摘要:
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(χ2=0.00,P=1.00),干预后差异有统计学意义(χ2=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.
Abstract:
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 (χ2=0.00, P=1.00). However, the difference showed statistically significant after intervention (χ2=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.
点击查看大图
下载:
