高级检索
文孝忠, 陈维清, 梁彩花, 卢次勇, 张彩霞, 韩轲, 区永军, 凌文华. 健康促进学校初中生控制吸烟干预效果评价[J]. 中国公共卫生, 2007, 23(7): 782-784. DOI: 10.11847/zgggws2007-23-07-07
引用本文: 文孝忠, 陈维清, 梁彩花, 卢次勇, 张彩霞, 韩轲, 区永军, 凌文华. 健康促进学校初中生控制吸烟干预效果评价[J]. 中国公共卫生, 2007, 23(7): 782-784. DOI: 10.11847/zgggws2007-23-07-07
WEN Xiao-zhong, CHEN Wei-qing, LIANG Cai-hua, . Effect of health promotion school model on smoking prevention and control in secondary school students[J]. Chinese Journal of Public Health, 2007, 23(7): 782-784. DOI: 10.11847/zgggws2007-23-07-07
Citation: WEN Xiao-zhong, CHEN Wei-qing, LIANG Cai-hua, . Effect of health promotion school model on smoking prevention and control in secondary school students[J]. Chinese Journal of Public Health, 2007, 23(7): 782-784. DOI: 10.11847/zgggws2007-23-07-07

健康促进学校初中生控制吸烟干预效果评价

Effect of health promotion school model on smoking prevention and control in secondary school students

  • 摘要: 目的 评价健康促进学校模式预防和控制青少年吸烟的一年干预效果。方法 在广州市黄埔区4所中学进行专项预防和控制初中生吸烟的随机对照试验(n=2 343),通过1年的随访评价其干预效果。结果 干预组学生的吸烟相关知识平均分由基线调查时的9.0分增至1年后的11.5分,对照组则由8.1分上升至9.5分,前者增幅高于后者。干预前,对照组和干预组学生的尝试吸烟率分别为21.5%和18.6%,两者差异无统计学意义(P>0.05);干预后,对照组的尝试吸烟率升至25.8%,干预组的升至21.5%,两者差异有统计学意义(P<0.05)。基线时2组每周吸烟率差异无统计学意义(对照组和干预组分别为5.1%和4.1%,P>0.05),1年后差异有统计学意义(对照组9.8%,干预组5.3%,P<0.001)。同期,对照组的现在吸烟率由3.88%升至7.27%,而干预组的由2.54%升至4.26%,后者升幅低于前者。对照组规律吸烟学生的尝试戒烟率由2004年的72.5%降至2005年的65.6%,而干预组的则明显上升。结论 本研究的干预措施明显提高了学生们吸烟相关知识得分,一定程度上抑制了学生吸烟行为的快速增长,但对吸烟相关态度的影响较小。将健康促进学校模式应用于青少年控烟可行有效,值得推广。

     

    Abstract: Objective To evaluate the effect of health promotion school model smoking prevention and control in adolescence.Methods A cluster randomized control trial was conducted among the 2 343 adolescents in four secondary schools in Huangpu district of Guangzhou and the intervention effect was evaluated after one year.Results The average score of smoking-related knowledge for the experimental group increased from 910 at baseline to 1115 after one year while it increased from 811 to 915 for the control group;and the rise was higher in the experimental group than in the control group.At the baseline,the prevalence of experimental smoking in the control group and the experimemal group was 21.5% and 18.6% respectively,and the difference between them was not significant(P<0.05).But after one year of the intervention,the prevalence of experimental smoking increased to 21.5% in the intervention group while that to 25.8% in the control group,and the difference between them was statistically significant(P<0.05).Similarly,there was no significant difference for the prevalence of weekly smoking between the two groups at baseline(5.1% in the control group vs.4.1% in the experimental group,P>0.05),but a significant difference was obtained after one year of the intervention(9.8% in the control group vs.5.3% in the experimental group,P<0.001).Concurrently,the prevalence of current smoking increased from 3.88% at the baseline to 7.27% for the control group while it did from 2.54% to 4.26% for the experimental group after one-year intervention,and the increase of the later was lower than the former.The prevalence of quitting smoking in the regular smokers of the control group decreased from 72.5% at the baseline to 6516%after one-year intervention,on the contrary,the prevalence of quitting smoking increased in the experimental group.Conclusion The intervention measures could improve the students' smoking-related knowledge,and partly prohibited the increasing of smoking prevalence among them,buthad less impact on smoking-related attitude.Therefore,it is applicable and valuable for us to prevent and control smoking among Chinese adolescents with health promotion school model.

     

/

返回文章
返回