本論文的研究目的是要瞭解健康促進學校之執行情形現況，運用RE-AIM模式為研究架構，探討HPS主要推動人員個人和學校背景因素與HPS執行情形的關係及解釋力。本研究採量性研究為主，質性研究為輔。量性研究部分以2008年參與健康促進學校教育訓練研習之HPS主要推動人員為研究對象，於研習會後發放自填式結構問卷進行現場調查，共回收有效問卷848份。質性訪談以4所HPS「績優學校」和4所HPS「一般學校」，共計16位HPS主要推動人員為訪談對象。
研究結果顯示，在「接觸面」面向，HPS主要推動人員為男性、任教(職)年資越高、在校職務越高和非健康與體育領域者，HPS推動成效較佳；在「有效面」面向，HPS主要推動人員在校職務越高者，HPS推動成效較佳；在「採納面」面向，HPS主要推動人員為男性、任教(職)年資越高、在校職務越高者，HPS推動成效較佳；在「實施面」面向，HPS主要推動人員在校職務越高者，HPS推動成效較佳；在「維持面」面向，HPS主要推動人員的任教(職)年資越高、在校職務越高、且為非健康與體育領域之HPS主要推動人員推動成效較佳；在HPS整體推動成效而言，HPS主要推動人員為男性、任教(職)年資越高、在校職務越高，且為非健康與體育領域之HPS主要推動人員推動成效較佳。HPS主要推動人員之學校背景因素對於HPS之執行情形影響力較大；HPS主要推動人員之個人背景因素對於HPS之執行情形的總解釋量為5.1%，其中僅有在校職務有顯著預測力；加入HPS主要推動人員之學校背景因素可增加的解釋量為6.5%。在HPS主要推動人員之學校背景因素中的國民所得、教育水準、縣市城鄉分類和外籍配偶子女就讀國中小比率對於HPS之執行情形(REAIM總得分) 有顯著預測力。
最後，依據本研究之結果提供建議，以做為未來推動HPS計畫推動過程及評估之參考依據。

The objective of this research is to explore the implementation of the program HPS (health promoting school) and to study the relationship between the background of the staff and the school. The research framework was on the basis of the RE-AIM model. This research adopted mainly quantitative research, and supplemented by qualitative research. From the quantitative research, the HPS promoting staff who attended the seminar of HPS training in 2008 served as the subjects of this study. Self-administered questionnaires were provided after the seminar. A total of 848 valid questionnaires were collected. From the qualitative research, 16 HPS promoting staffs from four HPS excellent schools and four HPS moderate schools served as the interviewees.
The result indicated that, in the aspect of Reach, HPS promoting staffs who are male, with higher seniority, with higher position at school or non-health-and-physical-education specialists tend to have more effective promotion. In the aspect of Efficacy, those who have higher position at school have more effective promotion. In the aspect of Adoption, HPS promoting staffs who are male, with higher seniority, or with higher position at school have more effective promotion. In the aspect of Implementation, HPS promoting staffs who have higher position at school have a tendency to have more effective promotion. In the aspect of Maintenance, HPS promoting staffs having higher seniority, higher position at school and non-health-and-physical-education specialists tend to have more effective promotion. In the aspect of HPS overall promoting effectiveness, HPS promoting staffs who are male, with higher seniority, with higher position at school and as non-health-and-physical-education specialists have more effective promotion. Thus, from the study we found that, the school background of the promoting staff is more influential in implementation. The gross amount of explanation of HPS promoting staffs’ personal background is 5.1%, and only the position at school is relatively predictable. By adding the factor of the staff’s school background, the gross amount of explanation reached up to 6.5%. Factors of school background, GNP, educational background, location of the school and the ratio of children of immigrant mothers attending elementary and junior high also have significant predictions to HPS implementation (total score of RE-AIM).
Finally, the results of this study, which provided suggestions and recommendations, will be a great value to HPS promotion and evaluation in the future.

