinions", Journal of the Korean Operations Research and Management Science Society, 19(3), pp.41~51 (1994)
  16. Kim, S. I, "“usan UP” area health gap", Busan Daily, ~ (2008)
  17. 김영, "AHP기법을 이용한 건강결정요소 및 건강도시사업 가중치분석", 도시행정학보, 22(3), pp.365~387 (2009), 한국도시행정학회
  18. Liberatore, M. J., "The analytic hierarchy process in medical and health care decision making: A literature review", European Journal of Operational Research, 189(1), pp.194~207 (2008)
  19. Lee, C. G., "“vercome divided society” different life expectancy by neighborhood", The Hankyoreh, ~ (2006)
  20. Macintyre, S., "Place effects on health: how can we conceptualise, operationalise and measure them", Social Science & Medicine, 55, pp.125~139 (2002)
  21. Nam, E. W., "Concept and trend of healthy city", National land, 345, pp.6~11 (2010)
  22. National Statistical Office (NSO), "Annual report on the 2008 Cause of Death Statistics (cities and provinces)" (2009), National Statistical Office
  23. National Statistical Office (NSO), "Tables for 2008 (cities and provinces)" (2009), National statistical Office
  24. Odynocki,B, "The forward and backward processes in health policy planning", Mathematics and Computers in Simulation, 25(2), pp.146~155 (1983)
  25. 박명배, "계층 분석적 의사결정 방법(AHP)에 의한 건강도시 사업 평가기준의 우선순위 결정에 관한 연구", 보건교육건강증진학회지, 25(3), pp.139~151 (2008), 한국보건교육건강증진학회
  26. 박성용, "계층분석법(AHP)에 의한 시,군 통합정책 성과평가지표의 우선순위 분석", 정책분석평가학회보, 15(2), pp.1~29 (2005), 한국정책분석평가학회
  27. Ramanujam, V., "Technological choice in the less developed countries: An analytic hierarchy approach", Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 19(1), pp.81~98 (1981)
  28. Saaty,T.L, "The analytic hierarchy process : planning, priority setting, resource allocation" (1980), McGraw-Hill International
  29. Saaty,T.L, "Priority setting in complex problems", IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management, 30, pp.140~155 (1983)
  30. Saaty, T. L., "Making decisions in hierarchic and network systems", International Journal of Applied Decision Sciences, 1(1), pp.24~79 (2008)
  31. Saaty, T.L., "Decision making with the analytic network process" (2006), Springer
  32. "The comparative evaluation of expanded national immunization policies in Korea using an analytic hierarchy process", Vaccine, 27(5), pp.792~802
  33. "Health promotion glossary"[URL]
  34. Targets for Health for All, "WHO Regional Office for Europe", WHO Regional Office for Europe., ~ (1986)
  35. City Health Planning: The Framework, "WHO Regional Office for Europe", WHO Regional Office for Europe, ~

관련 논문AI추천

계층 분석적 의사결정 방법(AHP)에 의한 건강도시 사업 평가기준의 우선순위 결정에 관한 연구남은우, 박명배, 신택수, 이해종한국보건교육건강증진학회 · 보건교육건강증진학회지2008 · 제25권 제3호대한민국 건강도시 평가(2008-2010)김혜정, 오유미, 홍경수한국보건교육건강증진학회 · 보건교육건강증진학회지2011 · 제28권 제3호공공보건의료체계 발전 방안에 대한 상대적 중요도 분석김유호한국보건정보통계학회 · 보건정보통계학회지2018 · 제43권 제4호일개 도농 복합지역의 건강한 도시계획 개발 사례고광욱, 김현준, 김희숙, 신용현, 윤영심한국보건교육건강증진학회 · 보건교육건강증진학회지2014 · 제31권 제5호건강도시프로젝트에서의 도시건강프로파일 개발사례고광욱, 김희숙, 신용현, 임백빈한국보건교육건강증진학회 · 보건교육건강증진학회지2014 · 제31권 제3호건강도시 지표 및 지수 개발과 수도권 지역의 적용에 관한 연구김은정국토연구원 · 국토연구2012 · 제72권

이 간행물의 다른 논문 (8건)

자녀와 학부모의 간접흡연예방 연계교육 프로그램의 효과정구철, 신성례, 김희수pp. 1-15만성질환 노인의 건강관리 프로그램 참여 경험김정수pp. 17-29아동·청소년 비만 예방을 위한 인구기반 예방 전략 개발: WHO 모형의 적용이은영, 김혜련, 김기랑pp. 43-55한국형 건강정보이해능력 측정도구(Korean Health Literacy Assessment Tool)의 비교 및 개선 방안최은혜라, 제민지, 한흥식, 이수현, 박병규, 김성수pp. 57-65범이론적 모형에 근거한 일부 초등학교 고학년 아동의 운동행위 변화단계 관련요인강명근, 류소연, 박종, 박일순pp. 67-82
원문 보기