南通市城区学龄前非独生儿童忽视状况

代倩倩; 娄海琴; 刘维韦; 陈思涵; 王瑞凤; 单玲玲; 许占斌

doi:10.16835/j.cnki.1000-9817.2022.02.018

南通市城区学龄前非独生儿童忽视状况

doi: 10.16835/j.cnki.1000-9817.2022.02.018

1.
南通大学附属妇幼保健院群体保健科，江苏 226018
2.
南通市卫生高等职业技术学校药剂系
3.
义乌市妇幼保健院保健部
4.
南通大学附属妇幼保健院儿童保健科

基金项目:

南通市卫生健康委员会青年课题项目 QA2020032

详细信息

作者简介:
代倩倩(1991-)，女，安徽临泉人，硕士，住院医师，主要研究方向为儿童生长发育及其影响因素

通讯作者:
娄海琴，E-mail：1435534619@qq.com

中图分类号: R179 B844.1 G78
计量
- 文章访问数: 486
- HTML全文浏览量: 316
- PDF下载量: 25
- 被引次数: 0
出版历程
- 收稿日期: 2021-08-17
- 修回日期: 2021-09-26
- 网络出版日期: 2022-02-24
- 刊出日期: 2022-02-25

Neglect among preschool non-only-child in urban area of Nantong City

1.
Group Health Care Department, The Affiliated Maternity and Child Health Hospital of Nantong University, Nantong (226018), Jiangsu Province, China

摘要

摘要: 目的了解南通市学龄前非独生儿童的忽视现状及其影响因素，为非独生儿童忽视预防和干预提供理论依据。方法采用随机整群抽样的方法，对南通市城区9所幼儿园的1 141名儿童家长使用中国城市3~6岁儿童忽视评价常模量表进行问卷调查。结果学龄前儿童忽视率为28.6%，忽视度为(40.21±6.67)，其中非独生儿童忽视率为32.6%，忽视度为(41.14±6.73)。非独生儿童总忽视率、身体忽视率均高于独生儿童，总忽视度和身体、情感、教育、安全、医疗忽视度维度忽视度均高于独生儿童，差异均有统计学意义(χ²/t值分别为6.21，17.57；3.95，4.98，3.45，2.70，2.01，3.11，P值均＜0.05)。不同性别、不同家庭类型儿童忽视率和忽视度差异均无统计学意义(P值均>0.05)；不同年龄、家庭子女排行儿童忽视率差异均无统计学意义(χ²值分别为3.59，2.99，P值均>0.05)，忽视度差异均有统计学意义(t值分别为2.79，3.04，P值均＜0.05)。家庭总月收入越高、家庭受教育程度较高、父母关系越好的儿童忽视率和忽视度均相对较低，主要照顾者为祖父母/外祖父母的儿童忽视率和忽视度均高于主要照顾者为父母的儿童，差异均有统计学意义(P值均＜0.05)。多因素Logistic回归分析显示，家庭总月收入＜5 000元的儿童忽视危险度是家庭总月收入≥12 000元儿童的2.73倍，祖父母或外祖父母作为主要照顾者的儿童忽视危险度是父母作为主要照顾者的2.17倍，父母关系良好的儿童忽视危险度是父母关系非常好儿童的2.29倍(P值均＜0.05)。结论南通市城区非独生学龄前儿童忽视状况较为严峻，改善家庭经济状况，提高父母照顾儿童的参与度，改善父母关系，有利于降低非独生儿童忽视的发生。
- 精神卫生 /
- 虐待儿童 /
- 回归分析 /
- 儿童, 学龄前
Abstract: Objective To understand the neglect status among preschool non-only-child in Nantong, and to provide theoretical basis for the prevention and intervention of non-only child neglect. Methods Using the method of random cluster sampling, a total of 1 141 parents of children from 9 kindergartens in the main urban area of Nantong were investigated with National Neglect Norm Scale for Children aged 3 to 6 years. Results The neglect rate of preschool children in Nantong City was 28.6%, with neglect score being (40.21±6.67). The neglect rate of non-only-child was 32.6%, with neglect score being (41.14±6.73). The total and physical neglect rate of non-only-child were higher than that of only child, and the total neglect score and physical, emotional, educational, safety, medical neglect dimensional scores were higher than that of only-child, the difference were all statistically significant (χ²/t=6.21, 17.57; 3.95, 4.98, 3.45, 2.70, 2.01, 3.11, P < 0.05). In non-only-child, univariate analysis showed that there were no significant differences in neglect rate and scores among children by gender and family types (P>0.05); There was no significant difference in the child neglect rate between different age groups and children in different families (χ²=3.59, 2.99, P>0.05), but there was a statistically significant difference in the degree of neglect (t=2.79, 3.04, P < 0.05). The neglect rate and score of non-only-child with high level of family income, parental education and parental relationship was relatively low, while the neglect rate and score in non-only-child whose grandparents serving as primary caregiver were higher (P < 0.05). Multivariate Logistic regression analysis showed that family monthly income less than 5 000 yuan was associated with 2.73-times higher risk of neglect compared to children with family monthly income more than 12 000 yuan. The risk of neglect among children whose grandparents serving as caregivers was associated with 2.17-times higher than children with parental care. The risk of neglect of children with poor parental relationship was 2.29-times higher than that of children with good parental relationship (P < 0.05). Conclusion The neglect among preschool non-only-child in Nantong City is common. Improvement in family economic status, parental care and parent relationship might help reduce neglect among preschool non-only-child.
- Mental health /
- Child abuse /
- Regression analysis /
- Child, preschool

