8 research outputs found

    āļĢāļđāļ›āđāļšāļšāļāļēāļĢāļ›āđ‰āļ­āļ‡āļāļąāļ™āļ›āļąāļāļŦāļēāļ„āļ§āļēāļĄāļĢāļļāļ™āđāļĢāļ‡āđƒāļ™āļ„āļĢāļ­āļšāļ„āļĢāļąāļ§ āđ‚āļ”āļĒāļāļĢāļ°āļšāļ§āļ™āļāļēāļĢāļāļēāļĢāļĄāļĩāļŠāđˆāļ§āļ™āļĢāđˆāļ§āļĄ

    Get PDF
    This research aims to study domestic violence provisions in community, to develop prevention model, and to investigate effect of prevention model of domestic violence in community by participation process. Setting is a community in Pathumthani province. Research procedures by Participatory Action Research with ten community leaders participation. Research results are: 1) Verbal violence is the highest frequency, followed by physical, mental, and sexual respectively. Family risk violence level is the highest, and the communities with limited area, slum, and low income reveal all kinds of domestic violence. Its causes come from personal and socioeconomic conditions. 2) The prevention method is developed by two cycles. Firstly, community leaders and family mainstays are developed. The results have shown that there is cooperation among many parts of community which makes community leaders gain more knowledge, understanding, and problem analysis thinking skill, and family mainstays change behaviors into positive way. Secondly, at risk families are developed and communication to community. The results have shown that community cooperation is created which makes perception and alerting in community. Moreover, some at risk families understand problem and tend to modify their behavior to prevention. 3) Effects of prevention model are behavior changing in community leaders, family mainstays, at risk families, and also some people. And getting cooperation networking model, and violence prevention model for audiences in each level of community from community-based research method. Keywords : domestic violence, prevention model, participation processāļšāļ—āļ„āļąāļ”āļĒāđˆāļ­Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â  āļāļēāļĢāļ§āļīāļˆāļąāļĒāļ„āļĢāļąāđ‰āļ‡āļ™āļĩāđ‰ āļĄāļĩāļ§āļąāļ•āļ–āļļāļ›āļĢāļ°āļŠāļ‡āļ„āđŒāđ€āļžāļ·āđˆāļ­āļĻāļķāļāļĐāļēāļŠāļ āļēāļžāļ›āļąāļāļŦāļēāļ„āļ§āļēāļĄāļĢāļļāļ™āđāļĢāļ‡āđƒāļ™āļ„āļĢāļ­āļšāļ„āļĢāļąāļ§āļ‚āļ­āļ‡āļŠāļļāļĄāļŠāļ™  āđāļĨāļ°āļžāļąāļ’āļ™āļēāļĢāļđāļ›āđāļšāļšāļāļēāļĢāļ›āđ‰āļ­āļ‡āļāļąāļ™āļ›āļąāļāļŦāļēāļ”āđ‰āļ§āļĒāļāļĢāļ°āļšāļ§āļ™āļāļēāļĢāļāļēāļĢāļĄāļĩāļŠāđˆāļ§āļ™āļĢāđˆāļ§āļĄ āļĢāļ§āļĄāļ—āļąāđ‰āļ‡āļĻāļķāļāļĐāļēāļœāļĨāļāļēāļĢāđƒāļŠāđ‰āļĢāļđāļ›āđāļšāļšāļāļēāļĢāļ›āđ‰āļ­āļ‡āļāļąāļ™āļ›āļąāļāļŦāļēāļ—āļĩāđˆāđ„āļ”āđ‰āļžāļąāļ’āļ™āļēāļ‚āļķāđ‰āļ™Â  āđ‚āļ”āļĒāļĄāļĩāļŠāļļāļĄāļŠāļ™āđāļŦāđˆāļ‡āļŦāļ™āļķāđˆāļ‡āļ‚āļ­āļ‡āļˆāļąāļ‡āļŦāļ§āļąāļ”āļ›āļ—āļļāļĄāļ˜āļēāļ™āļĩāđ€āļ›āđ‡āļ™āļžāļ·āđ‰āļ™āļ—āļĩāđˆāļĻāļķāļāļĐāļē  āļŠāļģāļŦāļĢāļąāļšāļ§āļīāļ˜āļĩāļāļēāļĢāļ§āļīāļˆāļąāļĒ āđ€āļ›āđ‡āļ™āļ‡āļēāļ™āļ§āļīāļˆāļąāļĒāļ—āļĩāđˆāđƒāļŠāđ‰āļŠāļļāļĄāļŠāļ™āđ€āļ›āđ‡āļ™āļāļēāļ™āđƒāļ™āļāļēāļĢāļžāļąāļ’āļ™āļē āļ”āđ‰āļ§āļĒāļĢāļđāļ›āđāļšāļšāļāļēāļĢāļ§āļīāļˆāļąāļĒāđ€āļŠāļīāļ‡āļ›āļāļīāļšāļąāļ•āļīāļāļēāļĢāđāļšāļšāļĄāļĩāļŠāđˆāļ§āļ™āļĢāđˆāļ§āļĄ āđ‚āļ”āļĒāļ„āļ§āļēāļĄāļĢāđˆāļ§āļĄāļĄāļ·āļ­āļ‚āļ­āļ‡āļœāļđāđ‰āļ™āļģāļŠāļļāļĄāļŠāļ™ āļˆāļģāļ™āļ§āļ™ 10 āļ„āļ™  āļœāļĨāļ§āļīāļˆāļąāļĒ āļžāļšāļ§āđˆāļē 1) āļŠāļļāļĄāļŠāļ™āļ—āļĩāđˆāļĻāļķāļāļĐāļēāļĄāļĩāļŠāļ āļēāļžāļ„āļ§āļēāļĄāļĢāļļāļ™āđāļĢāļ‡āđƒāļ™āļ„āļĢāļ­āļšāļ„āļĢāļąāļ§āļ—āļēāļ‡āļ§āļēāļˆāļēāļĄāļēāļāļ—āļĩāđˆāļŠāļļāļ”  āļĢāļ­āļ‡āļĨāļ‡āļĄāļēāļ„āļ·āļ­āļ—āļēāļ‡āļĢāđˆāļēāļ‡āļāļēāļĒ  āļ—āļēāļ‡āļˆāļīāļ•āđƒāļˆ āđāļĨāļ°āļ—āļēāļ‡āđ€āļžāļĻ āļ•āļēāļĄāļĨāļģāļ”āļąāļš āđ‚āļ”āļĒāļˆāļģāļ™āļ§āļ™āļ„āļĢāļ­āļšāļ„āļĢāļąāļ§āļ—āļĩāđˆāļĄāļĩāļŠāļ āļēāļžāđ€āļŠāļĩāđˆāļĒāļ‡āļ•āđˆāļ­āļāļēāļĢāđ€āļāļīāļ”āļ›āļąāļāļŦāļēāļĄāļĩāļĄāļēāļāļ—āļĩāđˆāļŠāļļāļ” āđāļĨāļ°āļžāļšāļ§āđˆāļēāļŠāļļāļĄāļŠāļ™āļĒāđˆāļ­āļĒāļ—āļĩāđˆāļĄāļĩāļžāļ·āđ‰āļ™āļ—āļĩāđˆāļˆāļģāļāļąāļ” āđāļ­āļ­āļąāļ” āđāļĨāļ°āļĄāļĩāļŠāļ āļēāļžāļ—āļēāļ‡āđ€āļĻāļĢāļĐāļāļāļīāļˆāđ„āļĄāđˆāļ”āļĩ āļˆāļ°āļĄāļĩāļ›āļąāļāļŦāļēāđƒāļ™āļ—āļļāļāļĢāļđāļ›āđāļšāļš āđ‚āļ”āļĒāļŠāļēāđ€āļŦāļ•āļļāļĄāļēāļˆāļēāļāļŠāļ āļēāļžāļ āļēāļĒāđƒāļ™āļ•āļąāļ§āļšāļļāļ„āļ„āļĨāđāļĨāļ°āļŠāļ āļēāļžāđāļ§āļ”āļĨāđ‰āļ­āļĄāļ—āļēāļ‡āđ€āļĻāļĢāļĐāļāļāļīāļˆāļŠāļąāļ‡āļ„āļĄ 2) āļāļēāļĢāļžāļąāļ’āļ™āļēāļĢāļđāļ›āđāļšāļšāļāļēāļĢāļ›āđ‰āļ­āļ‡āļāļąāļ™āļ›āļąāļāļŦāļē āļ”āļģāđ€āļ™āļīāļ™āļāļēāļĢāđƒāļ™ 2 āļ§āļ‡āļĢāļ­āļš āđƒāļ™āļ§āļ‡āļĢāļ­āļšāđāļĢāļāđ„āļ”āđ‰āļžāļąāļ’āļ™āļēāļœāļđāđ‰āļ™āļģāļŠāļļāļĄāļŠāļ™āđāļĨāļ°āļ„āļĢāļ­āļšāļ„āļĢāļąāļ§āđāļāļ™āļ™āļģ āļāļēāļĢāļŠāļąāļ‡āđ€āļāļ•āđāļĨāļ°āļŠāļ°āļ—āđ‰āļ­āļ™āļœāļĨ āļžāļšāļ§āđˆāļē āļœāļđāđ‰āļ™āļģāļŠāļļāļĄāļŠāļ™āļĄāļĩāļ„āļ§āļēāļĄāļĢāļđāđ‰ āđ€āļ‚āđ‰āļēāđƒāļˆ āđāļĨāļ°āļĄāļĩāļ—āļąāļāļĐāļ°āđƒāļ™āļāļēāļĢāļ„āļīāļ”āļ§āļīāđ€āļ„āļĢāļēāļ°āļŦāđŒāļ›āļąāļāļŦāļē āđāļĨāļ°āļ„āļĢāļ­āļšāļ„āļĢāļąāļ§āđāļāļ™āļ™āļģāļĄāļĩāļāļēāļĢāđ€āļ›āļĨāļĩāđˆāļĒāļ™āđāļ›āļĨāļ‡āļžāļĪāļ•āļīāļāļĢāļĢāļĄāđ„āļ›āđƒāļ™āļ—āļēāļ‡āļšāļ§āļ āļŠāļģāļŦāļĢāļąāļšāđƒāļ™āļ§āļ‡āļĢāļ­āļšāļ—āļĩāđˆ 2 āđ„āļ”āđ‰āļžāļąāļ’āļ™āļēāļ„āļĢāļ­āļšāļ„āļĢāļąāļ§āđ€āļŠāļĩāđˆāļĒāļ‡āđāļĨāļ°āļĢāļ“āļĢāļ‡āļ„āđŒāđƒāļ™āļŠāļļāļĄāļŠāļ™Â  