中文文獻
中華民國統計資訊網(2010)。縣市重要統計指標。2010年6月17日。取自：http://ebas1.ebas.gov.tw/pxweb/Dialog/statfile9.asp。
中華民國學校衛生學會主編(1997)。學校衛生工作指引。臺北：教育部。
中華民國學校護理人員協進會(無日期)。高級中等以下學校衛生人力
調查報告。2009年11月9日。取自：
http：//www.edunet.Taipei.gov.tw/edu2/2-2/。
行政院衛生署國民健康局(2005a)。健康促進學校~國際面面觀(一)。
臺北：中華民國學校衛生學會。
吳明隆、涂金堂(2009)。SPSS與統計應用分析-二版。台北市：五南。
林姿伶(2008)。臺灣健康促進學校工作推動之成效指標建構研究—從政府政策擬定之觀點。國立臺灣師範大學健康促進與衛生教育學系未出版碩士論文。臺北。
林麗美(1997)。臺灣省中南部國小校護對學校衛生護理工作的認知態度實行狀況及相關因素之探討。國立臺灣師範大學健康促進與衛生教育學系未出版碩士論文。臺北。
陳玉霞(2008)。宜蘭縣先驅性健康促進學校執行成效評估之研究。國立臺灣師範大學健康促進與衛生教育學系未出版碩士論文。臺北。
陳敏麗、曾銀貞(2003)。由健康促進學校觀點談改進我國學校衛生之道。長庚科技學刊。2。1-12。
陳毓璟(2001)。健康促進學校的發展與推動。學校衛生。39。40-62。
郭鐘隆(2004)。健康促進學校簡要版指引。臺北：教育部/行政院衛生署。
郭鐘隆(2005)。推動學校本位的健康促進學校。臺灣教育。634。14-19。
教育部(無日期)。臺灣健康促進學校網站。2009年11月9日。取自：
http://www.hps.pro.edu.tw/default.aspx?aspxerrorpath=/hps/about_hps/who.aspx。
教育部統計處(無日期)。性別統計指標。2010年6月17日。取自：http://140.111.34.54/statistics/content.aspx?site_content_sn=8168。
張彩秀、黃松元、葉明珍、樓美玲(2003)。大專校院衛生保健組長推行健康促進學校計畫自我效能評估及其相關因素之探討。弘光學報。42。1-11。
張榮珍、祁安美、李朝雄、古曉娟、紀雪雲(2006)。由性格與推動健康促進學校的主觀困難度探討職場健康。工業安全科技。58。34-38。
黃松元(2003)。我國學校衛生之發展。學校衛生。42。59-80。
黃松元、馬藹屏、洪栩隆、謝琇英、林美伶(2001)。健康促進學校教學資源現況調查暨需求評估。健康教育。90。3-17。
黃松元、陳政友、賴香如(2004)。學校衛生工作新模式-健康促進學校。學校衛生。45。59-71。
黃松元、張富琴(2000)。健康教育/健康促進：典範或時尚?。學校衛生。36。70-84。
黃奕清(1984)。臺北市國民中學衛生組長工作滿意程度與工作執行情形之調查研究。國立臺灣師範大學健康促進與衛生教育學系未出版碩士論文。臺北。
黃淑貞、徐美玲、莊平、姜逸群、陳曉玟、邱雅莉(2005)。臺灣地區國小實施健康促進學校現況之研究。學校衛生。46。1-23。
黃靖華(2005)。臺北縣國小班級導師對學校衛生工作認知、態度及執行現況之研究。國立臺灣師範大學健康促進與衛生教育學系未出版碩士論文。臺北。
曾如敏(2005)。臺灣地區國民小學護理人員對健康促進學校的看法與其相關因素之研究。國立臺灣師範大學健康促進與衛生教育學系未出版碩士論文。臺北。
劉潔心(2008)。2008年健康促進學校各縣市教育訓練研習手冊。97-98年度「健康促進學校推動中心」。
劉潔心、晏涵文、廖梨伶 (2005)。以典範轉換的觀點看健康促進學校評價的未來發展。台灣教育。634。20-26。
劉潔心、晏涵文(2005)。臺灣健康促進學校整體行動方案芻議-專業支持輔導機制之建構。臺灣教育。643。2-13。
劉秀枝(2005)。從健康促進學校-探討我國學校衛生政策。校護心傳。10。17-25。
賴香如(2008)。各國健康促進學校計劃之特色與啟示。學校衛生。52。107-115。
魏珮嘉(20009)。臺北縣市國中衛生組長健康促進學校執行情形及相關因素研究。國立臺灣師範大學健康促進與衛生教育學系未出版碩士論文。臺北。
譚燕婉(2007)。彰化縣國民中小學校長對健康促進學校工作之認知及執行研究。國立臺灣師範大學健康促進與衛生教育學系未出版碩士論文。臺北。

英文文獻
Abrams, D. B., Orleans, C.T., Niaura, R.S., Goldstein, M.G., Prochaska, J.O., Velicer W. (1996). Integrating individual and public health perspectives for treatment of tobacco dependence under managed health care: a combined stepped care and matching model. Annals International Medicine, 18, 290-304.
