Upload
duongthien
View
218
Download
1
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
-- 2.0
l , , , , .
:
l , , .
l .
.
(Legal Code) .
Disclaimer
. .
. .
. , .
http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/2.0/kr/legalcodehttp://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/2.0/kr/
2014 10
2014 12
()
()
()
- 1 -
, ,
,
,
.
,
.
WHO(2009) , , ,
, (Surveillance) , ,
.
,
.
5 447 , , , ,
,
,
. 2009
323 , , ,
.
95%
. 95%
. .
, ,
,
.
- 2 -
, .
, , , ,
, .
, ,
, .
,
. , , ,
. ,
,
. , ,
, , . ,
,
.
. , ,
, , . ,
, ,
. , , ,
,
,
. ,
. ,
- 3 -
. ,
, ,
,
,
. ,
,
. ,
,
.
. ,
,
,
. ,
. ,
, 2
, ,
.
,
.
. , , ,
, , ,
,
. ,
- 4 -
, . ,
.
.
, ,
. ,
. , , ,
. ,
, ,
. , ,
.
: , H1N1, , ,
: 2011-22086
- 5 -
. 1
1. 1
2. 4
. 6
1. 6
2. WHO (framework) 10
3. 13
. 17
1. 17
2. 17
2.1. 18
2.2. 19
2.3. 21
3. 21
. 23
1. 23
1.1. 23
1.2. 26
- 6 -
1.3. 29
1.4. 31
1.5. 34
2. 37
2.1. 37
2.2. 39
2.3. 44
2.4. 49
3. 53
3.1. 53
3.2. 54
4. 57
. 64
1. 64
2. 72
77
84
1. 84
2. 91
Abstract 95
- 7 -
7
WHO 10
14
18
19
CDC 26
Victoria 32
, , , 34
37
39
, 40
41
42
43
, 44
45
46
48
50
51
52
53
54
, 55
- 8 -
56
- 9 -
[ 1] (framework) 12
[ 2] 22
[ 3] 24
- 1 -
.
1.
2009 2009 3
.
2009 6 10 , 7 2
, 2009 10 18 1
.
, 0.2~0.8%
(, 2010),
. ,
(, 8 27 ),
(1624 5.3%)
(, 2009).
WHO(2005)
, ,
.
, ,
,
.
(2006) 10-40
,
.
,
.
(2010) 2009 4
- 2 -
, 2009 5 25
, 2009 7 6
, , , ,
.
, ,
.
,
. , ,
,
(
, 2012).
(2010)
.
,
92()
.
(2010)
, ,
(2009) 2009
. 2009 4 22
(Centers for Disease Control & Prevention) Emergency Operation
Center ,
,
- 3 -
.
.
. ,
.
2009 7 2
,
(e-Bug)
.
(2014)
, ,
, ,
.
,
.
,
()
,
(, 2010).
, ,
,
.
,
( , 2009).
- 4 -
(2014)
,
,
.
,
. ,
, .
, .
2.
,
.
1.
?
. , ,
,
- 5 -
.
,
. , ,
.
2.
?
,
, , , ,
.
,
. ,
,
, , ,
. ,
,
.
3. ,
?
,
.
- 6 -
II.
1. (Influenza A, H1N1)
2009 4 21 2
4 24
, (WHO)
.
WHO ,
, 2009 6 11
(, 2010; , 2009).
, HA(haemmaglutinin)
NA(neuraminidase) HA NA
(, 2009).
, ,
,
Influenza A(H1N1)( ) (
, 2010; , 2009; , 2012).
2009 4 27 , , ,
, 7 .
2009 9 20
191 300,000
3,917 , WHO 2010 4
17.853 .
,
- 7 -
- 10-4- ,
- -
-
, ,
-
,
- , (
),
- , (
),
-
-
-
(, 2010; ,
http://www.cdc.go.kr).
2009 4 28 ,
2009 5 2 2009 9 20 15,160
. 2009 8
(1,000 2.67) , 10
. 2010 4 252
, 75 , 356
(, 2010; , http://www.cdc.go.kr).
,
(, http://www.tepic.or.kr)
- 8 -
-
:
10 1.36-1.53
-
- : , , ,
-
,
- :
- :
, , ,
-
1-7 ,
1-4 .
, , , , ,
,
24 .
2-3
.
, , , ,
2 (,2009;
, 2010).
,
,
. ,
1-2m . ,
7
, 2-5%
( , 2009; CDC, 2009; , 2009).
- 9 -
,
0.2%-0.8%
.
, 60-70% , ,
.
, 1957
H1N1
(, 2009).
1 (37.8 )
. real-time RT-PCR, .
,
, 2-3 , real-time RT-PCR
. / /
, ,
. 10-15
70-80%
9.6~51% . (H1 H3)
(, 2009; , 2010).
Neuraminidase
(Oseltaimvir) (Zanamivir) . Neuraminidase
(, 2009;
, 2009).
. , ,
2m .
- 10 -
1
-
-
2
-
3
-
-
4
-
-
5
- WHO 1 2
.
. , ,
, ,
. ,
, ,
, (, 2010;
, 2009; , 2009).
2. WHO (framework)
(WHO)
6
. ,
, (, 2010; , 2006)
WHO
- 11 -
-
6
-5 2 , WHO
1
-, ,
(2006), (2010)
WHO(2009) , [ 1]
(framework) .
- 12 -
[ 1] (framework)
- ,
- , ,
-
-
-
-
,
,
1
2
(
)
3
/
,
,
/
(
)
- 13 -
, , ,
, ,
.
