参与式健康教育模式对中职护生健康素养提升效果评估
|
摘要
目的评价参与式健康教育和传统发放宣传材料2种不同方法对中职护生健康素养干预效果,为制定更有效的健康素养提升措施提供依据。方法于2017年10月9日—12月10日采用分层多阶段随机抽样法在大同市某中职卫校选择护理专业二年级学生173名进行随机对照试验,实验组(92名)采用参与式健康教育,对照组(81名)采用传统的健康教育,分别干预2个月。采用"2016年全国居民健康素养监测调查问卷",分别在干预前、后对实验组和对照组进行问卷调查。结果护生总健康素养平均得分对照组干预前、后分别为(36.04±9.43)(36.01±10.17)分,实验组干预前、后分别为(35.78±8.91)(49.53±13.53)分,两组干预前差异无统计学意义(t=0.18,P=0.86),干预后差异有统计学意义(t=-6.93,P=0.00);对照组干预前、后差异无统计学意义(t=0.03,P=0.98);实验组干预前、后差异有统计学意义(t=-11.36,P=0.00)。总健康素养水平对照组干预前后分别为3.70%,4.94%,实验组干预前后分别为4.35%,45.65%,两组干预前差异无统计学意义(χ~2=0.00,P=1.00),干预后差异有统计学意义(χ~2=36.58,P=0.00)。干预后总健康素养增量对照组和实验组分别为(-0.02±7.52)(12.75±10.77)分,差异有统计学意义(t=-8.93,P=0.00);对照组和实验组健康素养水平增量分别为1.24%,41.30%。结论参与式健康教育模式比传统健康教育方法对提高健康素养的效果更显著,可对其他专业的学生进行干预实验,验证该健康教育模式的效果。
Objective To compare the effect of two different methods of "3-PR" participatory health education and traditional distribution of publicity materials on health literacy improvement of medical students, to provide a reference for making more effective measure to improve health literacy. Methods 173 Second-grade students in nursing major were selected in a secondary vocational school in Datong City. Two different intervention methods were used to intervene for 8 weeks. The experimental group(92 students) received "3-PR" participatory health education; the traditional health education intervention in the control group(81 students). The "National Residents' Health Literacy Monitoring Questionnaire 2015" was used to conduct a questionnaire survey on the experimental group and the control group before and after the intervention, and to compare the effects before and after the intervention. Results The average score of health literacy was(36.04±9.43) points and(36.01±10.17) points before and after intervention in the control group;(35.78±8.91) points and(49.53±13.53) points before and after intervention in the experimental group; No statistical difference between experimental and control group was found before intervention(t=0.18, P=0.86); There was no significant difference in health literacy score before and after intervention for the control group(t=0.03, P=0.98); Health literacy significantly increased in the experimental group after intervention(t=-11.36, P=0.00). Adequate health literacy accounted for 3.70% and 4.94% before and after intervention in the control group and 4.35% and 45.65% in the experimental group before and after intervention. No significant difference was found in adequate health literacy proportion between the two groups before intervention(χ~2=0.00, P=1.00). However, the difference showed statistically significant after intervention(χ~2=36.58, P=0.00). The change of health literacy score in the control group and the experimental group was(-0.02±7.52) and(12.75±10.77), respectively, accounting for 1.24% decrement and 41.30% increment. The difference between the two groups was statistically significant(t=-8.93, P=0.00). The dimension-and type-specific score of health literacy showed similar pattern. Conclusion The "3-PR" participatory health education model is more effective than the traditional health education method in improving health literacy, and it could be carried out by multi-disciplinary students.
