: , , , CAMI
*
안정선**․ 김희숙***․ 우미영****․ 신은정*****․ 남지인******
서론 .
Ⅰ
연구의 필요성 1.
,
.
.
(
, , , 2000).
.
( , 1998; , 2004)
.
,
(Geoffey & Soumitra, 1996; ,
2001 ).
(1972)
* 2007
**
*** ,
****
*****
******
.
,
,
. ,
,
.
,
( , 2001)
. 2006
1 18 64
30% ( , 2006)
.
,
.
․ ․
2007
,
.
. 연구의 목적 2.
,
,
. .
1)
. 2)
. 3)
.
연구 방법 .
Ⅱ
연구설계 1.
. 연구대상
2.
․
. ․
1,200 ,
1,019 . 연구도구
3.
Tayler Dear(1981) Community Attitudes to the Toward the mentally Ⅲ inventory (CAMI)
(2001) .
CAMI , , ,
4 ,
(non-authoritarianism), (non-social restrictiveness)
. 4
( ,
2001).
10 ,
5 . ‘
(1 )’ ‘
(5 )’ 5
. CAMI
Cronbach's Alpha 0.87 . 자료수집방법
4.
2007 7 16 12
31 ,
,
,
20 .
자료분석방법 5.
SPSS(Statistical Package for Social Science) Window version 12.0
,
t-test .
연구의 제한점 6.
,
. 2
․
․ .
6
.
연구 결과 .
Ⅲ
일반적 특성 1.
.
44.6%, 54.9%, 34.7%,
63 .7 % ,
21-30 48.9%, 35.9%
.
56.6%, 51.4%
,
89.1%, 87.9%
.
37.9% ,
34.8% < 1>.
(7-8 ) (n=523)
(12 ) (n=496)
N % N %
233 44.6 172 34.7
287 54.9 316 63.7
3 0.6 8 1.6
20
≤ 52 9.9 87 17.5
21-30 256 48.9 178 35.9
31-40 69 13.2 115 23.2
41-50 62 11.9 66 13.3
51-60 61 11.7 31 6.3
61 ≤ 21 4.0 15 3.0
2 0.4 4 0.8
296 56.6 255 51.4
200 38.2 224 45.2
11 2.1 5 1.0
9 1.7 5 1.0
7 1.3 7 1.4
< 1> (N=1,019)
대상자의 정신질환자에 대한 태도 2.
․
141.77±13.25, 143.56±13.56
(t=-2.16, p=.031).
(t=-2.16, p=.031),
(t=-2.32, p=.021),
< 2>.
(7-8 ) (12 )
t p
M SD M SD
34.47 3.60 35.04 3.34 -2.60 .010
37.83 4.19 37.93 3.98 -0.40 .686
34.34 4.62 35.00 4.35 -2.32 .021
35.13 4.97 35.62 4.67 -1.62 .106
141.77 13.25 143.58 13.56 -2.16 .031
< 2> (N=1,019)
(7-8 ) (n=523)
(12 ) (n=496)
N % N %
14 2.7 12 2.4
42 8.0 42 8.5
189 36.1 177 35.7
251 48.0 244 49.2
26 5.0 15 3.0
1 0.2 6 1.2
117 22.4 172 34.8
45 8.6 32 6.5
151 28.9 122 24.7
11 2.1 7 1.4
198 37.9 161 32.6
1 0.2 2 0.4
정신질환자에 대한 하위요인에 따 3.
른 문항별 태도 변화정도 1)
. ․ ,
‘
. ’
3.90±0.96, 4.03±0.79
(t=-2.36, p=.019), ‘
’(t=-6.13, p=.000)
‘
.’
(t=-4.88, p=.000). , ‘ .’
4.07±0.80, 3.97±0.76
(t=2.22, p=.027) < 3-1>.
(7-8 ) (12 )
t p
M SD M SD
1.
. 3.90 0.96 4.03 0.79 -2.36 .019
2.
. 3.88 1.10 3.90 0.98 -0.36 .719
3. . 4.07 0.80 3.97 0.76 2.22 .027
4.
. 3.81 0.84 3.78 0.75 0.53 .595
5.
. 3.78 0.95 3.68 0.92 1.65 .100
6.
. 3.23 1.00 3.58 0.83 -6.13 .000
7.
. 3.32 0.87 3.57 0.77 -4.88 .000
8.
. 2.91 0.97 2.97 0.87 -0.90 .369
9. . 2.92 0.94 3.01 0.92 -1.59 .113
10.
. 2.65 0.98 2.55 0.84 1.81 .070
< 3-1> (N=1,019)
2)
.
․
‘
’
․
(t=-3.60, p=.000), ‘
.’ ․
(t=-3.05, p=.002).
‘
.’(t=3.26,
p=.001) ‘
.’(t=2.43, p=.015) ․
< 3-2>.
(7-8 ) (12 )
t p
M SD M SD
11.
