發(fā)布時(shí)間：2018-06-19 19:15

  本文選題：大學(xué)生 + 自傷行為��； 參考：《皖南醫(yī)學(xué)院》2017年碩士論文

【摘要】：目的:對(duì)蕪湖市、淮南市四所高校進(jìn)行調(diào)查,描述大學(xué)生自傷行為的流行現(xiàn)狀,分析大學(xué)生自傷行為的影響因素,為大學(xué)生自傷行為的防治提供科學(xué)依據(jù)。方法:采用分層整群抽樣的方法選取兩地四所高校進(jìn)行問卷調(diào)查,采用匿名調(diào)查的方法進(jìn)行調(diào)查,調(diào)查內(nèi)容包括大學(xué)生的基本人口學(xué)情況、自我傷害行為情況、父母養(yǎng)育方式量表、青少年生活事件量表。結(jié)果:本次研究共調(diào)查4989人,平均年齡為(20.19±1.58)歲,有1526人進(jìn)行過1~2次自傷行為,占30.58%,有538人進(jìn)行過3次及以上自傷行為,占1.78%。1.一般人口學(xué)特征與大學(xué)生自傷行為檢出率:1)年齡:本次調(diào)查人群中,大學(xué)生年齡最小為15歲,年齡最大為27歲。16歲組,1~2次自傷檢出率最高,19歲組3次及以上自傷行為檢出率最高,不同年齡組自傷行為發(fā)生次數(shù)有差別,χ2=31.724,P0.001。2)獨(dú)生子女:共調(diào)查1706名獨(dú)生子女,占34.20%,獨(dú)生子女中有208人進(jìn)行過3次或以上自傷行為(占12.19%),高于非獨(dú)生子女,且獨(dú)生子女與非獨(dú)生子女自傷行為進(jìn)行次數(shù)有差別(χ2=6.048,P=0.049)。3)出生地:造成組織傷、無肉眼可見傷、造成心理傷害自傷行為、總體自傷行為中,出生地不同自傷行為檢出率不同(P0.05)。4)院校類型:共調(diào)查4243名醫(yī)學(xué)院校大學(xué)生,746名非醫(yī)學(xué)專業(yè)大學(xué)生。在造成組織傷、無肉眼可見傷、具有潛在危害行為、造成心理傷害、總體自傷行為中,醫(yī)學(xué)類專業(yè)與非醫(yī)學(xué)類專業(yè)大學(xué)生自傷行為檢出率不同(P0.001)。5)父母文化程度:父親文化程度為初中的有2339人,占46.88%,造成組織損傷、具有潛在危害、造成心理傷害自傷行為中,父親不同文化程度的大學(xué)生發(fā)生自傷行為次數(shù)有差別(χ2=31.394,P0.001;χ2=15.681,P=0.047;χ2=18.774,P=0.016)。母親文化程度為初中的最多,有1819人,占36.46%,造成心理傷害自我傷害行為中,母親不同文化程度的大學(xué)生發(fā)生自我傷害行為次數(shù)差別有統(tǒng)計(jì)學(xué)意義(χ2=22.298,P=0.004)。6)父母職業(yè):父親職業(yè)為農(nóng)民的有1561人,占31.29%,造成組織傷、無肉眼可見傷自我傷害行為中,父親不同職業(yè)的大學(xué)生發(fā)生自我傷害行為次數(shù)差別有統(tǒng)計(jì)學(xué)意義(χ2=24.027,P=0.020;χ2=36.763,P0.001)�？傮w來看,父親不同職業(yè)的大學(xué)生發(fā)生自傷行為次數(shù)有差別(χ2=22.489,P=0.032)。母親職業(yè)為農(nóng)民的有1633,占32.73%,無肉眼可見傷、造成心理傷害自傷行為中,母親不同職業(yè)的大學(xué)生發(fā)生自我傷害行為次數(shù)差別有統(tǒng)計(jì)學(xué)意義(χ2=25.023,p=0.015;χ2=25.768,p=0.012)�？傮w上,母親不同職業(yè)的大學(xué)生發(fā)生自我傷害行為次數(shù)差別有統(tǒng)計(jì)學(xué)意義(χ2=27.806,p=0.006)。7)家庭類型:調(diào)查對(duì)象來自核心家庭的有3564人,占71.44%,擴(kuò)展家庭1109人,占22.33%,單親家庭185人,占3.71%,重組家庭126人,占2.53%。高致命、具有潛在危害、造成心理傷害自傷行為中,來自不同家庭類型的大學(xué)生發(fā)生自我傷害行為次數(shù)差別有統(tǒng)計(jì)學(xué)意義(χ2=15.130,p=0.012;χ2=12.800,p=0.046;χ2=13.773,p=0.032)。8)主要照顧者:大學(xué)生主要照顧者為父母的最多,為4497人。造成組織傷、無肉眼可見傷、具有潛在危害、造成心理傷害、總體自傷行為中,主要照顧者不同的大學(xué)生進(jìn)行自傷行為次數(shù)不同(p0.05)。2.與父母關(guān)系和大學(xué)生自傷行為:造成組織損傷、無肉眼可見損傷、具有潛在危害行為、造成心理傷害、總體自傷行為中,與不同父母關(guān)系大學(xué)生進(jìn)行自傷行為次數(shù)差異有統(tǒng)計(jì)學(xué)意義(p0.05)。3.父母養(yǎng)育方式、青少年生活事件與大學(xué)生自傷行為:1)父母養(yǎng)育方式:不同自傷行為發(fā)生次數(shù)中,父親懲罰、嚴(yán)厲,過干涉,拒絕、否認(rèn)過保護(hù)評(píng)分不同且組間比較均有差異(p0.05);不同自傷行為發(fā)生次數(shù)中,母親情感溫暖、理解,過干涉、過保護(hù),拒絕、否認(rèn),懲罰、嚴(yán)厲評(píng)分有差別且組間比較均有差異(p0.05)。2)青少年生活事件:不同自傷行為發(fā)生次數(shù)中,受懲罰、喪失、人際壓力、學(xué)習(xí)壓力、適應(yīng)評(píng)分均有差別且組間比較均有差異(p0.05)。4.logistic回歸分析:單因素分析中,按照α=0.10,有性別、年齡、是否為獨(dú)生子女等30個(gè)變量進(jìn)入多因素logistic回歸模型中。男性發(fā)生自傷行為的可能性比女性高(or=0.515,95%ci為0.409~0.650);年齡與大學(xué)生自傷行為相關(guān)(or=0.922,95%ci為0.859~0.991);與母親關(guān)系好壞與大學(xué)生自傷行為有關(guān)(or=1.527,95%ci為1.139~2.048)。對(duì)自己要求高低、學(xué)習(xí)成績自評(píng)、遇到困難向朋友同學(xué)求助與大學(xué)生自傷行為相關(guān)(or=0.741,95%ci為0.604~0.910;or=0.691,95%ci為0.554~0.863;or=0.759,95%ci為0.605~0.951)。父親情感溫暖、理解是大學(xué)生自傷行為發(fā)生的保護(hù)因素,父親過保護(hù)、母親偏愛被試、喪失、人際壓力、學(xué)習(xí)壓力、適應(yīng)是大學(xué)生自傷行為發(fā)生的危險(xiǎn)因素(p0.05)。結(jié)論:本次研究發(fā)現(xiàn)大學(xué)生自我傷害行為檢出率較高,1~2次檢出率為30.58%。男性、與母親關(guān)系不和睦、對(duì)自己要求低、學(xué)習(xí)成績自評(píng)較差、遇到困難不求助的大學(xué)生更有可能進(jìn)行自傷行為。父親過保護(hù)、母親偏愛被試、大學(xué)生遇到喪失、人際壓力、學(xué)習(xí)壓力、適應(yīng)事件是大學(xué)生進(jìn)行自傷行為的危險(xiǎn)因素。父親情感溫暖、理解是大學(xué)生自傷行為發(fā)生的保護(hù)因素。父母應(yīng)該加強(qiáng)與子女的溝通,及時(shí)了解子女的心理需求。學(xué)校應(yīng)該密切觀察大學(xué)生的心理變化,如有需要及時(shí)給予干預(yù)。學(xué)校還應(yīng)加大正能量、積極向上生命態(tài)度的宣傳,學(xué)校輔導(dǎo)員應(yīng)該多關(guān)心大學(xué)生的心理健康情況,定期開展正確宣泄負(fù)面情緒方法的指導(dǎo)課程。
