新冠肺炎疫情下家庭关系对上海高校大学生心理应激反应的影响

郭佩佩; 于海燕; 高金敏

doi:10.16835/j.cnki.1000-9817.2021.03.023

新冠肺炎疫情下家庭关系对上海高校大学生心理应激反应的影响

doi: 10.16835/j.cnki.1000-9817.2021.03.023

1.
上海工程技术大学管理学院，上海 201620
2.
温州医科大学公共卫生与管理学院

基金项目:

国家社会科学基金项目 16BJY001

详细信息

作者简介:
郭佩佩(1990-)，女，安徽舒城人，博士，讲师，主要研究方向为社会医学与卫生事业管理

通讯作者:
于海燕，E-mail: yuhaiyanfei@163.com

中图分类号: G 444 G 78 B 844.2 R 563.1
计量
- 文章访问数: 751
- HTML全文浏览量: 340
- PDF下载量: 52
- 被引次数: 0
出版历程
- 收稿日期: 2020-08-05
- 修回日期: 2020-09-25
- 网络出版日期: 2021-04-20
- 刊出日期: 2021-03-25

Family relationship and psychological stress response of college students in Shanghai under the COVID-19 epidemic

1.
School of Management Studies, Shanghai University of Engineering Science, Shanghai(201620), China

摘要

摘要: 目的分析上海高校大学生家庭关系与新型冠状病毒肺炎(简称“新冠肺炎”)疫情下心理应激反应之间的关系，为降低疫情对大学生造成的心理创伤和选择相关干预措施提供参考依据。方法采取分层随机抽样抽取上海市4所高校904名大学生, 采用家庭亲密度和适应性量表中文版(FACESII-CV)、事件影响量表修订版(IES-R)进行调查。结果大学生家庭关系亲密度得分为(61.32±6.29)分、家庭关系适应性得分为(43.30±5.83)分，心理应激反应总得分为(30.77±7.33)分，内部维度得分分别为：闯入症状(11.63±2.53)分、回避症状(11.69±2.64)分、高警觉症状(7.45±2.33)分；表现为轻微应激反应和中度应激反应人数占比分别为77.5%(701名)和17.3%(156名)；不同年龄、年级、家庭收入情况、父亲文化程度、母亲文化程度组大学生在心理应激反应3个维度得分及家庭关系2个维度得分差异均有统计学意义(P值均 < 0.01)。家庭关系亲密度、家庭关系适应性得分对心理应激反应的闯入症状、回避症状、高警觉症状维度得分均有负向预测效应(P值均 < 0.05)。结论大学生面对疫情出现轻微程度心理应激反应且主要表现为闯入和回避症状，家庭关系的亲密度和适应性对疫情下大学生的心理应激反应具有负向作用。高质量的家庭关系可降低新冠疫情给大学生心理带来的冲击和不利影响。
- 冠状病毒属 /
- 家庭 /
- 应激 /
- 心理学 /
- 精神卫生 /
- 学生
Abstract: Objective To investigate the association between the family relationship of college students in Shanghai and the psychological stress response under the COVID-19 epidemic. Methods Totally 904 college students from universities in Shanghai were investigated with questionnaire of FACESII-CV and IES-R. Results The score of family relationship intimacy was(61.32±6.29), the score of family relationship adaptability was(43.30±5.83), the score of psychological stress was(30.77±7.33), the score of internal dimension, avoidance, high alertness were(11.63±2.53)(11.69±2.64)(7.45±2.33). About 77.5%(701) and 17.3%(156) of college students showed mild and moderate stress reactions. Three dimensional scores of psychological stress response and two dimensional scores of family relationship differed significantly by age, grade, family income and parental education(P < 0.01). Moreover, family relationship intimacy and adaptability scores showed negative associations with intrusive symptoms, avoidance symptoms, and high alert symptom dimension scores(P < 0.05). Conclusion College students showed mild psychological stress under the COVID-19 epidemic with intrusion and avoidance symptoms as the most common. The intimacy and adaptability of family relationships are negatively associated with psychological stress response of college students under the epidemic. High-quality family relationships can reduce the psychological impact and adverse effects of the new crown epidemic on college students.
- Coronavirus /
- Family /
- Stress, psychological /
- Mental health /
- Students /

HTML全文

表 1 不同人口学特征大学生应激反应各维度家庭关系亲密度及适应性得分比较(x±s)

Table 1. Comparison of stress response dimensions, family intimacy and adaptability of college students with different demographic characteristics(x±s)

