ผลลัพธ์การดำเนินการของกองทุนฟื้นฟูสมรรถภาพที่จำเป็นต่อสุขภาพ จังหวัดหนองบัวลำภู
ผลลัพธ์การดำเนินการของกองทุนฟื้นฟูสมรรถภาพที่จำเป็นต่อสุขภาพ จังหวัดหนองบัวลำภู
Keywords:
Rehabilitation, management, performance resultsAbstract
Objectives: To study performance results of the Nongbualamphu Rehabilitation Fund.
Study design: Cross Sectional Study.
Setting: Nongbualamphu province.
Methods: A Questionaire based on the Public Sector Management Quality Award was used as a tool for data collection from 51 Nongbualamphu Rehabilitation Fund committees and official staff. Data were analyzed and reported as frequency, percentage, mean and standard deviation. Pearson Correlation analysis was used to study factors that correlated with performance results of Nongbualamphu Rehabilitation Fund.
Results: The Nongbualamphu Rehabilitation Fund self assessment showed excellent level of leadership, strategic planning ,client and stakeholder focus, measurement, analysis and knowledge management, human resource focus and process management. Sum performance score was 80.20 and revealed that leadership, client and stakeholder focus and process management were significantly correlated with the Nongbualamphu Rehabilitation Fund performance score (p <0.05).
Conclusion: The self assessment demonstrated good level of the Nongbualamphu Rehabilitation Fund overall performance score. Leadership, client and stakeholder focus and process management are factors that significantly correlated with the performance score.
References
2. World Health Organization [Internet]. Community Based Rehabilitation. Available from: https://apps.who.int /iris/bitstream/10665/44405/163/9789241548052_introductory_tha.pdf.
3. Department of empowerment of persons with disabilities [Internet]. Statistic of disabled persons from 1 Novebmer 2537 to 31 August 2560. Available from: https://www.m-ociety.go.th/article_attach/20586/21091..pdf
4. Israel GD. Determining sample size [monograph on the Internet]. Florida: The Institute of Food and Agricultural Sciences (IFAS); 2013 [cited 2013 June]. Available from:https://edis.ifas.ufl.edu/pdffiles/pd/pd00600.pdf.
5. Luevitoonvechki S. Type of research design. Buddhachinaraj Med J. 2007;24:369-80.
6. Ponce GA. Leadership does not equal what leader do. J Leader Organ Stud. 1995;2:68-73.
7. Heracleous L. Strategic planning or strategic planning. Long Range Planning. 1998; 31:481-87.
8. Ferrell OC, Gonzalez-Padron TL,Tomas G, Hult M, Maignan L. From market orientation to stakeholder orientation. J Public Policy Marketing. 2010;29:93-96.
9. Hoffmann I. Knowledge management tool. In Mertins K., Heisig P, Vorbeck J. (Eds). Knowledge management best practices in Europe. Berlin: Sprlnger-Verlag; 2001. p 74-94.
10. Becker B, Gerhart B. The impact of human resource management on organizational performance: progress and prospects. Acad Manage J. 1996;39:779-801.
11. Jeston J, Nelis J. Business process management: practical guidelines to successful implementation. 3rd ed. New York: Routledge; 2014.
12. Hatry HP. Performance measurement: getting results. 2nd ed. Washington D.C. The urban institule press; 2006.
13. Koonmee K. Implementing the performance management system in the Thai public sector. NIDA Development J. 2011;51:117-55.
14. Premchuen S. Public management quality of Thai civil service. The Association of QC Headquarters of Thailand Ministry of Industry; 2016.
15. Tenner AR, DeToro IJ. Total quality management: Three steps to continuous important. Massachusetts: Addison-Wesley. Publishing company Inc; 1992.
16. Ravanfar MM. Analyzing organizational structure based on 7s model of Mckinsey. Global J Manage Business Res. 2015; 15:6-12.
17. Norman G. Likert scales, levels of measurement and the “laws” of statistics. Adv Health Sci Educ. 2010;15:625-32.
18. Turner RC, Carlson L. Indexes of item-objective congruence for multidimensional items. Int J Testing. 2003;3;163-71.
19. Eisinga R, Grotenhuis MT, Pelzer B. The reliability of a two-item scale: Pearson, Cronbach or Spearman-Brown? Int J Public Health. 2013;58:637-42.
20. Rodgers JL, Nicewander WA. Thirteen ways to look at the correlation coefficient. Am Stat. 1988;42:59-66.
21. Nongbualamphu Rehabilitation Fund. annual report. Nongbualamphu; 2015.
22. Silverman JM. Public sector decentralization: economic policy and sector investment programs. Washington DC: World Bank Publications; 992.
23. Grandori A. An organizational assessment of interfirm coordination modes. Organ Stud. 1997;18:897-925.
24. Baldrige National Quality Program Getting started. National Institute of Standards and Technology, US Department of Commerce [Internet]. 2005. Available from: https://www. nist.gov/baldrige..
25. Jumpang T, Rudtanasudjatum K, Jaidee W. Factors influencing the success of public sector management quality award based on perception of the personnel at the regional level, ministry of public health. Public Health J Burapha. 2012;7:38-52.
26. Vasconcellos J, Hambrick D. Key success factors: test of a general
framework in the mature industrial-product sector. Strategic Manage J. 1989;10:367-82.
27. Gunnell JG.The reconstitution of political theory: David Easton, behavioralism, and the long road to system. J Hist Behav Sci. 2013; 49:190-210.
28. Johnson RA, Fremont EK , James E. The theory and management of systems. 3rd ed. New York: McGraw-Hill; 1973. p.144-6.
29. Innes JE, Booher DE. Reframing public participation: strategies for the 21st century. Planning Theory Pract. 2004;5:419–36.