Objective To compare the effect of two different methods of "3-PR" participatory health education and traditional distribution of publicity materials on health literacy improvement of medical students, to provide a reference for making more effective measure to improve health literacy. Methods 173 Second-grade students in nursing major were selected in a secondary vocational school in Datong City. Two different intervention methods were used to intervene for 8 weeks. The experimental group(92 students) received "3-PR" participatory health education; the traditional health education intervention in the control group(81 students). The "National Residents' Health Literacy Monitoring Questionnaire 2015" was used to conduct a questionnaire survey on the experimental group and the control group before and after the intervention, and to compare the effects before and after the intervention. Results The average score of health literacy was(36.04±9.43) points and(36.01±10.17) points before and after intervention in the control group;(35.78±8.91) points and(49.53±13.53) points before and after intervention in the experimental group; No statistical difference between experimental and control group was found before intervention(t=0.18, P=0.86); There was no significant difference in health literacy score before and after intervention for the control group(t=0.03, P=0.98); Health literacy significantly increased in the experimental group after intervention(t=-11.36, P=0.00). Adequate health literacy accounted for 3.70% and 4.94% before and after intervention in the control group and 4.35% and 45.65% in the experimental group before and after intervention. No significant difference was found in adequate health literacy proportion between the two groups before intervention(χ~2=0.00, P=1.00). However, the difference showed statistically significant after intervention(χ~2=36.58, P=0.00). The change of health literacy score in the control group and the experimental group was(-0.02±7.52) and(12.75±10.77), respectively, accounting for 1.24% decrement and 41.30% increment. The difference between the two groups was statistically significant(t=-8.93, P=0.00). The dimension-and type-specific score of health literacy showed similar pattern. Conclusion The "3-PR" participatory health education model is more effective than the traditional health education method in improving health literacy, and it could be carried out by multi-disciplinary students.
引文
[1] 张咏南.健康素养是国民健康的决定因素[J].健康管理,2015(1):1.
[2] 卫生部妇幼保健与社区卫生司.首次中国居民健康素养调查报告[R].北京:中国健康教育中心/卫生部新闻宣传中心,2009.
[3] 佚名.2017年中国居民健康素养水平为14.18%呈持续上升态势[EB/OL].[2018-09-19].http://www.chinanews.com/jk/2018/09-19/8631500.shtml.
[4] 纪强,荣红辉,卢路,等.大同市卫生学校医学生健康素养水平影响因素分析[J].西南国防医药,2018,28(2):108-111.
[5] 荣红辉,武书兴,李懿,等.“3-PR”参与式健康教育模式的构建及实践[J].中华医学教育探索杂志,2018,17(12):1193-1198.
[6] 陈春明.中国成人体质指数分类的推荐意见简介[J].中华预防医学杂志,2001,35(5):349.
[7] 张玲,支倩,谢莎丽,等.2016年重庆市主城区居民健康素养现状及其影响因素[J].中国健康教育,2018,34(3):227-231.
[8] 魏振金.健康素养66条[J].金秋,2016(10):46-47.
[9] YEARY K H,CORNELL C E,PREWITT E,et al.The WORD(Wholeness,Oneness,Righteousness,Deliverance):design of a randomized controlled trial testing the effectiveness of an evidence-based weight loss and maintenance intervention translated for a faith-based,rural,African American population using a community-based participatory approach[J].Contemp Clin Trials,2015,40:63-73.DOI:10.1016/j.cct.2014.11.009.
[10] ZEMITS B,MAYPILAMA L,WILD K,et al.Moving beyond "Health Education":participatory filmmaking for cross-cultural health communication[J].Health Commun,2015,30(12):1213-1222.DOI:10.1080/10410236.2014.924792.
[11] ZHANG J,LI Z J,QIU L,et al.Development and application of communication materials for participatory health education of schistosomiasis in fishermen and boatmen of Poyang Lake region[J].Zhongguo Xue Xi Chong Bing Fang Zhi Za Zhi,2016,28(1):58-61.
[12] NEWMAN S D,GILLENWATER G,TOATLEY S,et al.A community-based participatory research approach to the development of a peer navigator health promotion intervention for people with spinal cord injury[J].Disabil Health J,2014,7(4):478-484.
[13] 赵加奎,林军,朱燕红,等.参与式健康教育在城市居民健康素养干预中的应用[J].健康教育与健康促进,2015,10(3):165-168.
[14] 夏宇东.无锡市惠山区社区健康教育与健康促进实践及对策分析[D].上海:复旦大学,2009.
