Effectiveness of personality-informed interpersonal group counseling intervention among obese students in medical colleges
-
摘要:
目的 了解医学院校肥胖学生人格特征及心理干预疗效，为更好地培育医学生健康人格提供科学依据。 方法 分层随机抽取上海市5所医学院校2020级学生3 760名，按《国家学生体质健康标准》筛查肥胖学生，对80名自愿参与者分组(实验组与对照组各40名)，对照组不作条件处理，实验组进行为期3个月，每2周1次，120 min/次，共6次的人际团体辅导干预。采用16PF和人际交往能力问卷进行前后测数据分析。 结果 学生总体肥胖率3.30%，男生肥胖率(8.07%)高于女生(1.22%)(χ2=29.03，P < 0.01)，农村学生肥胖率(3.72%)高于城市学生(2.30%)(χ2=41.81，P < 0.01)。心理干预后，实验组在主动交往、适当拒绝、自我表露维度均高于对照组(t值分别为2.48，3.48，2.29，P值均 < 0.05)，乐群性、兴奋性、心理健康、新环境中有成长能力个性因素均高于对照组(t值分别为2.31，2.18，2.10，2.33，P值均 < 0.05)，敏感性、怀疑性、忧虑性、紧张性、适应与焦虑型均低于对照组(t值分别为-2.20，-2.08，-2.17，-2.20，-2.14，P值均 < 0.05)。 结论 人格特征心理干预效果显著，可有效提高肥胖学生的人际沟通能力，完善其人格品质。 Abstract:Objective To understand the personality traits and the effects of personality-informed intervention among obese students in medical colleges, and to provide a scientific basis for better cultivating the healthy personality of medical students. Methods A total of 3 760 students in the class of 2020 from 5 medical colleges were randomly selected in Shanghai. Obesity was defined according to the National Physical Health Standard for Students. A total of 80 students were divided into experiment and control group(each 40). The experimental group received 6 interpersonal group counseling interventions for 3 months, once every 2 weeks for 120 min, while the control group received no intervention. 16PF test and Interpersonal Competence Questionnaire were used for pre-test and post-test experiment for data analysis. Results The overall obesity rate of students was 3.30%. Obesity rate of boys(8.07%) was significantly higher than that of girls(1.22%) (χ2=29.03, P < 0. 01), and obesity rate of rural students(3.72%) was higher than that of urban students(2.30%) (χ2=41.81, P < 0.01). Through psychological intervention, active communication, appropriate refusal, self disclosure in the experimental group were significantly higher than the control group (t=2.48, 3.48, 2.29, P < 0.05); the scores of gregariousness, excitement, mental health, adaptation in new environment in the experimental group were significantly higher than those in the control group (t=2.31, 2.18, 2.10, 2.33, P < 0.05), sensitivity and suspicion, concern, tension, adaptation and anxiety were significantly lower than those in the control group (t=-2.20, -2.08, -2.17, -2.20, -2.14, P < 0.05). Conclusion Personality-informed interventionshowed substantial effects on interpersonal communication ability and personality traits among obese college students. -
Key words:
- Obesity /
- Mental health /
- Intervention studies /
- Personality /
- Students
1) 利益冲突声明 所有作者声明无利益冲突。 -
表 1 实验组与对照组干预前后人际交往能力比较(x±s)
Table 1. Comparison of interpersonal competence between experimental group and control group before and after intervention(x±s)
干预前后 组别 人数 统计值 主动交往 适当拒绝 自我表露 冲突管理 情感支持 总分 干预前 实验组 40 26.18±2.37 25.55±1.50 24.98±2.35 27.73±3.26 32.28±1.63 136.70±5.68 对照组 40 26.40±2.52 25.15±0.89 25.18±2.10 27.38±3.13 32.00±1.75 136.10±6.05 t值 -0.41 1.45 -0.40 0.49 0.73 0.46 P值 0.68 0.15 0.69 0.63 0.47 0.65 干预后 实验组 40 27.38±2.96* 27.18±2.53** 26.53±2.82** 29.28±3.71 32.83±1.72 143.18±7.03** 对照组 40 25.85±2.53 25.55±1.52 25.20±2.35 27.90±3.19 32.18±1.63 136.68±5.61 t值 2.48 3.48 2.29 1.78 1.73 4.57 P值 0.02 < 0.01 0.03 0.08 0.09 < 0.01 注：实验组干预前与干预后比较，*P < 0.05，**P < 0.01。 