,
,
, ,
,
.
, ,
,
,
, , ,
,
,
.
, .
WHO ,
, , (Surveillance)
, .
3.
(Blue), (Yellow), (Orange), (Red) 4
. .
- 14 -
(Blue)
2008.12
-
2009.4.2
7
-
-
-
-,
-
-
-
(Yello
w)
2009.4.2
8.-
2009.7.2
0
-
-
( )
-
-
-
-
-
- ()
(Oran
ge)
2009.7.2
1.-
2009.11.
2
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
(Red)
2009.11.
3.
-
2009.12.
10
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
- 15 -
-
(09.11.3)(0.9.12.11)(10.3.8)(10.3.31)
(2010),
2009 4 27
.
2009 4 28 2009 7 20
Q&A
. . 2009 5 22
38
, 5 25
. 7 6
.
2009 7 21 2009 11 2
.
. 2
.
,
. 9 17
(1 ) . 10 30
2009
11 11 .
2009 11 3 2009 12 10
, ()
11 5 . 11 20
- 16 -
(2 ) .
2009 12 11
, 12 31 (2 )
. 2010 3 8
. 2010 5
12 , 2010 8 10
1)
, ,
, , , ,
, , ,
, ,
. ,
, ,
,
,
. ()
(, 2011).
10-19 , ,
276,694 , 8 (,
2010). 3,234(18%),
1,020(5%), 3,008(16 %), 18,189
7.262(40%) (, 2010)
1) (2010),
- 17 -
.
. , , ,
.
, .
,
.
, ,
.
, .
1.
, (H1N1)
, 123 . , ,
CDC
, New York, Colorado ,
Devon , Emergency Planning Team
, Victoria
, , .
2.
- 18 -
(, , ,
)
1,2,3,4
( , ,
, ,
)
5,6,7,8,9,10,11,12,13
( ,
,
)
14,15,16,17
(, , ,
)
18,19
, 20,21
( ) 22
23
24,25
2.1.
.
, (2011),
(2009) .
, , , 19,
10, 6
, , , , , , ,
7 .
.
- 19 -
26
27
28,29
30
31,32
33
34
35,
, (2009)
. , , ,
11
2 . .
1
2
3,4
5,6
7,7-1,8,8-1
9,
2.2.
- 20 -
8,133(, 2013) 5
2009 , ,
. ,
,
.
,
.
.
2014 11 3 11 14, 1
(http://goo.gl/forms/NKCSgPxfG6),
(http://goo.gl/forms/ufCb7DyyY8).
, .
2009 , ,
, 1
.
, , , 4
,
.
,
.
.
,
.
G-power 3.1.9.2 T-test, ,
- 21 -
, .05 .95, 10%
415, 304.
450 , 348
447 , 323
.
2.3.
SPSS ver.18.0
. ,
.
,
95%
.
95% .
3.
WHO(2009) (framework)
, , ,
.
,
.
.
[ 2] .
- 22 -
[ 2]
(Surveillance)
- 23 -
.
1.
WHO(2009) (framework)
, , , ,
.
, ,
,
.
, , , ,
,
,
. (Surveillance)
.
1.1
, , ,
,
. ,
, 3 4
.
.
,
,
- 24 -
,
.
(1)
, ,
,
, .
,
, , , , ,
.
, ,
([ 3])
[ 3] (, 2010)
- 25 -
(2)
2009 6
, 9 1 ,
,
, . ,
,
. , ,
, CD
, 9 EBS
.
(3)
, ,
, .
, ,
.
,
.
. 2009 11 2
.
(4)
,
, ,
,
. ,
,
, Q&A,
- 26 -
: : :
, ,
( ,
)
(,
.
.
(5)
,
.
1.2.
, CDC(Centers for Diseases Control and Prevention),
CDC
Emergency Operation Center
(, 2009). CDC ,
, ,
.
CDC
- 27 -
(e-mail,
)
(, )
)
(1)
(school district) , ,
,
.
,
(Colorado, 2009) ,
, ,
, .
(2)
,
. ,
,
- 28 -
.
, ,
.
(3)
,
, , ,
, ,
.
, ,
.
,
.
, 6
, 6 24 ,
25-64 ,
,
(, 2009)
(4)
CDC ,
, , ,
.
, , ,
. , ,
, ,
, TV . ,
- 29 -
, , ,
, ,
,
, ,
. New York
(2009) Colorado (2009)
, ,
, , ,
, ,
.
(5)
,
,
.
(, 2009).
3.
4 .
1, 2,
3, 4
.
(1)
, HPA(Health
Protection Agency)
(, 2009).
- 30 -
, Devon
(2009) ,
.
(2)
Devon (2009) ,
,
, .
job shadowing(
) . ,
.
,
.
(3)
,
.
,
. ,
.
.
, ,
, ,
(, 2009).
(4)
- 31 -
, , ,
, ,
.
. ,
.
(5)
, 7 2
72, 34 ,
.
.
4.
, , , ,
Victoria (2013) ,
(Department of Education and Early Childhood Development)
.
(1)
, .
, .
, ,
. , ,
- 32 -
(incident
controller)
,
, ,
(communications
officer)
, , ,
,
(planning officer)
,
(operation officer)
, ( )
(logistics officer)
(:telecommunication)
(:, ),
.
Victoria
Victoria (2013)
(2)
(school. council)
, ,
.
.
(3)
, ,
- 33 -
(Emergency Management Division)
. , ,
,
.
,
. .
, 6 ,
, , , ,
(, 2009).
(4)
, , ,
. , ,
.
. ,
, , ,
.
