Examinees’ Knowledge of the Result Form of Korean National Health Examination

Im Jung Oh; Hyo Yoon Choi; Seo Young Kang; Jung Ah Lee; Young Sik Kim

doi:10.15384/kjhp.2017.17.3.168

Korean J Health Promot > Volume 17(3); 2017 > Article

Examinees’ Knowledge of the Result Form of Korean National Health Examination

Original Article

Korean Journal of Health Promotion 2017;17(3):168-175.

Published online: January 19, 2017

DOI: https://doi.org/10.15384/kjhp.2017.17.3.168

Examinees’ Knowledge of the Result Form of Korean National Health Examination

Im Jung Oh, Hyo Yoon Choi, Seo Young Kang, Jung Ah Lee, Young Sik Kim

Department of Family Medicine, Asan Medical Center, University of Ulsan College of Medicine, Seoul, Korea

Corresponding author : Young Sik Kim, MD Department of Family Medicine, Asan Medical Center, University of Ulsan College of Medicine, 88 Olympic-ro 43-gil, Songpa-gu, Seoul 05505, Korea
Tel: +82-2-3010-3811, Fax: +82-2-3010-3815 E-mail: youngkim@amc.seoul.kr

Received February 28, 2017 Accepted June 13, 2017

This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/3.0) which permits unrestricted non-commercial use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

요약

Background:

Cardiovascular diseases related mortality attributes to approximately one fourth of mortality in Korea, and management of chronic diseases is essential for the prevention of cardiovascular diseases. Through the health screening program, early detection and prevention of chronic disease are made possible, and this will improve the health status of examinees. In the current national health examination (NHE), counseling and continuous management after NHE have not been properly made. We aimed to investigate examinees’ knowledge of the result form of NHE in order to find the ways of improvement.

Methods:

We recruited 120 examinees, who have undergone general health examination and life turning point health examination (LTPHE), and conducted survey from January 7, 2016 to January 26, 2016. Participants answered questionnaires regarding demographic characteristics, health screening related factors, and their knowledge and attitude towards NHE. Answers were converted to Likert scale, and student t-test, one-way ANOVA, and linear regression models were used for the analyses.

Results:

Examinees’ knowledge of the result form was lowest in the blood test category. When age and type of institution were adjusted, the examinees in their 60s had significantly lower knowledge of all the categories of result forms except urine test in comparison to the younger examinees. When type of institutions were compared, examinees, who had undergone NHE in health screening clinics, had significantly lower knowledge of several categories of result forms in comparison to those who had undergone NHE in private clinics and general hospitals. Examinees’ knowledge of the LTPHE result form was lowest in categories of “mild cognitive impairment and dementia” and “fall down and voiding difficulty.”

Conclusions:

The result form of NHE should be revised so that examinees in old age can easily understand. Examinees’ knowledge of the result form was lower in health screening clinic; thus, quality of health screening clinic should be improved for continuous care after NHE.

Keywords: National health examination, Result forms, Examinee

Table 1.

Basic characteristics of 120 examinees of NHE

	Value
Age, y
40-49	46 (38.3)
50-59	34 (28.3)
60-69	40 (33.3)
Sex
Men	56 (46.7)
Women	64 (53.3)
Smoking status
Nonsmoker	85 (70.8)
Smoker	35 (29.2)
Drinking status
Nondrinker	37 (30.8)
Drinker	83 (69.2)
Type of NHE
Life turning point health examination	38 (31.7)
General health examination	82 (68.3)
Type of institution
Private clinic	30 (25.0)
Health screening clinic	40 (33.3)
General hospital	29 (24.2)
University Hospital	11 (9.2)
Visiting health screening program	9 (7.5)
Others	1 (0.8)
Experience of NHE
Once	15 (12.5)
More than once	105 (87.5)
Purpose of undergoing NHE
Disease prevention	95 (79.8)
Management of comorbidities	31 (26.1)
Request from government or workplace	63 (52.9)
Disadvantage when not undergoing NHE	29 (24.4)

Abbreviation: NHE, national health examination. Values are presented as n (%). Missing data were excluded.