āļāļēāļĢāļŠāļąāļ‡āđ€āļāļ•āđāļĨāļ°āļŠāļ°āļ—āđ‰āļ­āļ™āļœāļĨāļžāļšāļ§āđˆāļē  āļ„āļ™āđƒāļ™āļŠāļļāļĄāļŠāļ™āļĢāļąāļšāļĢāļđāđ‰āđāļĨāļ°āļ•āļ·āđˆāļ™āļ•āļąāļ§āđƒāļ™āļ›āļąāļāļŦāļē āđāļĨāļ°āļ„āļĢāļ­āļšāļ„āļĢāļąāļ§āđ€āļŠāļĩāđˆāļĒāļ‡āļšāļēāļ‡āļŠāđˆāļ§āļ™āđ€āļ‚āđ‰āļēāđƒāļˆāļ›āļąāļāļŦāļēāđāļĨāļ°āļĄāļĩāđāļ™āļ§āđ‚āļ™āđ‰āļĄāļ›āļĢāļąāļšāđ€āļ›āļĨāļĩāđˆāļĒāļ™āļžāļĪāļ•āļīāļāļĢāļĢāļĄāđ„āļ›āđƒāļ™āļ—āļēāļ‡āļ›āđ‰āļ­āļ‡āļāļąāļ™āļ›āļąāļāļŦāļē āđāļĨāļ°Â  3) āļœāļĨāļāļēāļĢāļžāļąāļ’āļ™āļēāļĢāļđāļ›āđāļšāļšāļāļēāļĢāļ›āđ‰āļ­āļ‡āļāļąāļ™āļ›āļąāļāļŦāļē āđ€āļāļīāļ”āļāļēāļĢāđ€āļ›āļĨāļĩāđˆāļĒāļ™āđāļ›āļĨāļ‡āļžāļĪāļ•āļīāļāļĢāļĢāļĄāđƒāļ™āļ•āļąāļ§āļœāļđāđ‰āļ™āļģāļŠāļļāļĄāļŠāļ™ āļ„āļĢāļ­āļšāļ„āļĢāļąāļ§āđāļāļ™āļ™āļģ  āļ„āļĢāļ­āļšāļ„āļĢāļąāļ§āđ€āļŠāļĩāđˆāļĒāļ‡Â  āđāļĨāļ°āļ›āļĢāļ°āļŠāļēāļŠāļ™āđƒāļ™āļŠāļļāļĄāļŠāļ™āļšāļēāļ‡āļŠāđˆāļ§āļ™Â  āđāļĨāļ°āđ„āļ”āđ‰āļĢāļđāļ›āđāļšāļšāđ€āļ„āļĢāļ·āļ­āļ‚āđˆāļēāļĒāļ„āļ§āļēāļĄāļĢāđˆāļ§āļĄāļĄāļ·āļ­āļāļēāļĢāļ›āđ‰āļ­āļ‡āļāļąāļ™āļ›āļąāļāļŦāļē āđāļĨāļ°āļĢāļđāļ›āđāļšāļšāļāļēāļĢāđƒāļŠāđ‰āļŠāļļāļĄāļŠāļ™āđ€āļ›āđ‡āļ™āļāļēāļ™āđƒāļ™āļāļēāļĢāļžāļąāļ’āļ™āļēāđ€āļžāļ·āđˆāļ­āļ›āđ‰āļ­āļ‡āļāļąāļ™āļ›āļąāļāļŦāļēāļ„āļ§āļēāļĄāļĢāļļāļ™āđāļĢāļ‡āđƒāļ™āļ„āļĢāļ­āļšāļ„āļĢāļąāļ§      āļ„āļģāļŠāļģāļ„āļąāļ: āļ„āļ§āļēāļĄāļĢāļļāļ™āđāļĢāļ‡āđƒāļ™āļ„āļĢāļ­āļšāļ„āļĢāļąāļ§Â  āļĢāļđāļ›āđāļšāļšāļāļēāļĢāļ›āđ‰āļ­āļ‡āļāļąāļ™āļ›āļąāļāļŦāļē  āļāļĢāļ°āļšāļ§āļ™āļāļēāļĢāļāļēāļĢāļĄāļĩāļŠāđˆāļ§āļ™āļĢāđˆāļ§

    Cost-effectiveness and budget impact analysis of smoking cessation interventions in chronic obstructive pulmonary disease patients in Thailand

    No full text
    Background To determine the cost-effectiveness of different smoking cessation interventions in Thailand compared with unassisted cessation in chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) patients. Methods A cost-effectiveness study was undertaken using a societal perspective. Cohorts of smokers with COPD: male and female aged 35 years who regularly smoke at least 10 cigarettes per day were simulated in a markov model. Interventions were counseling with nortriptyline or bupropion or varenicline. All were compared to counselling in hospital. Incremental cost per quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) gained was calculated. One-way and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were also performed. Annually budget impact analyses were also estimated for five years. Results Based on Thai willingness-to-pay threshold (USD 4848), nortriptyline was the most cost-saving (USD 100) with QALY gained (0.07 QALY). Varenicline is cost-effective (USD 2181 per QALY) while bupropion was not cost-effectiveness (USD 4917 per QALY) when compared to counselling in hospital alone. Probabilistic sensitivity analysis revealed that nortriptyline has very high probabilities (96%) of being cost-saving while varenicline and bupropion are 98% and 90%. The most influential parameter is efficacy of counseling alone. Average annual budget for varenicline, bupropion and nortriptyline are 23 MB, 25 MB and 3 MB, respectively. Conclusions Adding pharmacology treatment to conventional counselling for smoking cessation resulted in cost-saving. The use of nortriptyline appeared to be the most cost-effective smoking cessation option for COPD patients. Promoting smoking cessation especially for patient with COPD will benefit for individual patient and societal perspective. Thai government may consider including smoking cessation program into national COPD clinic

    Effects of medication adherence on hospitalizations and healthcare costs in patients with schizophrenia in Thailand

    No full text
    Background: This study was conducted to determine the impacts of medication adherence on hospitalization and direct healthcare cost in patients with schizophrenia in Thailand. Methods: A retrospective study was undertaken. Patients with schizophrenia aged 18–65 years who visited a University hospital and received antipsychotics from April 2011 to October 2011 were included. Propensity score–adjusted logistic regression was used to determine the impacts of medication adherence on schizophrenia-related and all-cause hospitalizations. Results: A total of 582 patients were included. Three out of 224 patients (1.3%) were hospitalized with schizophrenia in optimal adherence group, while 10 of 140 (7.1%) were hospitalized in under-adherence group, and 7 of 218 (3.2%) were hospitalized in over-adherence group. Based on propensity score–adjusted multivariate logistic regression, the adjusted odds ratio was 5.86 (95% confidence interval = 1.53–22.50) for schizophrenia-related hospitalization and 8.04 (95% confidence interval = 2.20–29.40) for all-cause hospitalization. The average annual direct healthcare costs in patients with optimal adherence, under-adherence, and over-adherence were US371 ± US371 ± US836, US386 ± US386 ± US734, and US508 ± US508 ± US2168, respectively. Conclusion: An initiation of interventions to maintain optimal adherence in patients with schizophrenia would significantly impact the healthcare system