, ,
,
, ,
. , , ,
, , , ,
.
, ,
,
.
- 34 -
(5)
,
.
1.5.
, , ,
WHO(2009) ,
, , , (Surveillance)
.
, , ,
- 35 -
,
,
,
,
. ,
. ,
, , ,
, .
,
. , ,
,
. ,
,
. WHO
, ,
- 36 -
(, 2009).
, , ,
.
,
,
.
CDC
Emergency Operation Center ,
HPA(Health Protection Agency)
. , ,
.
, , , ,
. WHO , ,
, CDC
. , , , ,
.
,
,
,
,
- 37 -
(%)
.
2.
2.1.
450 3 ,
447 . .
(57.7%), (24.6%), (15.7%),
(2.0%) . (93.5%)
. (18.1%) ,
(15.4%), (11.4%) 30-36
(22.1%) , 15-20
(31.8%) . (63.1%),
(30.2%), (6.7%) , 40-50(52.8%),
30-40(27.7%), 50-60 (17.2%) .
,
5 ,
.
11570
7504 64.9%(2014 ), , ,
90% , , ,
50~60% ,
.
- 38 -
258 57.7 110 24.6
70 15.7 9 2.0
447 100.0
/ 418 93.5 29 6.5 447 100.0
23 5.1 12 2.7 20 4.5 39 8.7 9 2.0 51 11.4 2 .4
40 8.9 69 15.4
21 4.7 18 4.0 19 4.3 15 3.4 12 2.7 81 18.1 16 3.6
447 100.0
6 4 .96-12 49 11.012-18 47 10.518-24 83 18.624-30 69 15.430-36 99 22.136-42 45 10.142-48 34 7.6
48 17 3.8 447 100.0
10 76 17.010-15 103 23.015-20 142 31.820-25 65 14.5
25 61 13.6 447 100.0
30 6.7 282 63.1
135 30.2 447 100.0
- 39 -
30 9 2.030-40 124 27.740-50 236 52.850-60 77 17.2
60 1 .2 447 100.0
x
2(df)
21(4.7) 91(20.4) 126(28.2) 137(30.6) 72(16.1) 447(100.0) 11.228(12)
19(4.3) 103(23.0) 132(29.5) 139(31.1) 54(12.1) 447(100.0) 13.806(12)
20(4.5) 141(31.5) 181(40.5) 90(20.1) 15(3.4) 447(100.0) 6.131(12)
26(5.8) 172(38.5) 168(37.6) 69(15.4) 12(2.7) 447(100.0) 15.123(12)
2.2.
(1)
,
, , ,
,
. , , , ,
.
*p
- 40 -
x
2(df)
158(35.3) 191(42.7) 60(13.4) 26(5.8) 12(2.7) 447(100.0) 4.377(12)
.
(2)
435
(97.3%) ,
49(11.3%), 166
(38.2%), 132(30.0%), 69(15.9%),
19(4.4%) .
(36.9%), (18.6%), (16.1%),
(12.1%), (9.6%), (6.7%) .
, ,
,
, , ,
, .
, ,
, .
349(78.0%) .
,
.
355(79.4%) 302
(67.6%) .
,
- 41 -
(,)
144(32.2) 211(47.2) 65(14.5) 21(4.7) 6(1.3) 447(100.0) 6.886(12)
100(22.4) 202(45.2) 110(24.6) 30(6.7) 5(1.1) 447(100.0) 16.152(12)
x2(df)
( )
10 25(32.9) 51(67.1) 76(100.0)
11.768(4)*
10-15 42(40.8) 61(59.2) 103(100.0)
15-20 70(49.3) 72(50.7) 142(100.0)
20-25 35(53.8) 30(46.2) 65(100.0)
25 35(57.4) 26(42.6) 61(100.0)
*p
- 42 -
207(46.3) 240(53.7) 447(100.0)
x
2(df)
10 12(15.8) 33(43.4) 15(19.7) 15(19.7) 1(1.3) 76(100.0)
39.599(16)*
10-15
15(14.6) 46(44.7) 30(29.1) 9(8.7) 3(2.9) 103(100.0)
15-20
24(16.9) 71(50.0) 27(19.0) 15(10.6) 5(3.5) 142(100.0)
20-25
10(15.4) 42(64.6) 8(12.3) 5(7.7) 0(0.0) 65(100.0)
25 21(34.4) 32(52.5) 3(4.9) 5(8.2) 0(0.0) 61(100.0)
82(18.3) 224(50.1) 83(18.6) 49(11.0) 9(2.0) 447(100.0)
*p
- 43 -
x2(df)
43(9.6) 114(25.5) 147(32.9) 96(21.5) 47(10.5) 447(100.0) 13.115(12)
22(4.9) 71(15.9) 110(24.6) 150(33.6) 94(21.0) 447(100.0) 13.629(12)
36(8.1%) 141(31.5%) 127(28.4%) 95(21.3%) 48(10.7%) 447(100.0) 19.443(12)
58(13.0)) 182(40.7) 123(27.5) 56(12.5) 28(6.3) 447(100.0) 14.049(12)
242(44.1%), 191(42.7%).
5 ( =5, =4, =3, =2.
=1)
3.720.955,
4.010.785.
3.520.968
,
3.330.921. , , , ,
.
,
,
.
, , ,
, 32%
, 54.6%
. 32%, 18.8%
.