. 3.76 0.85 3.84 0.75 -1.67 .095
12.
. 3.85 0.85 3.77 0.70 1.53 .126
13.
. 3.95 0.78 3.95 0.68 -0.11 .911
14.
. 3.82 0.83 3.88 0.70 -1.18 .238
15.
. 3.75 0.81 3.76 0.77 -0.26 .798
16. . 3.89 0.76 3.90 0.73 -0.13 .895
17.
. 3.75 0.80 3.92 0.69 -3.60 .000
18. . 3.78 0.85 3.94 0.82 -3.05 .002
19.
. 3.71 0.91 3.53 0.84 3.26 .001
20.
.
3.57 0.93 3.43 0.83 2.43 .015
< 3-2> (N=1,019)
3)
.
.
pv ,
‘
.’(t=3.49, p=.001), ‘
.’(t=-4.95, p=.000),
‘
.’(t=-3.19, p=.002), ‘
.’(t=-2.91, p=.004),
‘
.’(t=-2.19, p=.029) ‘
.’(t=-2.25, p=.025)
< 3-3>.
(7-8 ) (12 )
t p
M SD M SD
21.
. 3.96 0.78 3.87 0.75 1.73 .084
22. . 4.11 0.75 4.10 0.70 0.31 .759
23.
. 3.93 0.88 3.74 0.87 3.49 .001
24.
. 3.40 0.92 3.47 0.80 -1.19 .233
25.
. 3.43 0.98 3.47 0.89 -0.68 .498
26.
. 3.16 0.91 3.43 0.81 -4.95 .000
27.
. 3.09 0.92 3.26 0.84 -3.18 .002 28.
. 3.33 0.90 3.48 0.76 -2.91 .004 29.
. 2.80 0.95 2.93 0.81 -2.19 .029 30.
. 3.12 0.93 3.24 0.77 -2.25 .025
< 3-3> (N=1,019)
4)
.
.
‘
.’(t=-2.24,
p=.025) ‘
.’(t=-3.09, p=.002), ‘
.'(t=-2.27, p=.023)
< 3-4>.
(7-8 ) (12 )
t p
M SD M SD
31.
.
3.85 0.78 3.86 0.69 -0.35 .730
32.
.
3.77 0.75 3.74 0.70 0.67 .501
33.
. 3.20 0.89 3.31 0.75 -2.24 .025
34.
. 3.61 0.71 3.62 0.71 -0.19 .848 35.
. 3.65 0.78 3.63 0.77 0.51 .608
36.
. 3.68 0.79 3.72 0.70 -0.72 .475
37.
. 3.24 0.91 3.41 0.79 -3.08 .002
38. . 3.45 0.93 3.58 0.84 -2.27 .023
39.
. 3.39 0.81 3.48 0.75 -1.88 .061
40.
. 3.28 0.88 3.27 0.77 0.17 .862
< 3-4> (N=1,019)
대상자가 인식하는 전반적인 지역 4.
사회 정신보건 관련 문제들에 대 한 심각성 정도
< >
47.4%,
43.3% , <
정신보건 관련 문제의 예방 및 해 5.
결 저해 요인
․
‘ ’
> 32.9%, 40.7%, <
> 9.4%, 9.9%
< 4>.
, ‘
’, ‘ ’, ‘
’ < 5>.
(7-8 )(n=523) (12 )(n=496)
N % N %
. 12 2.3 3 0.6
. 248 47.4 215 43.3
. 172 32.9 202 40.7
. 27 5.2 23 4.6
. 15 2.9 4 0.8
49 9.4 49 9.9
< 4> (N=1,019)
(7-8 ) (n=1453)
(12 ) (n=1327)
N % N %
419 28.8 387 29.2
339 23.3 289 21.8
203 14.0 162 12.2
202 13.9 205 15.4
49 3.4 65 4.9
121 8.3 137 10.3
112 7.7 80 6.0
8 0.6 2 0.2
< 5> (N=1,019, )
논 의 .
Ⅳ
(Community Attitudes to the Toward the mentally Ⅲ
inventory) ․
141.77±13.25, 143.56±13.56
(t=-2.16, p=.031).
(t=-2.16, p=.031) ,
(t=-2.32, p=.021),
.
34.47±3.60, 35.04±3.34,
37.83±4.19, 37.93±3.98,
34.34±4.62, 35.00±4.35,
35.13±4.97,
35.62±4.67 .
(1996)
26.5±3.3, 28.5±3.1, 25.1±3.7,
27.3±3.2 (1997)
34.40±4.64,
21.69±4.64, 32.51±5.43,
26.45±4.97 (1998)
26.8±2.8, 18.0±5.1,
25.5±3.7, 20.4±4.9
.
․
,
․
.
.
.
,
.
,
.
,
( , 2001).
.
.
. ․
.
‘ .’ 47.4%,
43.3% ․
,
‘
’ 28.8%, 29.2%,
23.3%, 21.8%, ‘
’ 14.0%, 12.2%, ‘
’ 13.9%, 15.4%
. ,
,
‘
’
.
