:::

詳目顯示

回上一頁
題名:高中學生對反毒宣導成效之自我評量
書刊名:醫學教育
作者:羅文君顏正芳張永源張明永
作者(外文):Lo, Wen-chunYen, Cheng-fangChang, Yong-yuenChong, Mian-yoon
出版日期:2003
卷期:7:4
頁次:頁382-392
主題關鍵詞:反毒宣導成效評估毒品濫用Anti-drug campaignEffectivenessSchool-based anti-drug program
原始連結:連回原系統網址new window
相關次數:
  • 被引用次數被引用次數:期刊(2) 博士論文(1) 專書(0) 專書論文(0)
  • 排除自我引用排除自我引用:2
  • 共同引用共同引用:0
  • 點閱點閱:3
     台灣地區毒品濫用之種類日新月異,且濫用年齡逐漸下降,而歷年來針對青少年推行的校園反毒宣導種類繁多,但缺乏相關之成效評估。本研究的目的在於了解高中職青少年學生對現行校園反毒宣導之參與概況及有效性程度,並進一步分析影響反毒宣導成效之可能因素,以期作為未來修訂校園反毒宣導之參考。本研究以隨機分層取樣方式取高雄市公私立高中職各6 所學校共12 所2,880 位學生為研究樣本,進行問卷調查,以「有益增加對毒品了解及使用後果的認識」、「增強拒毒決心」及「提昇拒絕邀約毒品使用之技巧」三項為反毒宣導成效之評估標準。結果共回收 2,732 份問卷(94.9%),分析後發現學生曾參加或接受「知能活動類」、「文宣類」及「運動娛樂類」校園反毒宣導之比例分別為63.5%、24.4%和12.1%;學生認為以「知能活動類」反毒宣導最有益「增加對毒品了解及使用後果的認識」、「增強拒毒決心」及「提昇拒絕邀約毒品使用之技巧」;學生評估整體的校園反毒宣導對「增強拒毒決心」之有效程度最高,而「提昇拒絕邀約毒品使用之技巧」的有效性則為最低。利用多元迴歸分析的結果發現:「學校連結程度」、「實際參與反毒宣導項目數目」、「目前對毒品的態度」、及「本身有無毒品使用經驗」為影響學生對校園反毒宣導成效評估之主要因子。本研究發現可作為未來修訂校園反毒宣導策略,使達致更具體成效之參考。
     Objectives: The age of drug abuse in Taiwan is decreasing in recent years, with also a change in the types of drug use. However, there is no assessment over the effectiveness of the campaigns that are targeted at adolescents against drugs. This study aims to assess the participation and effectiveness of the contemporary school-based anti-drug campaigns among high school students and further to determine factors influencing their effectiveness. Methods: A stratified random sample of 2,880 students from 6 normal high schools and 6 vocational schools respectively were selected for the study. They were made up of half public and half private schools. Assessments were done via self-rated questionnaires. Items included an evaluation of their participations and benefits they received from the contemporary anti-drug campaigns, such as the knowledge about consequence of drug use, the commitment to deny drugs and the skills of drug refusal. Results: Altogether, 2,732 (94.9%) subjects completed the assessment. Among the anti-drug campaigns, activities involving with intellectual events were most welcome (63.5%), followed by sports-concerts (24.4%) and media (12.1%). Students reported that they gained most knowledge about the consequence of drug use, the commitment to deny drugs and the refusal skills through participation of the intellectual rather than other activities. In general, they benefited most in the commitment to denying drugs, but least in the skill of drug refusal. Nevertheless, the degree of involvement with schools, accessibility of anti-drug campaigns, attitude towards drug, and self- experience with drug use were the four main significant factors that predicted the effectiveness of anti-drug campaigns, using multiple regression analyses. Conclusion: Schools, owing to the main social context, are generally regarded as an important vehicle for providing education against drug use in adolescents. The results of this study suggested that there is a need for modification of the contemporary methods and contents in the school-based campaigns against drugs.
期刊論文
1.Pentz, M. A.、Dwyer, J. H.、MacKinnon, D. P.、Flay, B. R.、Hansen, W. B.、Wang, E. Y. I.(1989)。A multi-community trial for primary prevention of adolescent drug abuse: Effects on drug use prevalence。JAMA: The Journal of the American Medical Association,261(22),3259-3266。  new window
2.Hansen, W. B.(1992)。School Based substance abuse prevention: a review of the state of the art in curriculum, 1980-1990。Health Education Research,7(3),403-430。  new window
3.Bukstein, O. G.、Brent, D. A.、Kaminer, Y.(1989)。Comorbidity of substance abuse and other psychiatric disorders in adolescents。American Journal of Psychiatry,146,1131-1141。  new window
4.Lerner, R. M.、Fisher, C. B.、Weinberg, R. A.(2000)。Toward a science for and of the people: Promoting civil society through the application of developmental science。Child Development,71,11-20。  new window