- 44 -
x
2(df)
15(3.0) 113(25.0) 198(44.0) 94(21.0) 27(6.0) 447(100.0) 10.821(12) 14(3.1) 106(23.7) 184(41.2) 113(25.3) 30(6.7) 447(100.0) 11.130(12)
*p
- 45 -
2.910.997,
(F=3.848, df=4, p
- 46 -
x
2(df)
101(22.6) 258(57.7) 80(17.9) 6(1.3) 2(0.4) 447(100.0) 17.252(12)
61(13.6) 212(47.4) 121(27.1) 49(11.0) 4(0.9) 447(100.0) 18.082(12)
120(26.8) 248(55.5) 59(13.2) 16(3.6) 4(0.9) 447(100.0) 10.593(12)
41(9.2) 142(31.8) 119(26.6) 82(18.3) 63(14.1) 447(100.0) 36.457(16)*
92(20.6) 221(49.4) 87(19.5) 35(7.8) 12(2.7) 447(100.0) 13.083(12)
62(13.9) 209(46.8) 101(22.6) 61(13.6) 14(3.1) 447(100.0) 9.020(12)
F(df)
*p
- 47 -
258 4.10 .672
4.285(3)*, (Scheffe )
110 3.87 .743 70 3.90 .725 9 3.67 .707
447 4.01 .707
258 3.72 .861
2.645(3)*,
(LSD)
110 3.46 .964 70 3.50 .830 9 3.67 .707
447 3.62 .885
258 4.05 .833
0.349(3)
110 4.04 .765 70 4.03 .680 9 3.78 .667
447 4.04 .790
258 3.10 1.218
0.938(3)
110 2.97 1.223 70 2.96 1.109 9 2.56 .882
447 3.04 1.197
258 3.83 .970
0.826(3)
110 3.70 .982 70 3.67 .829 9 3.78 .972
447 3.77 .952
258 3.53 1.033
0.221(3)
110 3.61 .959 70 3.51 .928 9 3.44 .882
447 3.55 .994*p
- 48 -
x2(df)
180(69.8) 78(30.2) 258(100.0)
2.189(3)
81(73.6) 29(26.4) 110(100.0) 46(65.7) 24(34.3) 70(100.0) 5(55.6) 4(44.4) 9(100.0)
312(69.8) 135(30.2) 44(100.0)7
/ 299(71.5) 119(28.5) 418(100.0)
9.173(1)* 13(44.8) 16(55.2) 29(100.0) 312(69.8) 135(30.2) 447(100.0)
6 4(100.0) 0(0.0) 4(100.0)
16.785(8)*
6-12 42(85.7) 7(14.3) 49(100.0)12-18 33(77.2) 14(29.8) 47(100.0)18-24 58(69.9) 25(30.1) 83(100.0)24-30 49(71.0) 20(29.0) 69(100.0)30-36 70(70.7) 29(29.3) 99(100.0)36-42 27(60.0) 18(40.0) 45(100.0)42-48 22(64.7) 12(35.3) 34(100.0)48 7(41.2) 10(58.8) 17(100.0) 312(69.8) 135(30.2) 447(100.0)
2009
, 5,6, 1 17
,
69.8% . ,
.
- 49 -
*p
- 50 -
x2(df)
20(4.5) 181(40.5) 164(36.7) 68(15.2) 14(3.1) 447(100.0)12.096
(12)
40(8.9) 231(51.7) 110(24.6) 57(12.8) 9(2.0) 447(100.0) 27.547(16)*
52(11.6) 222(49.7) 103(23.0) 59(13.2) 11(2.5) 447(100.0) 13.814(12)
4(0.9) 48(10.7) 127(28.4) 174(38.9) 94(21.0) 447(100.0) 28.611(16)*
13(2.9) 95(21.3) 138(30.9) 160(35.8) 41(9.2) 447(100.0) 13.835(12)
*p
- 51 -
F(df)
10 76 2.97 .848
5.238(4)*10 , 25
(Scheff )
10-15 103 3.29 .882
15-20 142 3.29 .888
20-25 65 3.25 .952
25 61 3.66 .728
447 3.28 .886
10 76 3.21 .899
4.729(4)*
10 , 20-25 10-15, 25 10 , 25
(Dunnett T3 )
10-15 103 3.47 .884
15-20 142 3.55 .957
20-25 65 3.68 .850
25 61 3.82 .695
447 3.53 .898
10 76 3.37 .950
2.179(4)
10-15 103 3.42 .924
15-20 142 3.61 1.031
20-25 65 3.66 .940
25 61 3.74 .705
447 3.55 .946
10 76 2.26 .854
2.971(4)
10-15 103 2.23 1.002
15-20 142 2.20 .986
20-25 65 2.43 .951
25 61 2.66 .834 447 2.32 .952
=3.28), (=3.53), (
=3.55) ,
(=2.32), (=2.73)
.
- 52 -
10 76 2.72 1.028
0.161(4)
10-15 103 2.73 .931
15-20 142 2.73 1.010
20-25 65 2.66 1.050
25 61 2.80 .963
447 2.73 .991
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
103(39.9)
1(0.4)
39(15.1)
13(5.0)
63(24.4)
28(10.9
)
47(18.2
)
212(82.2
)
10(3.9) 258
49(44.5)
0(0.0)
18(16.4)
13(11.8)
36(32.7)
11(10.0)
13(11.8)
79(71.8)
1(0.9) 110
20(28.6)
3(4.3)
22(31.4)
12(17.1)
20(28.6)
3
(4.3)9
(12.9)49
(70.0)2
(2.9) 70
2(22.2)
0(0.0)
0(0.0)
2(22.2)
5(55.5) 0(0.0)
1(11.1)
8(88.9)
0(0.0) 9
174(38.9)4
(0.9)79
(17.7)40
(8.9)124
(27.7)42
(9.4)70
(15.7)348
(77.9)13
(2.9) 447
*p
- 53 -
(%)
156 48.3 167 51.7 323 100.0
107 33.1 102 31.6
1. (, , )
2.