人口统计学指标	选项	人数	统计值	闯入症状	回避症状	高警觉症状	家庭关系亲密度	家庭关系适应性
性别	男	451		11.40±2.19	11.43±2.25	7.13±2.14	60.04±6.27	42.40±6.24
	女	453		11.79±2.74	11.88±2.87	7.67±2.43	63.16±5.18	44.58±4.94
			t值	-1.28	-1.45	-1.97	-4.31	-3.20
			P值	0.20	0.15	< 0.01	< 0.05	< 0.01
年龄/岁	19~ < 20	316		10.57±2.05	10.57±1.90	6.26±1.63	62.30±4.11	41.23±4.68
	20~ < 22	332		12.80±2.32	13.88±2.40	8.74±2.14	60.21±6.10	44.57±5.60
	22~26	256		13.79±2.75	14.00±3.26	8.60±2.55	59.49±3.79	41.13±4.41
			F值	33.31	34.88	47.06	80.81	51.92
			P值	< 0.01	< 0.01	< 0.01	< 0.01	< 0.01
年级	大一	226		12.05±2.33	10.90±2.36	8.69±1.63	56.57±6.65	39.36±3.79
	大二	236		10.80±2.44	12.21±2.82	6.59±2.05	64.10±5.80	46.35±6.20
	大三	222		12.75±1.72	12.55±2.00	7.92±2.51	59.58±6.59	43.13±4.82
	大四	220		13.82±2.99	14.01±3.34	9.57±2.98	56.60±2.77	39.49±3.36
			F值	12.55	10.73	16.10	23.48	15.19
			P值	< 0.01	< 0.01	< 0.01	< 0.01	< 0.01
户籍	农村	465		11.76±2.36	11.93±2.52	7.48±2.29	59.02±5.97	42.17±5.85
	城市	439		11.53±2.66	11.54±2.72	7.42±2.35	59.56±6.54	42.47±5.82
			t值	0.77	1.38	0.22	-0.73	-0.44
			P值	0.44	0.17	0.83	0.47	0.66
是否独生子女	是	459		13.07±2.35	13.63±2.54	8.90±2.90	57.30±7.37	41.67.±5.15
	否	445		11.47±2.50	11.48±2.57	7.29±2.20	61.76±6.02	43.48±5.88
			t值	3.27	4.29	3.61	-3.70	-1.59
			P值	< 0.01	< 0.01	< 0.01	< 0.01	0.11
家庭人均月收入/元	< 1 000	145		18.78±4.74	19.58±5.08	15.37±5.45	49.97±1.98	39.33±3.00
	1 000~ < 3 000	178		14.31±2.74	14.65±3.32	10.19±2.58	53.60±4.86	39.46±4.64
	3 000~ < 6 000	213		12.13±0.96	11.99±1.34	7.86±0.94	62.73±4.95	41.57±3.92
	6 000~ < 9 000	186		10.84±2.36	10.91±2.19	6.69±1.92	62.68±5.79	44.76±5.59
	≥9 000	182		10.50±2.18	10.62±2.14	6.27±1.76	64.76±5.09	46.68±5.71
			F值	32.53	33.48	46.55	30.99	24.27
			P值	< 0.01	< 0.01	< 0.01	< 0.01	< 0.01
父亲文化程度	小学及以下	132		12.19±0.94	12.15±1.38	8.04±0.69	59.13±4.15	41.90±3.37
	初中	162		13.88±2.45	14.07±2.88	9.93±2.84	53.91±3.75	38.12±3.56
	高中及中专	231		16.23±3.38	16.95±4.01	10.62±2.49	51.74±3.57	36.64±6.51
	大专	219		10.59±2.09	10.54±1.92	6.36±1.57	66.39±3.70	46.73±4.31
	本科及以上	160		10.06±2.46	10.39±2.10	6.75±1.49	65.27±2.68	47.08±5.07
			F值	54.10	52.04	83.20	131.79	76.60
			P值	< 0.01	< 0.01	< 0.01	< 0.01	< 0.01
母亲文化程度	小学及以下	149		9.25±3.46	9.75±3.14	5.31±2.53	61.96±4.46	43.59±4.81
	初中	200		10.08±2.50	10.21±2.15	5.80±1.85	65.25±5.35	43.59±4.81
	高中及中专	203		11.46±1.33	11.30±1.57	7.26±1.17	66.09±3.71	47.09±5.52
	大专	204		13.02±2.21	13.11±2.73	8.87±2.11	56.72±4.91	39.89±4.40
	本科及以上	148		13.89±2.43	13.30±2.67	9.27±2.64	53.66±3.65	38.48±3.70
			F值	30.03	28.45	43.11	80.19	31.51
			P值	< 0.01	< 0.01	< 0.01	< 0.01	< 0.01