下载: 导出CSV
表 2 干预前实验组与对照组16PF人格特质得分比较(x±s)
Table 2. Comparison of 16PF personality trait scores between experimental group and control group before intervention(x±s)
组别 人数 乐群性 聪慧性 稳定性 恃强性 兴奋性 有恒性 敢为性 敏感性 怀疑性 幻想性 世故性 忧虑性 实验组 40 4.30±2.16 5.48±1.45 5.23±2.57 6.35±2.23 6.33±2.25 4.35±1.93 5.45±2.60 4.85±2.12 5.20±1.87 6.15±1.49 6.38±2.05 5.40±2.17 对照组 40 4.48±2.16 5.45±1.45 5.13±2.67 6.45±2.29 6.35±2.21 4.28±1.93 5.43±2.41 4.78±2.01 5.28±2.36 6.28±1.62 6.48±2.05 5.58±2.16 t值 -0.36 0.08 0.17 -0.20 -0.05 0.17 0.05 0.16 -0.16 -0.36 -0.22 -0.36 P值 0.72 0.94 0.87 0.84 0.96 0.86 0.97 0.87 0.88 0.72 0.83 0.72 组别 人数 实验性 独立性 自律性 紧张性 适应与
焦虑型内向与
外向型感情用事与
安详机警型怯懦与
果断型心理健康 专业有成就
者个性因素创造能力
个性因素新环境中有
成长能力
个性因素实验组 40 4.98±1.58 5.40±1.95 5.40±1.46 6.40±1.82 5.81±2.34 5.75±2.54 6.75±2.44 6.41±2.03 21.85±6.79 52.53±11.24 5.25±1.98 18.95±3.99 对照组 40 5.13±1.64 5.58±1.85 5.28±1.54 6.48±1.84 5.75±2.36 5.85±2.62 6.73±2.40 6.44±2.13 21.88±6.65 52.30±11.61 5.15±1.96 18.93±3.74 t值 -0.42 -0.41 0.37 -0.18 0.11 -0.17 0.04 -0.07 -0.02 0.09 0.23 0.03 P值 0.68 0.68 0.71 0.86 0.91 0.86 0.97 0.95 0.99 0.93 0.82 0.98
下载: 导出CSV
表 3 干预后实验组与对照组16PF人格特质得分比较(x±s)
Table 3. Comparison of 16PF personality trait scores between experimental group and control group after intervention(x±s)
组别 人数 乐群性 聪慧性 稳定性 恃强性 兴奋性 有恒性 敢为性 敏感性 怀疑性 幻想性 世故性 忧虑性 实验组 40 5.43±1.71 5.85±1.46 5.48±2.17 6.33±1.95 7.30±1.57 4.53±1.57 5.55±2.23 3.68±1.54 4.15±1.66 6.25±1.24 6.33±1.97 4.35±1.42 对照组 40 4.40±2.23 5.50±1.49 5.23±2.53 6.35±2.36 6.33±2.36 4.38±2.05 5.50±2.59 4.63±2.26 5.18±2.64 6.20±1.65 6.43±2.36 5.28±2.29 t值 2.31 1.06 0.48 -0.05 2.18 0.37 0.09 -2.20 -2.08 0.15 -0.21 -2.17 P值 0.02 0.29 0.64 0.96 0.03 0.71 0.93 0.03 0.04 0.88 0.84 0.03 组别 人数 实验性 独立性 自律性 紧张性 适应与
焦虑型内向与
外向型感情用事与
安详机警型怯懦与
果断型心理健康 专业有成就
者个性因素创造能力
个性因素新环境中有
成长能力
个性因素实验组 40 5.23±1.35 5.20±1.83 5.43±1.43 5.45±0.99 4.79±1.70 6.24±2.54 6.68±2.35 6.76±2.12 24.75±5.05 52.83±10.45 5.45±1.45 20.78±3.21 对照组 40 5.05±1.80 5.38±2.08 5.33±1.70 6.38±2.10 5.79±2.41 5.82±2.71 6.77±2.48 6.43±2.07 21.88±7.03 52.65±11.45 5.23±2.12 18.98±3.68 t值 0.49 -0.40 0.29 -2.20 -2.14 0.72 -0.16 0.70 2.10 0.07 0.55 2.33 P值 0.62 0.69 0.78 0.01 0.04 0.48 0.87 0.48 0.04 0.94 0.58 0.02
下载: 导出CSV
-
[1] 脱瀚智, 朱贤利. 高校大学生肥胖相关指标与影响因素的分析研究[J]. 文体用品与科技, 2020, 24(24): 189-190. doi: 10.3969/j.issn.1006-8902.2020.24.091TUO H Z, ZHU X L. Analysis of obesity related indexes and influencing factors of college students[J]. Sci Technol Stat Sport Goods, 2020, 24(24): 189-190. doi: 10.3969/j.issn.1006-8902.2020.24.091 [2] 林强强. 不同BMI水平大学女生个性心理特征研究[D]. 苏州: 苏州大学, 2017.LIN Q Q. Study on personality psychological characteristics of college girls with different BMI levels[D]. Suzhou: Soochow University, 2017. [3] 胡南. 新时代医患纠纷的现状、成因及对策研究[J]. 中国卫生标准管理, 2020, 11(21): 20-23. doi: 10.3969/j.issn.1674-9316.2020.21.007HU N. Research on the current situation, causes and countermeasures of doctor-patient disputes in the new era[J]. Chin Health Standard Manag, 2020, 11(21): 20-23. doi: 10.3969/j.issn.1674-9316.2020.21.007 [4] 钟歆, 肖清滔, 钟成华. 人际关系团体辅导对回避型依恋者内部工作模型的改善[J]. 中国临床心理学杂志, 2019, 27(5): 1079-1083. https://www.cnki.com.cn/Article/CJFDTOTAL-ZLCY201905044.htmZHONG X, XIAO Q T, ZHONG C H. Improving the internal working model of avoidantly attached individuals by interpersonal relationship group counseling[J]. Chin J Clin Psychol, 2019, 27(5): 1079-1083. https://www.cnki.com.cn/Article/CJFDTOTAL-ZLCY201905044.htm [5] 祝蓓里, 戴忠恒. 