HTML全文

表 1 南通市城区非独生与独生儿童忽视度比较(x±s)

Table 1. Comparison of neglect degree between non-only child and only child in urban area of Nantong City(x±s)

组别	人数	身体忽视	情感忽视	教育忽视	安全忽视	医疗忽视	总忽视
非独生	470	42.51±8.57	40.21±6.43	44.09±9.16	37.45±9.95	41.17±10.08	41.14±6.73
独生	671	40.05±7.94	38.95±5.84	42.59±9.23	36.27±9.74	39.23±10.59	39.56±6.55
t值		4.98	3.45	2.70	2.01	3.11	3.95
P值		＜0.01	＜0.01	0.01	＜0.05	＜0.01	＜0.01

下载: 导出CSV

表 2 不同组别非独生儿童忽视检出率比较

Table 2. Comparison of detection rates of neglect among non-only-child in different groups

组别	选项	人数	忽视人数	χ²值	P值
性别	男	211	71(33.6)	0.21	0.65
	女	259	82(31.7)
年龄/岁	3	79	26(32.9)	3.59	0.31
	4	117	30(25.6)
	5	199	71(35.7)
	6	75	26(34.7)
家庭类型	核心家庭	106	32(30.2)		0.14^a
	单亲家庭	5	4(80.0)
	三代同堂	355	116(32.7)
	再婚家庭	4	1(25.0)
家庭子女排行	1	163	46(28.2)	2.99	0.22
	2	299	103(34.4)
	3	8	4(50.0)
家庭总月收入/元	＜5 000	36	20(55.6)	12.07	0.01
	5 000~ < 8 000	93	33(35.5)
	8 000~ < 12 000	170	55(32.4)
	≥12 000	171	45(26.3)
家庭受教育程度	初中及以下	78	35(44.9)	8.07	0.05
	高中或中专	93	33(35.5)
	大专	120	34(28.3)
	本科及以上	179	51(28.5)
主要照顾者	父母	377	110(29.2)	9.89	＜0.01
	祖父母/外祖父母	93	43(46.2)
父母关系	一般	5	3(60.0)	12.35	＜0.01^b
	良好	64	32(50.0)
	非常好	401	118(29.4)
注：a表示采用Fisher精确检验方法；b表示采用Kruskal-Wallis H检验方法，父母关系分为5个等级，其中较差、非常差的人数均为0；()内数字为检出率/%。