下载: 导出CSV

表 2 大学生心理应激反应影响因素的多重线性回归分析(B值，n=904)

Table 2. Multiple linear regression analysis of influencing factors of college students' psychological stress response(B, n=904)

自变量	闯入症状		回避症状		高警觉症状
自变量	模型1	模型2	模型3	模型4	模型5	模型6
性别	-0.13^**	-0.14^**	-0.10^**	-0.12^**	-0.10^**	-0.11^**
年龄	0.29^*	0.17^*	0.34^*	0.20^*	0.30^*	0.18^*
年级	-0.03	-0.05	-0.06	-0.08	-0.03	-0.04
户籍	-0.05	-0.03	-0.14^**	-0.10^*	-0.07^*	-0.03
是否独生子女	0.06	0.05	0.11^**	0.09^*	0.02	0.01
家庭人均月收入	-0.08	-0.07	-0.09^*	-0.08	-0.10^*	-0.08^*
父亲文化程度	-0.16	-0.04	-0.16^**	-0.02	-0.20^**	-0.08
母亲文化程度	0.30^**	0.20^**	0.24^**	0.12^*	0.33^**	0.23^**
家庭关系亲密度		-0.23^**		-0.33^**		-0.29^**
家庭关系适应性		-0.16^*		-0.12^*		-0.09^*
决定系数R²值	0.52	0.65	0.59	0.83	0.65	0.88
F值	51.62^**	46.81^**	45.63^**	42.69^**	94.77^**	88.12^**
注：* P < 0.05，** P < 0.01。

下载: 导出CSV

参考文献(23)

