目的：比較不同年代擁擠、社經、醫療指標與肺結核發生率之相對重要性。

方法：本研究為一橫斷性區位研究，以1993、2003年為二研究年代，台灣地區23縣市為研究單位。資料來源是1993、2003年的政府住宅、社經、衛生統計報告。利用皮爾森相關係數找出與肺結核發生率相關性最高之擁擠、社經、醫療指標各一；再將上述指標以線性複迴歸模式計算淨相關係數，並觀察變項進入或離開模式的順序，瞭解指標之相對重要性後，比較不同年代的結果。

結果：年齡標準化肺結核發生率與擁擠指標「每間居住樓板面積平均小於9m2之家戶百分比」之相關係數，1993和2003分別為0.50與0.64（p<0.05）。1993年「失業率」(社經指標一)之相關係數為0.28(p>0.05)；2003年「低收入人數百分比」(社經指標二)之相關係數為0.48(p<0.05)。醫療指標「平均每一醫療機構服務面積」之相關係數，1993和2003分別為0.43與0.75（p<0.05）。
歸納不同擁擠、社經、醫療指標組合，經線性複迴歸模式分析之結果可以發現：1993年以社經指標的淨相關係數最高，約為0.34~0.57(p<0.05)，2003年時則是醫療指標最高，其淨相關係數為0.28~0.31(p<0.05)。

結論：擁擠、社經、醫療指標與肺結核發生率之相對重要性在1993年可能以社經指標較為重要，而2003年則變成是醫療指標。

Objectives：To examine the relative importance of crowding, socioeconomic, and medical indicators for pulmonary tuberculosis incidence in different years.

Methods：This design is a cross-sectional ecological study in 1993 and 2003. Twenty-three counties in Taiwan were the study subjects. The data of indicators were obtained from the official Report of Residents, Socioeconomic and Health Statistics in 1993 and 2003. Pearson’s correlation coefficients were calculated to decide which was the most significant indicators associated with incidence of pulmonary tuberculosis. Multiple linear regressions were used to get partial correlation coefficients and observe the sequence of indicators entered or left from the model to get the relative importance in 1993 and 2003.

Results：The Pearson correlation coefficients were 0.50 (p<0.05) in 1993 and 0.64 (p<0.05) in 2003 for the proportion of household with area less than 9m2 per room (crowding indicator) with the age-adjusted incidence of pulmonary tuberculosis. The coefficients were 0.28 (p>0.05) in 1993 for the unemployment rate (socioeconomic indicator) with the age-adjusted incidence of pulmonary tuberculosis. The coefficients were 0.48 (p<0.05) in 2003 for the proportion low income population (socioeconomic indicator) with the age-adjusted incidence of pulmonary tuberculosis. The coefficients were 0.43 (p<0.05) in 1993 and 0.75 (p<0.05) in 2003 for the average area of service per medical institute (medical indicator) with the age-adjusted incidence of pulmonary tuberculosis (p<0.05).
In 1993, the partial correlation coefficients of socioeconomic indicators were 0.34 to 0.57(p<0.05); and the partial correlation coefficients of medical indicators were 0.28 to 0.31(p<0.05).

Conclusion：The socioeconomic indicator was the most important factor associated with the incidence of pulmonary tuberculosis in 1993, while the medical indicator was the most important factor associated with the incidence of pulmonary tuberculosis in 2003.