5.Brook, J. S.、Whiteman, M.、Brook, D. W.、Gordon, A. S.(1990)。Sibling influences on adolescent use: older brothers on younger brothers。Journal of the American Academy of Child & Adolescent Psychiatry,30(6),958-966。  new window
6.Boyle, M. H.、Offord, D. R.(1991)。Psychiatric disorder and substance use in adolescence。Canadian Journal of Psychiatry,36,699-705。  new window
7.Botvin, G. L.、Botvin, E. M.(1992)。Adolescent tobacco, alcohol, and drug abuse: prevention strategies, empirical findings, and assessment issues。Journal of Developmental and Behavioral Pediatrics,13(4),290-300。  new window
8.Won, S.、Choi, E. A.、Gilpin, A. J.(2001)。Determining the probability of future smoking among adolescents。Addiction,96,313-323。  new window
9.Botvin, G. L.(1986)。Substance abuse prevention research: recent developments and future directions。J School Health,56(9),369-374。  new window
10.Bangert-Drowns, R. L.(1998)。The effects of school-based substance abuse education--a meta-analysis。J Drug Educ,18,243-265。  new window
11.Coie, J. D.、Watt, N. F.、West, S. G.(1993)。The science of prevention: a concept framework and some directions for a national research program。Am Psychologist,48(10),1013-1022。  new window
12.Evans, R. I.、Rozelle, R. M.、Mittelmark, M. B.(1978)。Deterring the onset of smoking in children: Knowledge of immediate physiological effects and coping with peer pressure, media pressure and parent modeling。J Appl Soc Psychol,8,126-135。  new window
13.Harold, K. B.、Agopian, M. W.(1992)。Impact evaluation of drug abuse resistance education (DARE)。J Drug Educ,22(4),283-291。  new window
14.Ennett, S. T.、Tobler, N. S.、Ringwalt, C. L.(1994)。How effective is drug abuse resistance education? A meta-analysis of Project DARE outcome evaluation。Am J Public Health,84(9),1394-1401。  new window
15.Blum, R. W.(1998)。Health youth development as a model for youth health promotion。J Adolescent Health,22,368-375。  new window
16.Botvin, G. L.、Baker, E.、Dusenbury, L.(1995)。Longterm follow-up results of a randomized drug abuse prevention trial in a white middle-class population。JAMA,273(14),1106-1112。  new window
17.Barkin, S.、Smith, K.、Durant, R.(2002)。Social skills and attitudes associated with substance use behaviors among young adolescents。J Adolescent Health,30,448-454。  new window
18.Cameron, R.、Brown, K. S.、Best, J. A.(1999)。Effective of social influences smoking prevention program as a function of provider type, training method and school risk。Am J Public Health,89(12),1827-1831。  new window
19.Lorand, B. S.、Inn, A.、Strohl, J. B.(1993)。Perceived harm, age and drug use: perceptual and motivational disposition affecting drug use。J Drug Educ,23(4),333-356。  new window
20.Roth, J. L.、Brooks-Gunn, J.(2003)。Youth development programs: risk, prevention and policy。J Adolescent Health,32(3),170-183。  new window
21.Quinn, J.(1999)。Where need meets opportunity: Youth development programs for early teens。Future Child,9,96-116。  new window
22.Resnicow, K.、Botvin, G.(1993)。School-based substance use prevention programs: Why do effects decay?。Prev Med,22,484-490。  new window
23.Botvin, G. L.、Renick, N. L.、Baker, E.(1983)。The effects of scheduling format and booster sessions on a broad-spectrum psychosocial approach to smoking prevention。J Behav Med,6(4),359-379。  new window
24.Roth, J. L.、Brooks-Gunn, J.(2002)。What do adolescents need for health development? Implications for youth policy。Social Res Child Devi Social Policy Rep,14,3-19。  new window
25.Brown, J. H.、D'Emidio-Caston, M.(1997)。Students and substances: social power in drug Education。Educ Evaluat Policy Analysis,19(1),65-82。  new window
26.Orlandi, M. A.、Dozier, C.、Marta, M. A.(1990)。Computer and video interventions for drug abuse prevention。J Consult Clin Psychol,58,425-531。  new window
研究報告
1.張明永(2000)。青少年使用毒品之危險因子調查:一個案對照研究。  延伸查詢new window
圖書
1.(2002)。反毒報告書。行政院衛生署:法務部:教育部。  延伸查詢new window
其他
1.Centers for Disease Control and Prevention。Research and Evaluation,http://www.cdc.gov.nccdphp/dash/research.htm,(CDC2002)。  new window
 
 
 
 
第一頁 上一頁 下一頁 最後一頁 top
QR Code
QRCODE