[1]	付琳, 程锦, 刘正奎, 等. 芦山地震后儿童急性应激障碍症状、创伤后应激障碍症状与抑郁症状的交叉滞后分析[J]. 中国心理卫生杂志, 2017, 31(7): 548-553. doi: 10.3969/j.issn.1000-6729.2017.07.009 FU L, CHENG J, LIU Z K, et al. Cross lag analysis of acute stress disorder symptoms, post-traumatic stress disorder symptoms and depression symptoms in children after Lushan earthquake[J]. Chin J Ment Health, 2017, 31(7): 548-553. doi: 10.3969/j.issn.1000-6729.2017.07.009
[2]	李鸽, 曹倖, 王力, 等. 农村青少年创伤经历及创伤后应激障碍流行特征[J]. 心理与行为研究, 2019, 17(3): 395-401. https://www.cnki.com.cn/Article/CJFDTOTAL-CLXW201903015.htm LI G, CAO X, WANG L, et al. Traumatic experience and epidemiological characteristics of post-traumatic stress disorder in rural adolescents[J]. Psychol Behav Res, 2019, 17(3): 395-401. https://www.cnki.com.cn/Article/CJFDTOTAL-CLXW201903015.htm
[3]	张丽霞, 原岩波, 王泽荣, 等. 汶川地震后1个月内不同受灾群体心理应激状况调查[J]. 中国心理卫生杂志, 2010, 24(2): 157-158. doi: 10.3969/j.issn.1000-6729.2010.02.019 ZHANG L X, YUAN Y B, WANG Z R, et al. Investigation on psychological stress of different disaster groups within one month after Wenchuan earthquake[J]. Chin J Ment Health, 2010, 24(2): 157-158. doi: 10.3969/j.issn.1000-6729.2010.02.019
[4]	颜帅. 认知行为干预对尿毒症血液透析患者自我护理能力与心理应激反应的影响[J]. 检验医学与临床, 2016, 13(19): 2761-2762. https://www.cnki.com.cn/Article/CJFDTOTAL-JYYL201619025.htm YAN S. Effect of cognitive behavior intervention on self-care ability and health promoting lifestyle of uremic hemodialysis patients[J]. Labor Med Clin, 2016, 13(19): 2761-2762. https://www.cnki.com.cn/Article/CJFDTOTAL-JYYL201619025.htm
[5]	刘伟立, 武小梅. 不同军事应激环境中官兵心理应激反应及中介因素比较研究[J]. 军事医学, 2011, 35(9): 693-696. doi: 10.3969/j.issn.1674-9960.2011.09.014 LIU W L, WU X M. Comparative study on health promoting lifestyle and mediating factors of officers and soldiers in different military stress environments[J]. Milit Med, 2011, 35(9): 693-696. doi: 10.3969/j.issn.1674-9960.2011.09.014
[6]	任曦, 王妍, 胡翔, 等. 社会支持缓解高互依自我个体的急性心理应激反应[J]. 心理学报, 2019, 51(4): 497-506. https://www.cnki.com.cn/Article/CJFDTOTAL-XLXB201904010.htm REN X, WANG Y, HU X, et al. Social support alleviates acute health promoting lifestyle of individuals with high interdependence[J]. Acta Psychol Sinica, 2019, 51(4): 497-506. https://www.cnki.com.cn/Article/CJFDTOTAL-XLXB201904010.htm
[7]	费立鹏, 郑延平, 邹定辉. 家庭亲密度和适应性量表(中文版)(FACESⅡ-CV)[J]. 中国心理卫生杂志, 1993, 7(增刊): 101-109. FEI L P, ZHENG Y P, ZOU D H. Family cohesion and Adaptability Scale(Chinese version)(facesii-cv)[J]. Chin J Ment Health, 1993, 7(Suppl): 101-109.
[8]	刘亮, 刘翠莲, 赵旭东, 等. 大学生家庭人际关系在愤怒倾向和愤怒表达对焦虑影响中的调节作用[J]. 中国全科医学, 2019, 22(25): 3125-3131. https://www.cnki.com.cn/Article/CJFDTOTAL-QKYX201925023.htm LIU L, LIU C L, ZHAO X D, et al. The moderating role of family interpersonal relationship of young teachers in the influence of anger tendency and anger expression on anxiety[J]. Chin General Pract, 2019, 22(25): 3125-3131. https://www.cnki.com.cn/Article/CJFDTOTAL-QKYX201925023.htm
[9]	周彩峰, 周志南, 谢俊房, 等. 脑性瘫痪患儿父母积极体验与家庭亲密度适应性调查及相关性研究[J]. 中国全科医学, 2015, 18(8): 924-927. doi: 10.3969/J.iSSn.1007-9572.2015.08.016 ZHOU C F, ZHOU Z N, XIE J F, et al. Investigation and correlation between parents' positive experience and family intimacy of children with cerebral palsy[J]. Chin General Pract, 2015, 18(8): 924-927. doi: 10.3969/J.iSSn.1007-9572.2015.08.016
[10]	HOSEY M M, BIENVENU O J, DINGLAS V D. The IES-R remains a core outcome measure for PTSD in critical illness survivorship research[J]. Crit Care, 2019, 23(1): 362. doi: 10.1186/s13054-019-2630-3
[11]	郭素然, 辛自强, 耿柳娜. 事件影响量表修订版的信度和效度分析[J]. 中国临床心理学杂志, 2007, 15(1): 15-17. https://www.cnki.com.cn/Article/CJFDTOTAL-ZLCY200701006.htm GUO S R, XIN Z Q, GENG L N. Reliability and validity of the revised version of the event impact scale[J]. Chin J Clin Psychol, 2007, 15(1): 15-17. https://www.cnki.com.cn/Article/CJFDTOTAL-ZLCY200701006.htm
