검색 결과
The Effect of Perceived Social Stigma on Self-Esteem of Childhood Cancer Survivors
보건사회연구 , Vol.36, No.1, pp.497-528
Abstract
초록
본 연구는 소아암 경험자가 지각한 사회적 낙인이 자아존중감에 미치는 영향을 파악하고자 하였다. 이를 위해 눈덩이 표집으로 현재 암 치료가 종결된 만 15세 이상 39세 이하의 소아암 경험자를 모집하였고, 자기기입식 설문조사를 수행하여 총 145부의 응답을 분석에 사용하였다. 사회적 낙인은 회복불가능성, 고정관념, 사회적 차별의 3가지 차원으로 측정되었고, 자아존중감은 Rosenberg의 자아존중감척도(RSES)를 사용하여 측정되었다. 본 연구에서는 빈도 및 기술분석을 통해 연구대상자의 특성을 파악하였고, 변량분석을 통해 인구사회학적, 의료적 특성에 따른 사회적 낙인과 자아존중감의 차이를 검증하였으며, 위계적 회귀분석을 통해 사회적 낙인의 하위차원이 자아존중감에 미치는 영향을 검증하였다. 분석결과, 소아암 경험자가 지각하는 사회적 낙인의 정도는 연령, 교육수준, 암진단시기, 재발여부, 신체적 후유증 유무에 따라 유의한 차이를 보였다. 반면, 이들의 자아존중감은 인구사회학적 특성과 의료적 특성에 따라 유의한 차이가 없었다. 인구사회학적 특성과 의료적 특성을 통제한 후, 사회적 낙인 요인이 자아존중감을 유의미하게 설명하였다. 그 중 암 환자의 회복불가능성에 대한 낮은 지각만이 높은 자아존중감과 유의미한 관계를 보였고, 연령과 암 진단 후 경과시간은 자아존중감에 유의미한 영향을 미치는 것으로 나타났다. 본 연구를 통해 소아암 경험자가 지각하는 사회적 낙인을 감소시켜 이들의 자아존중감을 강화시킬 수 있는 구체적인 방안을 제언하고자 하였다.;This study examined the effect of perceived social stigma on the self-esteem of childhood cancer survivors. Using snowballing sampling techniques, we recruited childhood cancer survivors between 15 and 39 years of age who had cancer treatment in the past. A total of 145 responses from a self-administered questionnaire were used for the analyses. Three dimensions of social stigma impossibility of recovery, stereotypes, and social discrimination were assessed. Self-esteem was measured using the Global Self-Esteem Scale. Descriptive analyses were conducted to identify individual characteristics. A series of one-way ANOVA analyses was conducted to examine the levels of social stigma and self-esteem by sociodemographic and medical characteristics. Hierarchical multiple regression analyses were conducted to examine the impact of the three dimensions of social stigma on self-esteem. The level of social stigma varied significantly across age, education, age at diagnosis, recurrence, and late effect. However, the level of self-esteem did not vary significantly across sociodemographic and medical characteristics. In addition to the effects of the sociodemographic and medical variables, perceived social stigma affected self-esteem. Low-level perception of “impossibility of recovery” was closely associated with higher levels of self-esteem. Age and time since diagnosis were found to be significant correlates. Study findings highlight the need of intervention to promote self-esteem by reducing perceived social stigma among childhood cancer survivors.
Abstract
초록
This paper reviews diverse goals of RTW and develops a concept named ‘Decent Return-To-Work (RTW)’. The ‘decent RTW’, inspired by the ‘decent work’, involves workers’ rights to being RTW, fair opportunities for decent work and career development, workers’ rights in workplace, and employee’s recovery of injury and of socio-economic status. To investigate the ‘decent RTW’, a research model begins with a relationship among individual, segmented labor market, and public services supporting RTW. The PSWCI (Panel Study of Worker’s Compensation Insurance) data is analyzed with 1,217 individuals who has completed their medical treatment for work-related injury or illness in Korea. The research model is designed to capture variables in both pre- and post- injury (or after RTW) dimensions by using the 1st-3rd waves data. Findings indicate that labor market factors from pre-injury have a significant influence on the quality of employment after RTW. It is also discovered that divisions among workers encouraged by a segmented labor market are remained firmly even after their RTW. Fortunately, although those RTW programs are associated with the labor market segmentation, they may help overcome barriers to RTW encountered by injured workers.