3. ()
4.
5.
6.
7.
8. 2 ( )
9.
3.
3.1. 2)
323, 148
3 145 ,
200 198 ,
20 178 .
.
48.3%, 51.7%,
33.1.%, 31.6%, 32.8%, 2.5%.
2) 2009 , , .
- 54 -
x2(df)
35(10.8) 113(35.0) 73(22.6) 52(16.1) 50(15.5) 323(100.0) 48.125(4)*
()
47(14.6) 104(32.2) 108(33.4) 40(12.4) 24(7.4) 323(100.0) 25.435(4)*
()
25(7.7) 99(30.7) 134(41.5) 45(13.9) 20(6.2) 323(100.0) 17.878(4)*
106 32.8 8 2.5
323 100.0
3.2.
(1)
45.8%
.
, ,
, 46.8%
.
.
38.4%
, .
- 55 -
x2(df) 83(25.7) 240(74.3) 323(100.0) 3.103(1)
() 23(7.1) 300(92.9) 323(100.0) 8.904(1)*
*p
- 56 -
() 117(36.2) 206(63.8) 323(100.0) 25.969(3)* () 51(15.8) 272(84.2) 323(100.0) 9.097(3)* () 179(55.4) 144(44.6) 323(100.0) 0.010(1)
() 14(27.5) 37(72.5) 51(100.0) 0.187(1) () 63(35.2) 116(64.8) 179(100.0) 0.294(1)
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
64(41.0) 24(15.4) 5(3.2) 9(5.8) 28(17.9) 18(11.5) 46(29.5) 110(70.5) 6(3.8) 2(1.3) 156 63(37.7) 17(10.2) 8(4.8) 11(6.6) 36(21.6) 21(12.6) 33(19.8) 127(76.0) 15(9.0) 3(1.8) 167
127(39.3) 41(12.7) 13(4.0) 20(6.2) 64(19.8) 39(12.1) 79(24.5) 237(73.4) 21(6.5) 5(1.5) 323
42(39.3) 13(12.1) 1(0.9) 7(6.5) 17(15.9) 19(17.8) 31(29.0) 79(73.8) 4(3.7) 1(0.9) 107 34(33.3) 16(15.7) 4(3.9) 4(3.9) 17(16.7) 7(6.9) 30(29.4) 83(81.4) 8(7.8) 1(1.0) 102 49(46.2) 11(10.4) 8(7.5) 8(7.5) 30(28.3) 11(10.4) 16(15.1) 69(65.1) 8(7.5) 2(1.9) 106 2(25.0) 1(12.5) 0(0.0) 1(12.5) 0(0.0) 2(25.0) 2(25.0) 6(75.0) 1(12.5) 1(12.5) 8
127(39.3) 41(12.7) 13(4.0) 20(6.2) 64(19.8) 39(12.1) 79(24.5) 237(73.4) 21(6.5) 5(1.5) 323
*p
- 57 -
5.
6.
7.
8. TV
9.
10.
4.
,
.
.
, , , ,
.
, (24.7%),
(27.3%)
.
,
, ,
.
,
.
49.5% ,
. (36.9%),
(18.6%), (16.1%), (12.1%)
,
- 58 -
,
,
.
(29.1%),
(8.7%) .
, , ,
,
. 4
, (, 2010), 5
3.72,
4.01
.
3.52, 3.33
.
,
.
,
. , (32%),
(18.8%), (54.6%)
. ,
,
.
,
. 5
2.99, 2.91
.
- 59 -
.
, , ,
, ,
.
(80.0%),
, ,
(:46.8%, :38.4%) .
,
.
(41.0%)
, (45.8%)
(25.7%),
(
:7.1%, :36.2%).
,
,
. ,
(70%) ,
, , (
:27.5%, :35.2%) ,
,
- 60 -
.
,
,
.
2009
3) , 5,6,
1 17
,
.
69.8%, ,
.
.
, 1
.
, 82.3%
, , ,
. ,
TV (73.4%) ,
(39.3%), (24.5%), (19.8%),
(12.7%), (12.1%), (6.5%), (6.2%),
(4.0%), (1.5%) . (2009) , ,
3) 9, 92, 15 2009 3 1
, , ,
()() , , .
5,6, , 1
( 17 ) .
- 61 -
,
,
. ,
,
,
.
,
,
. (60.7%)
, (16.7%) . , ,
,
.
,
18.5% .
,
,
.
.
, ,
,
. 5 ,
(3.28),
(3.53),
(3.55) .
- 62 -
.
,
. (2006)
4) , ,
.
.
,
. 5
, 2.32,
2.73 ,
.
. ,
, 1
5), ,
,
4)
(Tversky & Kahneman, 1974), (stereotype)
,
,
(, 2006)
5) ,
, .
()
, 19 ( )
, ,
- - .
.
- 63 -
.
, ,
2 , ,
.
2 ,
2 (77.9%), (38.9%),
(27.7%),
(17.7%), (15.7%),
(9.4%), (8.9%),
(2.9%), (0.9%)
,
.
- 64 -
.
1.
1.
?
WHO
, ,
,
.
.
, ,
,
, , ,
.
,
, .
, ,
.
, ,
,
,
, ,
.
, , ,
.
- 65 -
.