Table 2.

NHE examinees’ responses whether counseling helped to improve lifestyles

	Yes	No
Counseling for physical activity	35 (83.3)	7 (16.7)
Counseling for drinking	10 (62.5)	6 (37.5)
Counseling for obesity	6 (40.0)	9 (60.0)
Counseling for smoking	2 (20.0)	8 (80.0)

Abbreviation: NHE, national health examination. Values are presented as n (%).

Table 3.

Mean Likert scores of examinees’ knowledge of the NHE result form and responses after the NHE

	Value
Examinees’ knowledge of the NHE result form
General health examination
Visual, auditory abnormality	4.03 (0.83)
Obesity	3.92 (0.74)
Hypertension	3.82 (0.81)
Urine test Chest X-ray	3.68 (0.85) 3.49 (0.76)
Blood test	3.36 (0.81)
Health risk assessment
Disease specific health risk	3.88 (0.69)
Health risk identification	3.74 (0.80)
Health risk modification	3.64 (0.89)
Whether examinees felt necessary for lifestyle modification
Smoking cessation	3.45 (1.29)
Physical activity	3.42 (1.40)
Alcohol consumption	2.72 (1.27)
Whether life turning point health examination helped to evaluate health status
Osteoporosis risk assessment	4.60 (0.84)
Mild cognitive impairment and dementia Physical function of the elderly	4.10 (1.21) 4.00 (1.21)
Fall down and voiding difficulty	3.90 (1.21)
Mood status	3.74 (1.35)

Abbreviation: NHE, national health examination. Values are presented as mean (standard deviation). Missing data were excluded.

Table 4.

Examinees’ knowledge of the result form of life turning point health examination

	Good	Bad
Osteoporosis risk assessment	10 (100.0)	0 (0.0)
Mood status	37 (97.4)	1 (2.6)
Physical function of the elderly	18 (90.0)	2 (10.0)
Fall down and voiding difficulty	17 (85.0)	3 (15.0)
Mild cognitive impairment and dementia	17 (85.0)	3 (15.0)

Values are presented as n (%).

Table 5.

Mean Likert scores of examinees’ knowledge of the NHE result form according to health screening related factors