卡氏十六人格因素中国常模的修订[J]. 心理科学, 1988(6): 16-20. https://www.cnki.com.cn/Article/CJFDTOTAL-XLKX198806003.htmZHU B L, DAI Z H. Revision of the Chinese norm of Cattell's Sixteen Personality Factors[J]. Chin J Clin Psychol, 1988(6): 16-20. https://www.cnki.com.cn/Article/CJFDTOTAL-XLKX198806003.htm [6] 程嘉锡, 陈国鹏. 16PF第五版在中国应用的信度与效度研究[J]. 中国临床心理学杂志, 2006, 14(1): 13-16. doi: 10.3969/j.issn.1005-3611.2006.01.005CHENG J X, CHEN G P. The validity and reliability research of 16PF 5th in China[J]. Chin J Clin Psychol, 2006, 14(1): 13-16. doi: 10.3969/j.issn.1005-3611.2006.01.005 [7] 魏源. 人际交往能力问卷在大学生中应用的信效度评价[J]. 中国学校卫生, 2005, 26(12): 1046-1048. doi: 10.3969/j.issn.1000-9817.2005.12.036WEI Y. Reliability and validity evaluation of interpersonal competence questionnaire in college students[J]. Chin J Sch Health, 2005, 26(12): 1046-1048. doi: 10.3969/j.issn.1000-9817.2005.12.036 [8] 王小雅, 祁巧茹, 卢晓翠, 等. 某医学院校大学生肥胖认知和减肥行为分析[J]. 中国学校卫生, 2015, 36(1): 54-60. http://www.cjsh.org.cn/article/id/zgxxws201501016WANG X Y, QI Q R, LU X C, et al. Perception of obesity and weight reduction behaviors among undergraduates[J]. Chin J Sch Health, 2015, 36(1): 54-60. http://www.cjsh.org.cn/article/id/zgxxws201501016 [9] 杨田, 张凯文, 高昇, 等. 内蒙古地区学生肥胖现状及影响因素分析[J]. 中国学校卫生, 2021, 42(4): 611-614. doi: 10.16835/j.cnki.1000-9817.2021.04.030YANG T, ZHANG K W, GAO S, et al. Obesity and associated factors among students in Inner Mongolia in 2019[J]. Chin J Sch Health, 2021, 42(4): 611-614. doi: 10.16835/j.cnki.1000-9817.2021.04.030 [10] 陈帅禹. 去抑制进食者奖赏加工优势的认知与神经机制[D]. 重庆: 西南大学, 2019.CHEN S Y. The cognitive and neural mechanisms of reward processing superiority for disinhibitied eaters[D]. Chongqing: Southwest University, 2019. [11] LIU J X, LEE Y J, MICHA R, et al. Trends in junk food consumption among US children and adults, 2001-2018[J]. Am J Clin Nutr, 2021, 114(3): 1039-1048. doi: 10.1093/ajcn/nqab129 [12] BUCKLAND N J, SWINNERTON L F, NG K, et al. Susceptibility to increased high energy dense sweet and savoury food intake in response to the COVID-19 lockdown: the role of craving control and acceptance coping strategies[J]. Appetite, 2021, 158(3): 158-160. [13] BENNETT J E, COOPER C, DENNISON E, et al. Rising rural body-mass index is the main driver of the global obesity epidemic in adults[J]. Nature, 2019, 569(5): 260-264. [14] 潘莉莉, 徐紫菡. 团体辅导对大学生人际交往能力提升的实证研究[J]. 安徽工业大学学报(社会科学版), 2021, 38(2): 105-108. doi: 10.3969/j.issn.1671-9247.2021.02.033PAN L L, XU Z H. An empirical study of the improvement of college students' interpersonal ability by group counseling[J]. J Anhui Univ Tech (Soc Sci Edit), 2021, 38(2): 105-108. doi: 10.3969/j.issn.1671-9247.2021.02.033 [15] KURZBAN R, LEARY M R. Evolutionary origins of stigmatization: the functions of social exclusion[J]. Psychol Bull, 2001, 127(2): 187-208. doi: 10.1037/0033-2909.127.2.187 [16] 鲁鑫, 谢波. 功能性高强度间歇训练结合呼吸饮食对肥胖大学生的干预效果[J]. 中国学校卫生, 2021, 42(4): 569-573. doi: 10.16835/j.cnki.1000-9817.2021.04.021LU X, XIE B. Effect of functional high-intensity interval training combined with inhalation dietary intervention on obese college students[J]. Chin J Sch Health, 2021, 42(4): 569-573. doi: 10.16835/j.cnki.1000-9817.2021.04.021 -
点击查看大图
表(3)
计量
- 文章访问数: 577
- HTML全文浏览量: 233
- PDF下载量: 28
- 被引次数: 0