[1] 行政院衛生署疾病管制局(2004). 結核病診治指引. 台北：行政院衛生署疾病管制局.
[2] 行政院衛生署疾病管制局(2002). 結核病防治年報－民國九十年. 台北：行政院衛生署疾病管制局.
[3] Lienhardt C. From exposure to disease: the role of environmental factors in susceptibility to and development of tuberculosis. Epidemiol Rev 2001; 23: 288-301.
[4] Schwartz S. The fallacy of the ecological fallacy: the potential misuse of a concept and the consequences. Am J Public Health 1994;84(5): 819-24.
[5] Coberly JS, Chaisson RE. Tuberculosis. In: Nelson KE, William CM, Graham NMH, eds. Infectious Disease Epidemiology : theory and practice. Maryland: Aspen Publishing, 2001; 411-437.
[6] Comstock GW, Cauthen GM. Epidemiology of tuberculosis. In: Reichman LB, Hershfield ES, eds. Tuuberculosis: a comprehensive international approach. New York: Dekker, 1993; 23-48.
[7] Bellamy RJ, Ruwende C, Corrah T, et al. Variations in the NRAMP1 gene and susceptibility to tuberculosis in West Africans. N Engl J Med 1998; 338: 640-646.
[8] Newport MJ, Huxley CMP, Huston S, et al. A mutation in the IFNγ receptor gene and susceptibility to mycobacterial infection. N Engl J Med 1996; 26: 1941-1949.
[9] Stein L. Tuberculosis and the “social complex.” Br J Soc Med 1952; 6: 1-48.
[10] Stein L. Glasgow tuberculosis and housing. Tubercle 1954; 35: 195-203.
[11] Drucker E, Alcabes P, Bosworth W, et al. Childhood tuberculosis in the Bronx, New York. Lancet 1994; 343: 1482-1485.
[12] Felton CP, Ford JG. Tuuberculosis in the inner city. In: Reichman LB, Hershfield ES, eds. Tuuberculosis: a comprehensive international approach. New York: Dekker, 1993; 483-503.
[13] Spence DPS, Hotchkiss J, Williams CSD, Davies PDO. Tuberculosis and poverty. BMJ 1993; 307: 759-61.
[14] Mangtani P, Jolley DJ, Watson JM, Rodrigues LC. Socioeconomic deprivation and notification rates for tuberculosis in London during 1982-91. BMJ 1995; 310: 963-66.
[15] Cantwell MF, McKenna MT, McCray E, Onorato IM. Tuberculosis and race/ethnicity in the United States: impact of socioeconomic status. Am J Respir Crit Care Med 1997; 157: 1016-20.
[16] Hawker JI, Bakhshi SS, Ali S, Farrington CP. Ecological analysis of ethnic differences in relation between tuberculosis and poverty. BMJ 1999; 319: 1031-34.
[17] Parslow R, El-Shimy NA, Cundall DB, McKinney PA. Tuberculosis, deprivation, and ethnicity in Leeds, UK, 1982-1997. Arch Dis Child 2001; 84: 109-13.
[18] Acevedo-Garcia D. Zip code-level risk factors for tuberculosis: neighborhood environment and residential segregation in New Jersey, 1985-1992. Am J Public Health 2001; 91: 734-41.
[19] Barr RG, Diez-Roux AV, Knirsch CA, Pablos-Mendez A. Neighborhood poverty and the resurgence of tuberculosis in New York City, 1984-1992. Am J Public Health 2001; 91: 1487-93.
[20] Clark M, Riben P, Nowgesic E. The association of housing density, isolation and tuberculosis in Canadian First Nations communities. Int J Epidemiol 2002; 31: 940-45.
[21] Krieger N, Waterman PD, Chen JT, Soobader MJ, Subramanian SV. Monitoring socioeconomic inequalities in sexually transmitted infections, tuberculosis, and violence: geocoding and choice of area-based socioeconomic measures-The Public Health Disparities Geocoding Project (US). Public Health Rep 2003; 118: 240-60.
[22] Holtgrave DR, Crosby RA. Social determinants of tuberculosis case rates in the United States. Am J Prev Med 2004; 26: 159-62.
[23] Leung CC, Yew WW, Tam CM, Chan CK, Chang KC, Law WS, Wong MY, Au KF. Socio-economic factors and tuberculosis: a district-based ecological analysis in Hong Kong. Int J Tuberc Lung Dis 2004; 8: 958-64.