[12]	叶盈, 杨可, 傅静, 等. 丧亲事件对丧亲者的影响及相关因素分析[J]. 中国全科医学, 2018, 21(29): 3611-3615. doi: 10.3969/j.issn.1007-9572.2018.00.244 YE Y, YANG K, FU J, et al. The influence of bereavement on bereaved persons and analysis of related factors[J]. Chin General Pract, 2018, 21(29): 3611-3615. doi: 10.3969/j.issn.1007-9572.2018.00.244
[13]	昌敬惠, 袁愈新, 王冬. 新型冠状病毒肺炎疫情下大学生心理健康状况及影响因素分析[J]. 南方医科大学学报, 2020, 40(2): 171-176. https://www.cnki.com.cn/Article/CJFDTOTAL-DYJD202002007.htm CHANG J H, YUAN Y X, WANG D. Novel coronavirus pneumonia epidemic situation young teachers mental health status and influencing factors[J]. J South Med University, 2020, 40(2): 171-176. https://www.cnki.com.cn/Article/CJFDTOTAL-DYJD202002007.htm
[14]	赵蓓. 疫情中大学生家庭弹性与心理状态: 希望感的中介作用[J]. 心理月刊, 2020, 15(4): 24-25. https://www.cnki.com.cn/Article/CJFDTOTAL-XLYK202004011.htm ZHAO B. Family resilience and psychological state of young teachers in epidemic situation: mediating role of sense of hope[J]. Psychol Monthly, 2020, 15(4): 24-25. https://www.cnki.com.cn/Article/CJFDTOTAL-XLYK202004011.htm
[15]	赵春珍. "新冠肺炎"疫情期间大学生心理状况调查及教育对策研究[J]. 心理月刊, 2020, 15(8): 1-3. https://www.cnki.com.cn/Article/CJFDTOTAL-XLYK202008001.htm ZHAO C Z. A novel coronavirus pneumonia survey and psychological education of young teachers during the period of "new crown pneumonia"[J]. Psychol Monthly, 2020, 15(8): 1-3. https://www.cnki.com.cn/Article/CJFDTOTAL-XLYK202008001.htm
[16]	郑诚, 李晓驷. 精神动力学治疗: 一例出现创伤后应激反应的来访者[J]. 神经疾病与精神卫生, 2016, 16(4): 407-409. https://cdmd.cnki.com.cn/Article/CDMD-10511-1014245656.htm ZHENG C, LI X S. Psychodynamic therapy: a patient with post-traumatic stress response[J]. Neurol Ment Health, 2016, 16(4): 407-409. https://cdmd.cnki.com.cn/Article/CDMD-10511-1014245656.htm
[17]	王继霞. 严重脓毒症危重幸存康复患者应激障碍和创伤后应激障碍[J]. 中国健康心理学杂志, 2018, 26(7): 1034-1037. https://www.cnki.com.cn/Article/CJFDTOTAL-JKXL201807021.htm WANG J X. Stress disorder and post-traumatic stress disorder in critically ill survivors of severe sepsis[J]. Chin J Health Psychol, 2018, 26(7): 1034-1037. https://www.cnki.com.cn/Article/CJFDTOTAL-JKXL201807021.htm
[18]	FARHOOD L, FARES S, HAMADY C. PTSD and gender: could gender differences in war trauma types, symptom clusters and risk factors predict gender differences in PTSD prevalence?[J]. Arch Women Ment Health, 2018, 21(6): 725-733. http://www.onacademic.com/detail/journal_1000040400413710_a5e8.html
[19]	李淑云, 张伟新, 宋久存, 等. 辽西地区城市老龄化家庭独生子女心理压力情况及影响因素分析[J]. 中国全科医学, 2015, 18(1): 90-92. https://www.cnki.com.cn/Article/CJFDTOTAL-QKYX201501031.htm LI S Y, ZHANG W X, SONG J C, et al. Analysis of psychological stress and influencing factors of only child in aging families in western Liaoning Province[J]. Chin General Pract, 2015, 18(1): 90-92. https://www.cnki.com.cn/Article/CJFDTOTAL-QKYX201501031.htm
[20]	邓小平, 刘思瑶, 张向葵, 等. 家庭收入与青少年社会适应: 家庭社会资本的中介作用[J]. 心理与行为研究, 2018, 16(6): 793-800. https://www.cnki.com.cn/Article/CJFDTOTAL-CLXW201806010.htm DENG X P, LIU S Y, ZHANG X K, et al. Family income and adolescents' social adaptation: the mediating role of family social capital[J]. Psychol Behav Res, 2018, 16(6): 793-800. https://www.cnki.com.cn/Article/CJFDTOTAL-CLXW201806010.htm
[21]	周世军, 李清瑶, 崔立志, 等. 父母学历与子女教育: 基于CGSS微观数据的实证考察[J]. 教育与经济, 2018, 34(3): 46-53, 74. ZHOU S J, LI Q Y, CUI L Z, et al. Parents' education and children's education: An empirical study based on CGSS micro data[J]. Educ Econom, 2018, 34(3): 46-53, 74.
[22]	徐静, 胡茂荣, 赖雄, 等. 精神分裂症患者家庭亲密度与适应性的Meta分析[J]. 中华行为医学与脑科学杂志, 2019, 28(5): 470-475. XU J, HU M R, LAI X, et al. A meta analysis of family cohesion and adaptability in schizophrenic patients[J]. Chin J Behav Med Brain Sci, 2019, 28(5): 470-475.
[23]	任彧, 郝芳. 人际距离和情绪知觉对利他选择的影响[J]. 心理与行为研究, 2018, 16(3): 321-326. https://www.cnki.com.cn/Article/CJFDTOTAL-CLXW201803006.htm REN Y, HAO F. The influence of interpersonal distance and emotional perception on altruistic choice[J]. Psychol Behav Res, 2018, 16(3): 321-326. https://www.cnki.com.cn/Article/CJFDTOTAL-CLXW201803006.htm