下载: 导出CSV

表 3 不同组别非独生儿童总忽视度比较(x±s)

Table 3. Comparison of total neglect degree of non-only-child in different groups(x±s)

组别	选项	人数	忽视度	t/F值	P值
性别	男	211	41.25±6.92	0.33	0.74
	女	259	41.04±6.59
年龄/岁	3	79	6.63±0.75	2.79	0.04
	4	117	6.82±0.63
	5	199	6.61±0.47
	6	75	6.79±0.78
家庭类型	核心家庭	106	40.28±7.27	2.07	0.10
	单亲家庭	5	47.09±8.75
	三代同堂	355	41.29±6.53
	再婚家庭	4	43.13±4.23
家庭子女排行	1	163	40.65±6.62	3.04	0.05
	2	299	41.26±6.80
	3	8	46.50±3.87
家庭总月收入/元	＜5 000	36	43.97±6.81	5.61	＜0.01
	5 000~ < 8 000	93	42.41±6.76
	8 000~ < 12 000	170	41.17±6.37
	≥12 000	171	39.81±6.79
家庭受教育程度	初中及以下	78	43.05±7.20	4.43	＜0.01
	高中或中专	93	42.15±6.58
	大专	120	40.53±6.81
	本科及以上	179	40.18±6.35
主要照顾者	父母	377	40.74±6.70	-2.60	0.01
	祖父母/外祖父母	93	42.75±6.65
父母关系	一般	5	47.47±9.92	13.57	＜0.01
	良好	64	44.67±6.77
	非常好	401	40.49±6.48

下载: 导出CSV

表 4 非独生儿童忽视影响因素的多因素Logistic回归分析(n=470)

Table 4. Multivariate Logistic regression analysis on influencing factors of non-only-child neglect(n=470)

截距与自变量	β值	标准误	Wald χ²值	P值	OR值(OR值95%CI)
截距	-1.33	0.22	37.74	＜0.01
家庭总月收入/元
＜5 000	1.00	0.42	5.63	0.02	2.73(1.19~6.26)
5 000~ < 8 000	0.27	0.31	0.73	0.39	1.31(0.71~2.41)
8 000~ < 12 000	0.25	0.25	0.94	0.33	1.28(0.78~2.10)
家庭受教育程度
初中及以下	0.35	0.33	1.16	0.28	1.42(0.75~2.69)
高中或中专	0.14	0.30	0.20	0.65	1.15(0.63~2.07)
大专	-0.08	0.27	0.08	0.77	0.92(0.54~1.58)
主要照顾者
祖父母/外祖父母	0.77	0.25	9.87	＜0.01	2.17(1.34~3.51)
父母关系
一般	0.97	0.95	1.03	0.31	2.63(0.41~17.05)
良好	0.83	0.28	8.52	＜0.01	2.29(1.31~3.99)
注：家庭总月收入以≥12 000元为参照，家庭受教育程度以大学本科及以上为参照，主要照顾者以父母作为参照，父母关系以非常好为参照。

下载: 导出CSV

参考文献(20)