Karlen(2001) , , ,
(microbial traffic),
,
,
. McNeil(2005)
,
,
Latour Callon(2009)
(, 2010).
, ,
,
.
,
,
(, 2012),
,
. , ,(2014) 2010
,
,
.
,
- 66 -
.
(2006)
.
,
, ,
.
.
65%, 18 60
1 ,
, 1
,
.
, ,
,
,
, ,
(, 2009),
(45.8%),
(7.9%), .
2.
?
,
, , ,
,
. ,
- 67 -
.
. ,
, ,
.
, ,
, TV
,
.
, ,
, ,
.
.
,
,
.
,
.
(
, 2011)
. (2011) ,
, ,
,
- 68 -
RT-PCR .
.
.
.
37.8
,
.() .
. , 37.2
. .
. 37.8 ,
?
,
3 .
.
() 2 ",
(
)
7
(2009)
.
,
,
.
6),
- 69 -
,
.
. (2010)
61.2%, 68.1%,
14.7%, 16.5%,
17.5%, 15.1%, 13.2%
,
.
()
.
,
, , ,
. (2012)
10.1%
3.4, 7.3
.
6) , ,
, 32 .
, , , ,
,
, 2938 ,
, , 312 ,
, , , ,
,
. , ,
.
- 70 -
,
. ,
,
,
. ,
.
. 2009
,
.
7)
, .
65% ,
1 1
.
(2009) , ,
,
, ,
, ,
,
7) ,
, (2010) ,
. ,
,
.
- 71 -
.
,
, ,
,
, .
,
, , ,
,
.
3. ,
?
.
,
,
.
, , ,
.
,
, ,
,
.
- 72 -
,
10% .
Renn(2005)
(, 2006)
(2001)
.
,
,
.
2.
, ,
,
, ,
.
,
,
.
WHO(2009) , , ,
, (Surveillance) , ,
,
, ,
, , ,
- 73 -
. , ,
.
,
,
. , , , ,
. ,
.
447 2009-2010
, ,
323
.
,
.
, , ,
,
. ,
,
. , ,
,
,
.
,
, ,
,
.
- 74 -
, .
,
.
,
.
.
, , ,
, , , ,
.
,
,
.
,
.
.
, ,
.
, ,
,
.
, .
- 75 -
, , ,
,
.
,
.
1945 , , ,
(, 2003)
.
,
.
, , ,
.
32
,
.
8)()
,
.
, ,
, .
,
.
, ,
8) , , ,
, . 18 ,
19 ,
.
- 76 -
.
()()1 (
2009-27) , (), (), 1
, , ()
360 , 1 180
. ()
, , ,
,
4-8 , ()
. ()
() 2-4
.
, 1
, , ,
.
,
,
, .
,
.
, 2009-2010,
.
, ,
, ,
.
- 77 -
(2010). .
. 20(12). 45-48.
2008-148,
2009-27, (),(),1
(2010).
(2009), (H1N1)
(2009), (H1N1)
, 1
(2009), (H1N1)
, 2
(2009), (H1N1)
, 3
(2005),
(2011),
(2010). (pandemic)
(2009), ,
,
(1995). :
. , 5(1), pp.59-79.
, , (2011),
,
(2006), Heuristics ,
(2003),
- 78 -
,
, , (2012).
, , 2(2), 71-81
(2012). .
(2008). , . :
(2009). A(H1N1) , ,
. . 77(2). 157-164
(2009). (H1N1) .
. 77(2). 139-142
(2010). (H1N1 2009) .
.. 42(2). 61-63
, , (2009). :
. :
(2010). A(H1N1)
: .
, , (2012), ,,
2009 A(H1N1) ,
Infect Chemother 44(6). 431-438
(2013),
(2014).
(2010), 2009
, 30
(2011). :
.
, , (2010),
- 79 -
, 16(2), 249-256
(2012), ,
22(1), 311-341
(2009),
(2006).
(2009), A(H1N1)
(2011), A(H1N1)
.
(2006), , ,
(2010).
.
(2010). .
, (2014),
, :
(2009), ,
,
, (2006), :
, 20(2), 33-68
(2012), :
,
(2011),
,
, (2009). A(H1.N1). 30(11).
843-847
- 80 -
(2008), ,
,
(2006), : ,
, , 44(1),
171-194
(2009). ,
,
, , (2013), . :
(2008), ,
,(2000). :
.
, , (2010), ,
53(1), 52-58
(2014), (H1N1)
,
(2014). 2014 -
, , (2006),
,
(2008), , ,
(2010).
. . 42(1). 1-15
(2011). .
, (2007),
- 81 -
, , (2010),
,
, (2001). .
(2009).
, (1997). . :
, , (2011). . :
(2012). .
, , (2009). .
:
, , (2010). , . :
(2006). . :
(2010). , , Vol.66 No.-, 291-303
, (2014),
. ECO: . 18(1). 187-234
(2004), ,
(2010). 2009
(2010). A/H1N1 2009
, . 3(38). 637-651
, , (2010), 2009
, Journal of Preventive Medicine and
Public Health, Vol. 43, No. 2, 105-108
, (2010). A(H1N1)
, . .
22(3). 250-259
- 82 -
, (2009), ,
(1996), ,
Anthony Giddens , (2003). . :
Arno Karlen , (2011). . : ()
Hans Peter Peters , (2009).
. :
. http://www.tepic.or.kr
. http://www.cdc.go.kr
Bruna De Marchi, Jerome R.Ravertz(1999). Risk management and
governance:a post-normal science approach, Future 31. 743-757
CDC, Pandemic Flu Checklist: K-12 School Administrators
CDC, School District (K-12) Pandemic Influenza Planning Checklist
Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment(2009),
Pandemic Influenza action plan for schools.