Estabrooks, P., Dzewaltowski, D. A., Glasgow, R. E., Klesges, L. M. (2003). Reporting of Validity from School Health Promotion Studies Published in 12 Leading Journals, 1996-2000. Journal of School Health, 73(1), 21-28.
Glasgow, R. E. (1997). Long-Term Effects and Costs of Brief Behavioral Dietary Intervention for Patients with Diabetes Delivered from the Medical Office. Patient Education and Counseling, 32, 175-184.
Glasgow, R. E., Vogt, T. M. & Boles, S. M. (1999). Evaluating the Public Health Impact of Health Promotion Interventions: The RE-AIM Framework. American Journal of Public Health, 89(9), 1322-1327.
Glasgow, R. E., Whitlock, E. P., Eakin, E. G., and Lichtenstein, E. (2000). A Brief Smoking Cessation Intervention for Women in Low-Income Planned Parenthood Clinics. American Journal of Public Health, 90, 786-789.
Green, L. W., Johnson, J.L. (1996). Dissemination and utilization of health promotion and disease prevention knowledge: theory, research and experience, Canada Journal of Public Health, 87, 11-17.
Green, L. W., Kreuter, M.W. (1990). Health Promotion as a Public Health Strategy for 1990s. Annual Review of Public Health, 11, 313-334.
Grean, L. W.& Kreuter, M. W. (1999). Health Promotion Planning: An Educational and Ecological Approach. (3rd ed.)
Kleinbaum DG, Kupper LL, Muller KE. Regression diagnostics. (1988) In: Payne M, ed. Applied Regression Analysis and Other Multivariable Methods. Pacific Grove, Calif: Duxbury Press; 181-127.
Nutbeam, D. (1996). Achieving ‘Best Practice’ in Health Promotion: Improving the Fit Between Research and Practice. Health Education Research, 11, 317-326.
O'Donnell, M.P. (1989). Definition of Health Promotion: Part III: Expanding the Definition. American Journal of Health Promotion, 3(3), 5.
Rogers, E.M. (1995). Diffusion of Innovations. (4th ed.). New York: Free Press.
Stokols, D. (1992). Establishing and maintaining healthy environments: toward a social ecology of health promotion. American Psychologist, 47(1), 6-22.
Stokols, D. (1996). Translating social ecological theory into guidelines for community health promotion. American Journal of Health Promotion, 10(4), 292-298.
WHO. (1986). The Ottawa Charter for Health Promotion. Ottawa, Canada: World Health Organization.
WHO Regional Office for the Western Pacific (1996). Regional Guidelines for the Development of Health-Promotion schools – A frame- work for action. Manila: WHO/ROWP.