[1]	U.S. Department of Health & Human Services, Administration for Children and Families, Administration on Children, Youth and Families, Children's Bureau. Child maltreatment 2019[EB/OL]. (2021-05-11)[2021-08-15]. https://www.acf.hhs.gov/cb/report/child-maltreatment-2019.
[2]	WANG L L, QU G B, TANG X, et al. Child neglect and its association with social living ability: does the resilience attenuate the association?[J]. Psychol Health Med, 2019, 24(5): 519-529. doi: 10.1080/13548506.2018.1549743
[3]	LAURA B, MARTINE B P, RACHEL Z, et al. Suggestibility in neglected children: the influence of intelligence, language, and social skills[J]. Child Abuse Negl, 2018, 79: 51-60. doi: 10.1016/j.chiabu.2018.01.005
[4]	李南, 费忠化, 梁艳, 等. 鲁西南地区二孩家庭学龄前儿童忽视现状及影响因素[J]. 中国学校卫生, 2019, 40(9): 1330-1332, 1336. doi: 10.16835/j.cnki.1000-9817.2019.09.014 LI N, FEI Z H, LIANG Y, et al. Neglect and associated factors among preschool children in two-child families in southwest Shandong Province[J]. Chin J Sch Health, 2019, 40(9): 1330-1332, 1336. doi: 10.16835/j.cnki.1000-9817.2019.09.014
[5]	潘建平, 杨子尼, 任旭红, 等. 中国3~6岁城区儿童忽视常模的研制[J]. 中国公共卫生, 2003, 19(1): 33-36. doi: 10.3321/j.issn:1001-0580.2003.01.015 PAN J P, YANG Z N, REN X H. Development of child neglect norms of urban children aged 3-6 years in China[J]. Chin J Public Health, 2003, 19(1): 33-36. doi: 10.3321/j.issn:1001-0580.2003.01.015
[6]	范雪金, 范晓萱, 蔡蕾, 等. 二孩家庭中出生顺序及年龄差与学龄儿童情绪行为的相关性[J]. 中国学校卫生, 2019, 40(10): 1457-1459, 1463. doi: 10.16835/j.cnki.1000-9817.2019.10.005 FAN X J, FAN X X, CAI L, et al. Impacts of birth order and age difference on the emotional and behavioral problems among children from two-child family[J]. Chin J Sch Health, 2019, 40(10): 1457-1459, 1463. doi: 10.16835/j.cnki.1000-9817.2019.10.005
[7]	孔思又. 童年期心理虐待与忽视对香港青年心身健康及应对方式的影响研究[D]. 南京: 南京中医药大学, 2019. KONG S Y. Study on the influence of childhood psychological abuse and neglect on Hong Kong youth's psychosomatic health and coping style[D]. Nanjing: Nanjing University of Chinese Medicine, 2019.
[8]	李敏, 潘建平, 张松杰, 等. 中国城乡3~6岁儿童忽视状况的比较研究[J]. 中华流行病学杂志, 2012, 33(2): 140-144. doi: 10.3760/cma.j.issn.0254-6450.2012.02.003 LI M, PAN J P, ZHANG S J, et al. Comparative study on the situation of neglected children aged 3-6 year-olds between urban and rural areas of China[J]. Chin J Epidemiol, 2012, 33(2): 140-144. doi: 10.3760/cma.j.issn.0254-6450.2012.02.003
[9]	吴萍萍, 贺苗, 杨静, 等. 乌鲁木齐农村3~6岁儿童忽视现状及其危险因素分析[J]. 中国当代儿科杂志, 2019, 21(11): 1099-1104. doi: 10.7499/j.issn.1008-8830.2019.11.009 WU P P, HE M, YANG J, et al. Current status of neglect among children aged 3-6 years in rural areas of Urumqi, China and risk factors for child neglect[J]. Chin J Contemp Pediatr, 2019, 21(11): 1099-1104. doi: 10.7499/j.issn.1008-8830.2019.11.009
[10]	刘志浩, 黄明豪, 卫平民, 等. 江苏省青少年健康素养状况及影响因素分析[J]. 中国学校卫生, 2013, 34(6): 683-685. http://www.cjsh.org.cn/article/id/zgxxws201306015 LIU Z H, HUANG M H, WEI P M, et al. Health literacy status and its influencing factors among students in Jiangsu Province[J]. Chin J Sch Health, 2013, 34(6): 683-685. http://www.cjsh.org.cn/article/id/zgxxws201306015