[15] MAYAGAH K,WAYNE M.Health literacy and health promotion[R].Eastern Mediteranean Region,WHO,2009.
[16] 李文凤,刘忠慧,崔玉山,等.天津市碘缺乏病健康教育干预效果评价[J].中国地方病防治杂志,2017,32(6):611-613.
[17] 李娜,周义红,潘建丽,等.常州市武进区居民健康素养干预效果评价[J].江苏预防医学,2018,29(5):596-598.
[18] 李航,何祥波,董忠.北京市部分高中生健康素养不同干预方法效果评价[J].中国学校卫生,2015,36(7):1022-1024.
[2] 卫生部妇幼保健与社区卫生司.首次中国居民健康素养调查报告[R].北京:中国健康教育中心/卫生部新闻宣传中心,2009.
[3] 佚名.2017年中国居民健康素养水平为14.18%呈持续上升态势[EB/OL].[2018-09-19].http://www.chinanews.com/jk/2018/09-19/8631500.shtml.
[4] 纪强,荣红辉,卢路,等.大同市卫生学校医学生健康素养水平影响因素分析[J].西南国防医药,2018,28(2):108-111.
[5] 荣红辉,武书兴,李懿,等.“3-PR”参与式健康教育模式的构建及实践[J].中华医学教育探索杂志,2018,17(12):1193-1198.
[6] 陈春明.中国成人体质指数分类的推荐意见简介[J].中华预防医学杂志,2001,35(5):349.
[7] 张玲,支倩,谢莎丽,等.2016年重庆市主城区居民健康素养现状及其影响因素[J].中国健康教育,2018,34(3):227-231.
[8] 魏振金.健康素养66条[J].金秋,2016(10):46-47.
[9] YEARY K H,CORNELL C E,PREWITT E,et al.The WORD(Wholeness,Oneness,Righteousness,Deliverance):design of a randomized controlled trial testing the effectiveness of an evidence-based weight loss and maintenance intervention translated for a faith-based,rural,African American population using a community-based participatory approach[J].Contemp Clin Trials,2015,40:63-73.DOI:10.1016/j.cct.2014.11.009.
[10] ZEMITS B,MAYPILAMA L,WILD K,et al.Moving beyond "Health Education":participatory filmmaking for cross-cultural health communication[J].Health Commun,2015,30(12):1213-1222.DOI:10.1080/10410236.2014.924792.
[11] ZHANG J,LI Z J,QIU L,et al.Development and application of communication materials for participatory health education of schistosomiasis in fishermen and boatmen of Poyang Lake region[J].Zhongguo Xue Xi Chong Bing Fang Zhi Za Zhi,2016,28(1):58-61.
[12] NEWMAN S D,GILLENWATER G,TOATLEY S,et al.A community-based participatory research approach to the development of a peer navigator health promotion intervention for people with spinal cord injury[J].Disabil Health J,2014,7(4):478-484.
[13] 赵加奎,林军,朱燕红,等.参与式健康教育在城市居民健康素养干预中的应用[J].健康教育与健康促进,2015,10(3):165-168.
[14] 夏宇东.无锡市惠山区社区健康教育与健康促进实践及对策分析[D].上海:复旦大学,2009.
[15] MAYAGAH K,WAYNE M.Health literacy and health promotion[R].Eastern Mediteranean Region,WHO,2009.
[16] 李文凤,刘忠慧,崔玉山,等.天津市碘缺乏病健康教育干预效果评价[J].中国地方病防治杂志,2017,32(6):611-613.
[17] 李娜,周义红,潘建丽,等.常州市武进区居民健康素养干预效果评价[J].江苏预防医学,2018,29(5):596-598.
[18] 李航,何祥波,董忠.北京市部分高中生健康素养不同干预方法效果评价[J].中国学校卫生,2015,36(7):1022-1024.
© 2004-2018 中国地质图书馆版权所有 京ICP备05064691号 京公网安备11010802017129号 地址：北京市海淀区学院路29号 邮编：100083 电话：办公室：(+86 10)66554848；文献借阅、咨询服务、科技查新：66554700 |