Depatment for Education adn skills(2006), Planning for a human
influenza pandemic:summary guidance to schools. UK
Department of Education and Early Childhood Development(2013),
Human Influenza pandemic incident response plan, AU
Department of Heath and Ageing(2006), Interim Infection Control
Guidelines for Pandemic Influenza in Healthcare and
Community Settings, AU
Department of Heath and Ageing(2011), Review of Australia's Health
Sector Respnse to Pandemic(H1N1) 2009
Depratment of the Prime Minister and Cabinet(2009), National
Influenza Pandemic public communications guidelines, AU
- 83 -
Devon County Council(2009), Guicance for schools in dealing with an
influenza pandemic. UK
Emergency Plnning Team(2009), model influenza pandemic plan for
schools and settings, UK
New York State Department of Health(2007), Panddemic flu action
kit for schools in New York State
PH-HPER-ID&BP 10200(2014), Impact of School Closures on an
Influenza Pandemic Scientific Evidence Base Review,
Department of Health UK
WHO(2005). Reducing transmission of pandemic (H1N1) 2009 in
school settings
WHO(2006). Risk reduction and preparedness
WHO(2013). Pandemic Influenza Risk Management WHO Interim
Guidance
- 84 -
?
2009-2010
.
,
,
.
,
. , ,
2009 .
2014 O OO 2014 O OO.
,
.
. ,
. ,
.
.
:
:
?
- 85 -
1.
?
2. ,
?
3. , ?
4.
?
5. ?
(7 )
6. ?
7.
?
(_____)
:
- 86 -
8.
?
9. ,
?
10. ?
11. ?
12. ?
13. ?
14. ?
15.
?
16.
?
- 87 -
17.
?
18. ?
19. ?
20.
?
21.
?
22. ?
23.
?
- 88 -
24.
?
25. ?
( : 5,6 17 ,
1 17 )
26.
?
27. ,
?
28.
?
29. ,
?
< >
30.
?
- 89 -
31.
?
32. 2009-2010
?
33.
?
34.
?
35. ,
? .( ), ( )
(, , )
()
2 ( )
( )
2009 .
- 90 -
6 6-12 12-18 18-24
24-30 30-36 36-42
42-48 48
10 10-15 15-20 20-25 25
30 30-40 40-50 50-60 60
- 91 -
?
.
,
.
. 2009 , ,
.
. , ,
, 10
. ,
.
. V"
, . .
:
:
.
2014
()
- 92 -
?
2009-2010
. , ,
.
.
.
, , , ,
2009 . 2014 O OO
2014 O OO.
,
.
.
,
. ,
.
10 ,
.
.
.
:
:
?
- 93 -
1. ?
2.
?
3.
?
4.
?
5. ,
, ?
6.
, ,
?
7. ?
(8 )
7-1 ,
, , , ?
8.
- 94 -
?
(9 )
8-1. ,
, , ,
?
9. ?
. ( ), ( )
TV (
)
(2009 )
- 95 -
Abstract
School Responses to Pandemic
Influenza A(H1N1) and its
Improvements in Korea
Kim Jihak
Department of Public Health
The Graduate School of Public Health
Seoul National University
This study is focused on the fact that there is more and more risk
for the epidemic of new infectious diseases due to the frequent moves
of population, climatic change, or the emergence of mutant viruses
and more and more uncertainty about infectious diseases, and if
members in a society recognize the crisis differently, it would be
hard to exhibit effectiveness properly only with existing policies or
coping strategies. In this context, this study aims to analyze
guidelines to cope with infectious disease at school in both Korea and
major countries to explore implications from them, consider problems
by analyzing the actual situation of schools coping with infectious
disease at the epidemic of H1N1, and also find out political
implications to improve the system.
- 96 -
To attain the goal, the researcher analyzed comparatively the
coping guidelines in Korea and major countries including the US,
England, and Australia from the aspects of decision-making, work
continuance, blocking the routes of infection, information sharing
communication, and surveillance suggested by WHO (2009). After
that, the author reorganized the detailed contents found from the
coping guidelines and divided them into organizational and political
aspects and then applied them as the items of a questionnaire to
conduct a survey to health teachers and students. 447 health teachers
with over 5 years of teaching career and experience in coping with
H1N1 were selected. Self-administered questionnaire sheets were
distributed to them to examine organizational aspects including
networks, operation in organizations, members preparation, and
equipment and facilities, political aspects such as guidelines practical
applicability and effectiveness, and also directions about how to
evaluate the coping with H1N1 and improve the system. 323 students
who were attending elementary, middle, or high schools in 2009 were
selected, and self-administered questionnaire sheets were distributed
to them to investigate the measurement of temperature, suspension of
school attendance, and health improving behavior. As an analysis
method, for health teachers, the chi-square test and one-way
ANOVA were conducted with their significant level as 95%. For
students, the chi-square test was performed with its significant level
as 95%. The findings of this study are as written below:
According to the results of analyzing comparatively the coping
guidelines in Korea and major countries including the US, England,
and Australia, in Korea, the Office of Emergency Management was
made to be organized with the duties and participants designated but
without mentioning the consultative decision-making body in which
- 97 -
all concerned should participate from the aspects of decision-making.
