陳詩潔Szu-Chieh Chen游芷欣Zhi-Shin You公共衛生學系碩士班2026-03-179999-12-312014https://handle.ncl.edu.tw/11296/866c9fhttps://scholars.csmu.edu.tw/handle/123456789/5667人與人之間的互動行為，對於傳染性疾病的傳播及控制是有重要含意的，其接觸研究可量化不同年齡層接觸次數的發生頻率並探討接觸變項的重要性。本研究利用臺灣疾病管制署1999-2006年類流感資料，定義流感高低峰期之月份，並以紙本接觸問卷調查國中學童於三種情境(流感高低峰期、臺中市與宜蘭縣、平日與假日)下之接觸型態差異。本研究以SAS 9.3版本數學統計軟體進行分析，統計方法包括無母數檢定中之魏克遜符號等級檢定(The Wilcoxon Signed-Ranks Test)、魏克遜排序和檢定(The Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test)及克-瓦二氏單因子等級變異數分析(Kruskal-Wallis Test)，以探討不同接觸變項與接觸次數之關係，並以卜瓦松迴歸模式(Poisson Regression Model)分析接觸次數與各變項之影響。本研究問卷施測期間為102年5–6月及12月。流感高峰期其臺中與宜蘭受試人數為169與161位，其問卷回應率分別為49.7%與66.3%。流感低峰期其臺中與宜蘭受試人數為175與160位，其問卷回應率分別為44.4%與65%。流感高低峰期間其接觸次數均為高峰期高於低峰期接觸次數，臺中市高低峰期總接觸次數分別為21.3次與17.0次；宜蘭縣為14.7次與13.9次，雖其總接觸次數均未達統計上之顯著差異，但關於高低峰期接觸型態研究甚少，此研究為臺灣第一篇以接觸問卷調查學童接觸型態之研究。臺中市崇倫國中接觸次數為17.7次，顯著高於宜蘭縣順安國中13.7次(P-value < 0.05)，其中接觸變項又以年齡層(0–19歲)以及接觸地點(學校)達統計上差異(P-value < 0.05)，其原因可能與學校班級人口數有關。平日總接觸次數高於假日(P-value < 0.05)，假日其接觸對象、地點及年齡層也明顯與平日不同；平日接觸次數會使其傳輸機率增加，且對象以家人與同學為主；相對的，假日會減少其傳輸機率，但其對象範圍較廣。除量化其接觸型態外，未來亦可將其接觸次數推估其傳染參數，將其結果運用傳染病動態模式模擬學校上課與非上課之傳染病動態，結合學校停課概念，以做為學校停課時的參考依據。Human interaction patterns play an important role in the transmission and prevention of infectious diseases spread. The social contacts survey can quantify the frequency of contacts and describe the key contact variables. This study used the 1999-2006 weekly-based influenza-like illness (ILI) surveillance data from Taiwan CDC to define the periods of influenza (flu) season and non-flu season. Here, this thesis also conducted the questionnaires survey for junior high school students to investigate the difference analysis among three scenarios (flu/non-flu seasons, Taichung City/Yilan County, and weekday/weekend).Statistical analysis was carried out in SAS Version 9.3 for Windows (SAS Institute Inc., Cary, North Carolina, USA). Data analysis methods included Wilcoxon Signed-Ranks Test, Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test and Kruskal-Wallis Test. Poisson regression model was used to analyze the effects of contacts number by different contact variables.Flu/non-flu seasons were defined in December and May-June, 2014, respectively. During flu season, there were 169 and 161 participants in Taichung and Yilan with the response rate 49.7% and 66.3%, respectively. During non-flu season, there were 175 and 160 participants in Taichung and Yilan with the response rate 44.4% and 65%, respectively. Results show that there were 21.3 (flu) and 17.0 (non-flu) daily contacts in Taichung and 14.7 (flu) and 13.9 (non-flu) daily contacts in Yilan, respectively. The contact numbers during flu season were higher than those during non-flu season (no statistically significant difference). However, the contact patterns of schoolchildren in flu/non-flu seasons were the first investigated research in Taiwan. For place analysis, there were 17.7 and 13.7 daily contacts in Taichung and Yilan, respectively (P-value < 0.05). The variables of contact age (0–19 years) and contact setting (school) also indicated the significant difference (P-value < 0.05), implied the important influence with class size in school. For weekday and weekend analysis, there was a significant higher difference of the total contact numbers in weekday than those in weekend (P-value < 0.05). Three contact variables of contactor, setting, and age groups were different. In weekday, students will frequently contact with family and classmate, however, students might contact with others (the first met or never met) in weekend.These results indicated that questionnaire survey for junior high school students could quantify the social contact patterns and provide the daily contact numbers for estimating the transmission parameters. Specifically, this information could estimate the impact of school closure and construct the closure standard by using the dynamics modeling of respiratory infectious diseases in the future.thesis