	Age						P-value^d	Sex		P-value^e
	40-49		50-59		60-69			Mean	Women
	Mean (SD)	Ref^c	Mean (SD)	P-value^c	Mean (SD)	P-value^c		Mean (SD)
General health examination
Obesity	4.04 (0.67)^a	-	4.12 (0.64)^a	0.398	3.60 (0.81)^b	0.033	0.003	3.89 (0.73)	3.94 (0.75)	0.743
Hypertension	3.93 (0.77)	-	3.97 (0.67)	0.950	3.55 (0.90)	0.034	0.036	3.91 (0.72)	3.73 (0.88)	0.235
Visual, auditory abnormality	4.24 (0.74)^a	-	4.18 (0.63)^a	0.701	3.65 (0.98)^b	0.001	0.002	4.11 (0.76)	3.95 (0.90)	0.315
Blood test	3.52 (0.86)^a	-	3.56 (0.66)^a	0.900	3.00 (0.75)^b	0.003	0.002	3.30 (0.76)	3.41 (0.85)	0.489
Urine test Chest X-ray	3.70 (0.87) 3.63 (0.77)^a	- -	3.79 (0.81) 3.65 (0.60)^a	0.369 0.638	3.58 (0.87) 3.20 (0.79)^b	0.904 0.034	0.543 0.010	3.70 (0.81) 3.59 (0.73)	3.67 (0.89) 3.41 (0.77)	0.875 0.187
Health risk assessment
Disease specific health risk	3.98 (0.65)^a		4.09 (0.62)^a		3.58 (0.71)^b		0.002	3.93 (0.68)	3.83 (0.70)	0.431
Health risk identification	3.91 (0.76)^a		3.88 (0.77)^a		3.43 (0.81)^b		0.008	3.79 (0.82)	3.70 (0.79)	0.577
Health risk modification	3.83 (0.82)^a		3.76 (0.82)^a		3.33 (0.94)^b		0.020	3.68 (0.86)	3.61 (0.92)	0.672
	Institution						P-value^d	Experience		P-value^e
	Health screening clinic		Private clinic		General hospital			Once	More than once
	Mean (SD)	Ref^c	Mean (SD)	P-value^c	Mean (SD)	P-value^c		Mean (SD)
General health examination
Obesity	3.73 (0.78)	-	3.90 (0.84)	0.353	4.00 (0.60)	0.108	0.249	3.87 (0.64)	3.92 (0.76)	0.781
Hypertension	3.53 (0.78)^b	-	3.90 (0.88)^a	0.058	4.00 (0.72)^a	0.008	0.022	3.53 (0.92)	3.86 (0.79)	0.148
Visual, auditory abnormality	3.55 (0.78)^b	-	4.23 (0.90)^a	<0.001	4.25 (0.67)^a	<0.001	<0.001	3.93 (0.96)	4.04 (0.82)	0.651
Blood test	3.13 (0.72)	-	3.40 (0.81)	0.163	3.50 (0.82)	0.029	0.093	3.13 (0.74)	3.39 (0.81)	0.250
Urine test	3.28 (0.72)^b	-	4.00 (0.91)^a	<0.001	3.78 (0.80)^a	0.009	0.001	3.33 (0.90)	3.73 (0.84)	0.088
Chest X-ray	3.15 (0.77)^b	-	3.57 (0.68)^a	0.017	3.65 (0.66)^a	0.002	0.005	3.33 (0.82)	3.51 (0.75)	0.388
Health risk assessment
Disease specific health risk	3.80 (0.79)		3.90 (0.71)		3.83 (0.59)		0.834	3.87 (0.74)	3.88 (0.69)	0.961
Health risk identification	3.68 (0.89)		3.53 (0.78)		3.83 (0.71)		0.318	3.93 (0.70)	3.71 (0.82)	0.326
Health risk modification	3.60 (0.98)		3.57 (0.77)		3.63 (0.90)		0.965	3.67 (0.90)	3.64 (0.89)	0.908

Abbreviations: NHE, national health examination; SD, standard deviation. Post-hoc analysis:

^a >

^b (P<0.05).

^c Values were obtained from linear regression models. Age group and institution were adjusted in the linear regression analyses.

^d P-value was obtained from ANOVA.

^e P-value was obtained from student t-test.

REFERENCES

1.. Korea National Statistical Office. Cause of Death Statistics 2013. Daejeon: Korea National Statistical Office; 2014.

2.. Korea National Statistical Office. Cause of Death Statistics 2015. Daejeon: Korea National Statistical Office; 2016.

3.. Lee AK, Lee SY, Jeong HJ, Han JT, Kwon HY, Park HK, et al. Cost-effectiveness analysis of type 2 DM screening program of national health insurance. Health and Social Science 2009;26:41-65.

4.. Lee AK, Han JT, Kang IO, Park IS, Kim MA. The current situation and the effect of follow up health screening. Wonju: National Health Insurance Service; 2006.

5.. Lee WC, Lee SY. National health screening program of Korea. J Korean Med Assoc 2010;53(5):363-70.

6.. Lee JS, Lee WC, Lee KS, Koh KW, Choi EJ, Park CM. The new health promotion strategy in japan -focusing on life-style related diseases. Korean J Health Educ Promot 2008;25(3):167-81.

7.. Cho YW, Oh SY, Kim MH. A study on the business model of health and wellness management. Seoul: Korea Insurance Research Institute; 2014. p.207..