From the aspects of work continuance, measures for the absence of
class were suggested concretely, but there was lack of plans for the
morbidity of the teaching staff. From the aspects of blocking the
routes of infection, not only basic hygiene for individuals, health
education, facility sanitation, suspension of school attendance, and
preparation for equipment and facilities but also surveillance over
daily fever and students vaccination were suggested. From the
aspects of information sharingcommunication, necessity to cooperate
with parents, students, and related institutions was suggested, but
concrete strategies or guidelines failed to be established. From the
aspects of surveillance, major countries stopped counting those with
symptoms but figured out the status of schools closed whereas Korea
kept counting those with symptoms and made them to report it daily.
Based on the results of comparing the coping guidelines in Korea and
the US, England, and Australia, it was possible to draw following
implications: first, educational authorities in major countries suggested
general and detailed guidelines based on steps and situations so that
each unit school could cope with the new infectious disease actively
through their systems closely cooperating with related ministries even
before the epidemic of the infectious disease. Second, in the coping
with infectious disease at school, they emphasized communication
with and participation of students, parents, communities, and related
institutions. Third, the central government did not take the initiative
in controlling schools nationwide, but each regional unit did cope with
it autonomously according to the situation in it. Mainly, they figured
out the status of schools closed and autonomously had those with
symptoms get a treatment at hospitals or clinics coping with it
flexibly as in the coping with a flu.
- 98 -
According to the surveys to health teachers and students, the
author has found problems in schools coping with H1N1 as follows:
first, they failed in building up solid networks between schools,
education offices, offices for educational support, hospitals.clinics,
health centers, and parents. Second, most schools organized the
Office of Emergency Management, but it did not operate properly. It
was mostly operated by top-down execution, and there was lack of
planning for the support of alternative manpower such as health
teachers and teaching staff. Third, the recognition of health teachers,
school principals, and teaching staff on their roles and responsibility
was slightly above the average. This implies that although in the
coping with H1N1, school members preparation was found to be
rather excellent, if there was some error in the direction of coping in
the authorities, bureaucratic school organizations might have increased
the damage unexpectedly even while coping with it eagerly based on
the guidelines. Fourth, before the epidemic of H1N1, related equipment
and facilities were insufficient. Fifth, there were some problems with
regard to the timeliness as well as concreteness.clarity of
H1N1-coping guidelines. Sixth, health teachers recognition on health
improving behavior like hand washing, isolation after temperature
measurement, or effectiveness in suspension of school attendance
indicated difference from the actual behavior in some of the students.
Isolation policies based on temperature measurement or suspension of
school attendance may have been a means to spread H1N1 in the
communities partially. Seventh, even though schools are educational
institutions, they were weak about health education strategies for
H1N1 then, and because of that, it was limited to provide students
with enough information that was accurate and reliable. Eighth, it is
needed to conduct introspective evaluation on the whole school H1N1
- 99 -
vaccination afterwards, and for the prior vaccination of health
teachers, there was possibility of conflict among the teaching staff.
Health teachers recognition about evaluation on the coping with
H1N1 and how to improve schools H1N1-coping system is as
follows: first, health teachers recognize positively schools coping with
H1N1 in general, enhancement of coping capacity with the experience
of H1N1, and confidence about coping in the epidemic of the new
infectious disease afterwards. Second, health teachers deem they can
cope with the epidemic of infectious disease properly with the school
health system based on participation and agreement rather than the
top-down bureaucratic school health system. Third, if it is needed to
change to a participatoryconsultative school health system, they
think that it is needed to improve structural conditions beforehand
with two health teachers arranged for large class, the cooperation
system with related institutions, and the formation of a new division
in charge of school health at school.
This study gives implications that it is limited to cope with it
properly only with previous technicalbureaucratic approaches to
coping with infectious disease with high uncertainty like H1N1 and it
is needed to change to a school health system based on participation
and agreement.
Based on the findings above, this study suggests directions for
schools' coping with infectious disease and the improvement of the
school health system: first, it is needed to democratize the
decision-making structure and allows students, parents, and teaching
staff to participate, and when making schools' infectious
disease-coping guidelines, it is needed to make concrete coping
guidelines integrating blocking the routes of infection, work
continuance, and communicationinformation sharing and deliver
- 100 -
them in time. Second, it is needed to explore organizational and
political plans covering school health in general in order to transfer
from the technicalbureaucratic school health system to the
participatoryconsultative school health system. Third, it is necessary
to be freed from unilateral control by central government and
consider how to enhance each regional copings autonomy. This
author will make following suggestions to improve from the technical
bureaucratic school health system to the participatoryconsultative
school health system. First, it is needed to build a cooperation system
within the frame of the local autonomous education in order to
enhance cooperation among related institutions including health
centers and hospitalsclinics. Second, it is necessary to increase the
leading systems expertise by increasing health specialized jobs in the
Ministry of Education and education offices for which those having
experience in working at schools can work. Third, it is needed to
enhance the opportunities and structures so that teachers, students,
and parents can communicate with one another ordinarily. Fourth, it
is necessary to build up school health infrastructure by securing
manpower, operating the health curriculum, and obtaining equipment
and facilities for effective infectious disease coping at school. Fifth, it
is necessary to make plans to increase the school health capacity of
school principals, vice-principals, as well as teachers.
keyword : pandemic influenza A, H1N1, school health, infectious
disease, risk response
student number : 2011-22086
. 1. 2.
. 1. 2. WHO (framework) 3.
. 1. 2. 2.1. 2.2. 2.3.
3.
. 1. 1.1. 1.2. 1.3. 1.4. 1.5.
2. 2.1. 2.2. 2.3. 2.4.
3. 3.1. 3.2.
4.
. 1. 2.
1. 2.
Abstract