    Hospitalization and cost after switching from atypical to typical antipsychotics in schizophrenia patients in Thailand

    No full text
    Several clinical practice guidelines suggest using atypical over typical antipsychotics in patients diagnosed with schizophrenia. Nevertheless, cost-containment policy urged restricting usage of atypical antipsychotics and switching from atypical to typical antipsychotics.This study aimed to evaluate clinical and economic impacts of switching from atypical to typical antipsychotics in schizophrenia patients in Thailand.From October 2010 through September 2013, a retrospective cohort study was performed utilizing electronic database of two tertiary hospitals. Schizophrenia patients aged 18 years or older and being treated with atypical antipsychotics were included. Patients were classified as atypical antipsychotic switching group if they switched to typical antipsychotics after 180 days of continual atypical antipsychotics therapy. Outcomes were schizophrenia-related hospitalization and total health care cost. Logistic and Poisson regression were used to evaluate the risk of hospitalization, and generalized linear model with gamma distribution was used to determine the health care cost. All analyses were adjusted by employing propensity score and multivariable analyses. All cost estimates were adjusted according to 2013 consumer price index and converted to USatanexchangerateof32.85Thaibahts/US at an exchange rate of 32.85 Thai bahts/US.A total of 2,354 patients were included. Of them, 166 (7.1%) patients switched to typical antipsychotics. The adjusted odds ratio for schizophrenia-related hospitalization in atypical antipsychotic switching group was 1.87 (95% confidence interval [CI] 1.23-2.83). The adjusted incidence rate ratio was 2.44 (95% CI 1.57-3.79) for schizophrenia-related hospitalizations. The average total health care cost was lower in patients with antipsychotic switching (-64;9564; 95% CI -459 to $332).Switching from atypical to typical antipsychotics is associated with an increased risk of schizophrenia-related hospitalization. Nonetheless, association with average total health care cost was not observed. These findings can be of use as a part of evidence in executing prospective cost-containment policy
    corecore