首页> 外文OA文献 >Environmental Health Program Implementation at Public Health Center (PHC) in Tuban District East Java Province) (Analysis Data of National Health Fasilities Research 2011)
【2h】

Environmental Health Program Implementation at Public Health Center (PHC) in Tuban District East Java Province) (Analysis Data of National Health Fasilities Research 2011)

机译:东爪哇省图班区公共卫生中心(PHC)实施环境卫生计划)(2011年国家卫生基金会研究数据分析)

摘要

Introduction: Environmental health program is preventive in activities to improve environmental health quality hence it is useful to improve life quality and human health and is in accord with Kepmenkes RI No 1428/2006 and this environmental health program is mandatory to perform in Puskesmas. Objective: The study was to elaboratie the difference of environmental health program implementation between urban Public Health Care (PHC) and rural PHC, difference of environmental health program performance output based on environmental health staff and availability and feedback giving among PHCs. Methods: Comparative analysis through descriptive method is in form of Rifaskes 2011 table and graphic from secondary data. Population was PHC in Tuban District and it was used as total sample and PHC as analysis unit. Result: PHC in Tuban Regency had not been optimum in performing all environmental health programs. Difference between urban and rural PHCs were the urban PHC didn\u27t perform all kesling program while the rural PHC performed all environmental health program albeit non maximum. There was difference between sanitarian staff availability between PHCs including in reaching output and there was difference between PHCs that perform performance assessment by obtaining feedback only 9 (27%) PHCs, and feedback benefit had not been influencing environmental health program performance improvement. Less than 50% PHC obtained performance “good” category on public places assessment and other environmental health program was still categorized “poor.” Conclusion: There was difference of environmental health program implementation among PHCs and sanitary staff availability that still lack and feedback benefit had not been effecting environmental health program performance improvement.
机译:简介:环境卫生计划是预防活动,以提高环境卫生质量,因此对改善生活质量和人类健康非常有用,并且符合Kepmenkes RI No 1428/2006,并且该环境卫生计划必须在Puskesmas中执行。目的:研究在城市公共卫生保健(PHC)和农村PHC之间实施环境卫生计划的差异,基于环境卫生人员的环境卫生计划绩效产出的差异以及各PHC之间的可获得性和反馈。方法:采用描述性方法进行比较分析,采用的是Rifaskes 2011表和来自辅助数据的图表。人口以图班地区的PHC为单位,以总样本为单位,以PHC为分析单位。结果:在执行所有环境健康计划中,图班摄政区的初级卫生保健并非最佳。城乡和乡村PHC之间的差异在于,城市PHC没有执行所有凯斯琳程序,而农村PHC则执行了所有环境健康程序,尽管不是最大的。 PHC之间在卫生服务人员的可用性方面存在差异,包括在达到产出方面,PHC之间通过仅获得9个(27%)PHC进行反馈来进行绩效评估,并且反馈收益并未影响环境卫生计划绩效的改善。不到50%的PHC在公共场所评估中获得了“良好”类别的成绩,而其他环境健康计划仍被归类为“不良”。结论:初级卫生保健人员之间的环境卫生计划执行情况有所不同,卫生人员的可用性仍然不足,并且反馈收益尚未影响环境卫生计划绩效的改善。

著录项

  • 作者

    Sugiharto, Mugeni;

  • 作者单位
  • 年度 2014
  • 总页数
  • 原文格式 PDF
  • 正文语种 ID
  • 中图分类

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利

客服邮箱:kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备:11010802029741号 ICP备案号:京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有
  • 客服微信

  • 服务号