.
결론 및 제언 .
Ⅴ
.
․
(141.77±13.25) (143.58±13.56)
. 4
(t=-2.60, p=.010)
(t=-2.16, p=.021) .
‘
.’ 47.4%,
43.3% .
‘ ’
, ‘
’, ‘ ’,
‘ ’ .
. ,
․ ,
.
, .
. ,
‘
’ .
.
. ,
.
.
.
.
.
. ,
.
참 고 문 헌
(2004).
. ,
. (1997).
.
, .
(1998).
.
, .
(2004).
.
, .
(1994).
.
, .
, , , ,
(1989).
. ,
14(1), 45-57.
(2000).
. ,
. (1992).
. , .
, (2001).
. , 40(1), 50-62.
, , (2001).
. , 24(2), 146-154.
, , , , ,
(2001).
. , 25, 85-114.
(2001).
.
, .
, , , ,
(1972).
. , 11(3),
177-186.
(2001).
.
, .
, , (2000).
. ,
39(3), 495-506.
, , , (1999).
. , 38(3), 530-538.
(1996). -
. ,
3(2), 188-199.
(1997).
- -.
, .
(2006).
.
, .
, , , , ,
, , , , ,
, , , , ,
, , , ,
(2006).
, , 1-374.
Geoffey, W. Soumitra, P.(1996). Public Education for Community Care - A New Approach - Br J Psychiatry, 168, 441-447.
Rabkin, J.(1974). Public attitude toward
mental illness. Areview of literature.
Schizophrenia Bulletin, 1, 9-33.
Segal, S.P. Aviram, U.(1979). Reintegrating the Mentally ill in the community. Int J Rehabi Res, 2(4), 499-506.
Taylor, S.M. Dear, M.J.(1978). Scaling community attitudes toward the mentally ill. Schizophrenia Bulletin, 7(2), 225-240.
Tershakovec, A.(1964). An observation concerning changing attitudes toward mental illness. Am J Psychiatry, 121, 353-357.
Wolff, G. PAthare, S. Craig, T. Left, J.(1996). Community attitudes to mental illness and reaction to mentally ill people. Br J Psychiatry, 168, 183-190.
Wolff, G. Pathare, S. Craig, T. Left, J.(1996).
Community knowledge of mental illness and reaction to mentally ill people. Br J Psychiatry, 168, 190-198.
Abstract
Keywords : Mentally Ill, Community attitudes, Community mental health, CAMI(Community Attitudes to the Mentally Ill inventory)
A Study of Attitudes toward the Mentally Ill in Gyeongsan Community
Ahn, Jeung sun*․Kim, Hee sook** ․ Woo, Mi young***
Shin, Eun jeung**** ․ Nam, Ji in*****
Objectives : The purpose of this is to get basic data to develop plan and strategy of community mental health in Gyeongsan city by identifying attitudes toward mentally ill and about preservation of mental health problem protect and an obstruction main causes.
Methods : We makes survey research as target for citizen of Gyeongsan, in order to get data by structured questionnaire, 1,019 subjects were selected from July. 16, 2007 to Dec. 31, 2007. The instruments for this study were Taylor SM, Dear MJ's Community Attitudes to the Mentally Ill(CAMI) inventory. The data was analyzed by percentage, mean, t-test using the SPSS 12.0 program.
Result : we can get the fact that positive changing about attitude and perception of mental illness people, which mean score determined as 141.77±13.25 (1,2 quater), 143.56±13.56(3,4 quater) from Community Attitudes to the Toward the mentally Ⅲ inventory about perception and attitude of Gyeongsan inhabitants who participated this research. From those significant variations of the lower factors showed differences in non-authoritativeness(t=-2.16,p=.031) and nonrestrictions in social behavior(t=-2.32, p=.021). we can find globally positive change from being a mercy and local metal stability and those relative part, but it is not significant. Next, at 1,2 quater, 47.4% the inhabitants of Gyeongsan doesn't believe the severity of local metal stablity issue is severe and 3,4 quater 43.3 %. in additionally they believe the most trouble issue for
* Gyeongsan Mental Health Center, Social worker
** Assistant Professor, College of Nursing, Kyungpook National University
*** Gyeongsan Mental Health Center, Nurse
**** Gyeongsan Mental Health Center, Nurse
***** Gyeongsan Mental Health Center, Nurse
prevention of mental stability relatives are insufficient social recognition and fellowing issues special organ for this issue or insufficent manpower, mismatched co-operation of relatives, insufficent budget.
conclusion : Awareness and the attitude of the Gyeongsan citizens towards physically challenged people showed positive change over first and second period. On the other hand, concerning the mental hygiene, seriousness of their awareness is mild and the primary cause has been concluded as ‘lacking the social awareness. Thus it is suggested that there is a need for active campaign and eduction targeting the locals.