8.. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. WISEWOMAN [Internet]. Clifton Road Atlanta: Centers for Disease Control and Prevention; 2016. [Accessed Mar 5, 2016]. Available from:. https://www.cdc.gov/wisewoman.

9.. NHS. NHS Health Check [Internet]. London: NHS; 2016. [Ac cessed Mar 5, 2016]. Available from:. http://www.nhs.uk/Conditions/nhs-health-check/Pages/NHS-Health-Check.aspx.

10.. Cho BL. Evaluation of the validity of current national health screening program and plan to improve the system. Seoul: Seoul university; 2012.

11.. National Health Screening Statistical Yearbook 2013, 2014. Wonju: National Health Insurance Service. 2015.

12.. Ahn EM, Shin DW, Yang HK, Yun JM, Chun SH, Suh B, et al. Treatment gap in the national health-screening program in Korea: claim-based follow-up of statin use for sustained hypercholesterolemia. J Korean Med Sci 2015;30(9):1266-72.

13.. Choi EJ, Kim DJ, Lee WC, Hwang IY. Establishment of an Efficient Management system for advanced outcome of the National Health Screening Policy. Sejong: Korea Institute for Health and Social Affairs; 2009.

14.. Park YM. Development of community-based health promotion service model considering the linkage of screening and follow-up of subjects with life style related disease. Bucheon: The Catholic University of Korea; 2006.

15.. Cho B, Lee CM. Current situation of national health screening systems in Korea. J Korean Med Assoc 2011;54(7):666-9.

16.. Shin YS, Park CY, Jung SH, Jung HY, Kang HY. Comparison of customer satisfaction with health examination programs provided by the Korea National Health Insurance and private healthcare organizations in Korea. J Korean Soc Qual Assur Health Care 2006;12(1):40-51.

17.. Yeo JY, Jeong HS. Determinants of health screening and its effects on health behaviors. Health Policy and Management 2012;22(1):49-64.

18.. Jeon CS. Primary care and framework act on health screening. Seoul: Korean Society for Health Promotion and Disease Prevention; 2008.

19.. Shin ST. Problems and improvement of national health screening. Seoul: Research institute for healthcare policy; 2015. p. 45-9.

20.. Leinhardt G, Zaslavsky O, Stein MK. Functions graphs and graphing: tasks learning and teaching. Rev Educ Res 1990;60(1):1-64.

21.. Roth WM. Toward an Anthropology of Graphing: Semiotic and Activity-Theoretic Perspectives. Berlin: Kluwer Academic Publishers; 2003.

22.. van Rijswijk E, van Hout H, van de Lisdonk E, Zitman F, van Weel C. Barriers in recognising, diagnosing and managing depressive and anxiety disorders as experienced by Family Physicians; a focus group study. BMC Fam Pract 2009;10:52.

23.. Fleury MJ, Imboua A, Aubé D, Farand L, Lambert Y. General practitioners' management of mental disorders: a rewarding practice with considerable obstacles. BMC Fam Pract 2012;13:19.

24.. Lancaster T, Stead L, Silagy C, Sowden A. Effectiveness of interventions to help people stop smoking: findings from the Cochrane Library. BMJ 2000;321(7257):355-8.

25.. Cornuz J. Smoking cessation interventions in clinical practice. Eur J Vasc Endovasc Surg 2007;34(4):397-404.

26.. Joo J. Korean culture of heavy drinking and directions on policy related to alcoholism. J Public Welf Adm 2009;19(1):73-115.

27.. Eden KB, Orleans CT, Mulrow CD, Pender NJ, Teutsch SM. Does counseling by clinicians improve physical activity? A summary of the evidence for the US Preventive Services Task Force. Ann Intern Med 2002;137(3):208-15.

28.. Berra K, Rippe J, Manson JE. Making physical activity counseling a priority in clinical practice: the time for action is now. JAMA 2015;314(24):2617-8.