[11]	WANG L L, QU G B, TANG X, et al. Child neglect and its association with social living ability: does the resilience attenuate the association?[J]. Psychol Health Med, 2019, 24(5): 519-529. doi: 10.1080/13548506.2018.1549743
[12]	罗如帆. 照顾者对儿童心理的信念、亲子谈话与儿童心理理论[D]. 北京: 北京大学, 2010. LUO R F. Caregivers' belief in children's psychology, parent-child conversation and children's psychological theory[D]. Beijing: Peking University, 2010.
[13]	HELEN B H C. The role of early childhood education programmes in the promotion of child and adolescent mental health in low-and middle-income countries[J]. Int J Epidemiol, 2014, 43(2): 407-433. doi: 10.1093/ije/dyt226
[14]	CAMILLA K M L, FREDERICK K H, ROSA S W, et al. Prevalence of child maltreatment and its association with parenting style: a population study in Hong Kong[J]. Int J Environ Res Public Health, 2019, 16(7): 1130. doi: 10.3390/ijerph16071130
[15]	王红英, 李胜, 刘应焱, 等. 隔代照顾对中国儿童健康状况的影响[J]. 中国学校卫生, 2021, 42(1): 46-49. doi: 10.16835/j.cnki.1000-9817.2021.01.011 WANG H Y, LI S, LIU Y Y, et al. Impact of intergenerational care on child physical health in China[J]. Chin J Sch Health, 2021, 42(1): 46-49. doi: 10.16835/j.cnki.1000-9817.2021.01.011
[16]	鞠文静, 朱立婉, 王苗, 等. 大学生10岁前心理攻击和体罚对焦虑及健康危险行为的影响[J]. 中国学校卫生, 2021, 42(5): 728-732. doi: 10.16835/j.cnki.1000-9817.2021.05.021 JU W J, ZHU L W, WANG M, et al. Effects of the psychological aggression and corporal punishment college students experienced before the age of 10 on anxiety and health related risky behaviors[J]. Chin J Sch Health, 2021, 42(5): 728-732. doi: 10.16835/j.cnki.1000-9817.2021.05.021
[17]	雷军, 蒋淑卿, 金海菊, 等. 家庭氛围对学龄前儿童身心健康的影响研究[J]. 中国预防医学杂志, 2010, 11(6): 579-581. https://www.cnki.com.cn/Article/CJFDTOTAL-ZGYC201006014.htm LEI J, JIANG S Q, JIN H J, et al. Impact of family environment on psychological and behavior development of preschool children[J]. Chin Prev Med, 2010, 11(6): 579-581. https://www.cnki.com.cn/Article/CJFDTOTAL-ZGYC201006014.htm
[18]	AHMET C, ADNAN V E. Frequent witnessing to interparental conflict and low parental availability for leisure-time is associated with dysfunctional voiding in primary school children[J]. Int J Clin Pract, 2021, 75(4): e13920.
[19]	梁丽婵, 边玉芳, 陈欣银, 等. 父母冲突的稳定性及对初中生心理健康影响的时间效应: 一个追踪研究[J]. 心理科学, 2015, 38(1): 27-34. https://www.cnki.com.cn/Article/CJFDTOTAL-XLKX201501004.htm LIANG L C, BIAN Y F, CHEN X Y, et al. The stability of interparental conflict and time-related effects of interparental conflict on mental health of junior school students: a longitudinal study[J]. J Psychol Sci, 2015, 38(1): 27-34. https://www.cnki.com.cn/Article/CJFDTOTAL-XLKX201501004.htm
[20]	葛晓云, 刘维韦, 娄海琴, 等. 江苏南通市学龄前儿童生存质量现状及其与家庭社会资本的相关性研究[J]. 现代预防医学, 2018, 45(9): 1578-1580, 1607. https://www.cnki.com.cn/Article/CJFDTOTAL-XDYF201809010.htm GE X Y, LIU W W, LOU H Q, et al. Relationship between status quo of quality of life and household social capital among preschool children in Nantong, Jiangsu[J]. Mod Prev Med, 2018, 45(9): 1578-1580, 1607. https://www.cnki.com.cn/Article/CJFDTOTAL-XDYF201809010.htm