The Process and the Issues of the Russian Pension Reform in the Post-Communism
보건사회연구 , Vol.33, No.1, pp.484-512
Abstract
초록
본고는 공산주의 이후 러시아 복지개혁의 핵심인 연금개혁의 과정과 과제를 고찰하는 데 목적이 있다. 이를 위해 소비에트 복지시스템, 소비에트 시기 연금실태와 문제점, 연금개혁의 과정과 그 배경, 개혁과정에서 노정된 여러 과제들을 분석하였으며, 이를 토대로 대안을 제시하고 개혁의 성공여부를 전망했다. 그 결과를 요약하면 다음과 같다. 첫째, 공산주의 이후 동유럽과 구 소비에트연방 국가는 연금개혁을 조기에 성공시킨 반면 러시아는 실패했다. 옐친정부의 급진적이고 비타협적인 경제개혁으로 실업, 빈곤, 불평등과 같은 심각한 부작용이 발생했고, 이로 인한 비토세력과의 갈등으로 정책적 교착상태에 빠져 연금개혁이 무산되었기 때문이다. 옐친정부의 무능으로 실패한 연금개혁은 옐친을 계승한 푸틴의 강력한 정치리더십과 경제호전에 힘입어 2002년에야 이루어졌다. 둘째, 러시아 연금개혁이 푸틴정부의 공이긴 하지만, 옐친정부의 1991년 연금공단 신설과 1998년 연금개혁안이 있었기 때문에 비교적 용이하게 추진되었다. 푸틴정부의 2002년 연금개혁은 공산주의 이후 러시아 연금개혁의 연속선상에 있다. 셋째, 2002년 개혁으로 연금시스템은 기존의 부과방식과 새로운 적립방식이 혼합된 3층 구조, 즉 기초연금, 명목확정기여연금, 개인계정으로 재편되었다. 이러한 정책결정에는 월드뱅크의 조언과 권고가 큰 영향을 미쳤다. 넷째, 연금개혁의 성공을 위해 해결되어야 할 주요 과제로는 연금수급연령의 상향조정, 지나치게 관대한 조기퇴직의 통제, 연금 수준의 현실화, 연금혜택 불평등성의 개선, 개인계정 적립금 투자수익의 증대 등이 있다. 다섯째, 러시아 연금개혁에는 고령화, 인플레, 저임금, 실업, 제도개혁에 필요한 추가지출 등 재정에 부정적인 변수와 연금수급연령의 상향조정, 조기퇴직의 개선, 적립금 투자수익률의 향상을 통한 재정안정과 같은 긍정적 변수가 공존해 있다. 연금개혁의 성공여부는 경제성장과 같은 거시경제에 달려있는데, 석유수출의존형 경제는 그 전망을 흐리게 만든다.;This paper aims at reviewing the process and the issues of the Russian pension reforms in the Post-Communism. For the purpose, the soviet welfare system, the conditions and problems of the soviet pension system, its process and background of the pension reform, and its critical issues were analysed. On the analysis, some alternatives were proposed, and the future was prospected. The results are as follows. First, the russian pension reform in the post-communism was failed contrary to the success of the Eastern European and the former Soviet Federation States in the welfare reforms including the pension. A critical reason of the failure was Yeltsin government’s incompetency. Yeltsin’s economic reform was too radical that it made serious social problems such as unemployment, poor and inequality. Because of these reverse effects, the veto forces were organized, and political conflicts with them resulted in the reform stagnation and the failure of the pension reform. After all, Putin who had strong leadership and achieved economic recovery could reform the russian pension system in 2002. Second, it is not true that the success of the pension reform is totally Putin’s even though Putin could reform the pension system Yeltsin has failed. Because Putin’s success of the 2002 pension reform owed the establishment of the Pension Fund of Russia(PFR) in 1991 and the pension reform proposition in 1998 which were made by Yeltsin government. This means that Putin’s pension reform succeeded Yeltsin’s efforts. Third, according to the pension reform 2002 of Putin government, the russian pension system was restructured to the three-tier system composing of the basic pension, the nominally defined contributory pension and the individual accounts. This policy determination was influenced by the World Bank’s advices. Fourth, the future of the russian pension reform has many issues such as upward adjusting the age of pension benefit, controlling too much generous early-retirement, realizing the level of pension benefits, improving the inequality of pension benefits, and increasing the interest rate of the individual accounts. Fifth, there are negative as well as positive variables in the russian pension reform. Negative ones are ageing society, inflation, low income, unemployment, and additional expenditure for institutional improvement of the pension system. Positive ones are institutional improvements in the age of pension benefit, the early-retirement, and the pension fund management. And the success of the pension reform depends on the russian macro economy. However, the oil and gas export economy of russia makes the perspective of the pension reform not clear.