Real health means not only physical well-being of the individuals but also healthy mental state and social well-being of the community in which they included. In such aspects, development and application of Social Pediatrics on the basis of community medicine is very deirable in order to promote our social prosperity and public welfare by physically and mentally healthy, not-deviated and socially well-adapted growth of the
children.
It was for this reason that Institute of Children with Specia Problems in YonseiUniversity had studied 3, 928 chldrer; who were living in different areas and economic state for evaluation of their physical, mental and sacial problems from 1971 to 1972.
Studyed areas were divided into urban and rural area. Urban (Seoul city) area was again divided to a rich group(families in Han. Kang mansion apart. and Chung-Am primary school) and a poor group (families in Yon Hee apart. and Hong-Je primary school). Rural area was also divided to mountainous area (families and primary school in Kang Won Do) and farm area (families and primary school in Chulla Buk Do).
Developmental measurements. complete physical examination, tuberculin skin test, stool test for parasites and observation of school credits were performed to all children and chest X-ray, hemoglobin, hemato
crit and total serum protein values were checked randomly and home visitings were performed to child-
ren who were considered to be necessary.
Family situation, school credits and economical state were analyzed respectively in each four different areas for the evaluation of environmental situation of study areas and following results were obtained.
1. Family members
Mean family members of all study cases was 6.0 and small-size families were more frequently seen in urban area (Seoul city) than farm or mountainous areas.
Even in urban area, small-size families with 4 or less family members were more frequently observed in rich group (23.6e-133.2%) than poor group (iS. %. In mountainous area, there was a number of large-size families´ with S or more family member (34.8^´40.5%) than urban (5.2? i 2.8% (25.5´28.3%) areas.
2. Mode of life
In urban area, low class families were much more-frequent in poor group (88.0?´98.6%) to compare-with rich group . (7.8%?J7. 8%). Economic state": of mountainous and farm areas were relatively same but middle class families were infrequent in farm area (74.2^´75.2%) in spite of high class families were more frequently observed in farm area (4.5´17.4%) than mountainous area (0.8´?%2.4%)
3. School credits
In urban area, students with school scores more than 80 were frequently seen in private school (81.7%) than poor class school (34.1%). School credits of children in mountainous and farm areas were relatively same but have had much low credits to compare with children in urban area. Children with school scores more than 80 in farm and mountainous areas were 16.2% and 16. 1% respectively and scores less than 59 were 3E. 7% and 36. 6% respectively.
|