[Abstract]:Objective: To investigate four universities in Wuhu and Huainan, to describe the current status of self injury behavior of college students, to analyze the influencing factors of self injury behavior of college students, and to provide scientific basis for the prevention and treatment of self injury behavior of college students. Methods: four colleges and universities in two areas were selected by stratified cluster sampling, and the anonymous investigation was adopted. The survey included the basic demography, self injurious behavior, parental rearing pattern, and adolescent life event scale. Results: a total of 4989 people were investigated in this study, the average age was (20.19 + 1.58) years, and 1526 had 1~2 self injury, 30.58%, 3 times and more self injuries. Behavior, accounting for the general demographic characteristics of 1.78%.1. and the detection rate of self injury behavior of college students: 1) age: the age of the college students was 15 years old, the oldest was 27 years old in.16 group, the highest rate of self injury in 1~2 was the highest, and the highest rate of self injury of 3 times and above in 19 years old group, and the frequency of the occurrence of self injury in different age groups was different, X 2=31.72 4, P0.001.2) only child: a total of 1706 only children, 34.20%, 208 of the only children had 3 or more self injuries (12.19%), higher than non only children, and the only child and non only child self injury behavior was different (x 2=6.048, P =0.049).3) birthplace: cause tissue injury, no visible injury, cause heart injury, cause the heart A total of 4243 medical college students and 746 non medical college students were investigated in a total of 4243 medical college students and 746 non medical college students. The detection rate of self injury behavior of college students with non medical specialty is different (P0.001).5) parents' educational level: father's education degree is 2339 in junior middle school, accounting for 46.88%, causing organizational damage and potential harm, and the number of self injury behaviors of college students with different degrees of psychological injury is different (x 2=31.394, P0.001; Chi 2=15.681, P=0.047; Chi 2=18.774, P=0.016). Mother's educational level was the highest in junior high school, with 1819 people, accounting for 36.46%. In the psychological injury self injury behavior, there was a significant difference in the number of self injurious behavior of the students with different educational levels of mother (x 2= 22.298, P=0.004).6) parents Occupation: father occupation was 1561 of farmers, In 31.29%, there was a significant difference in the number of self injurious behavior among the students of different professions of father (x 2=24.027, P=0.020; X 2=36.763, P0.001). There were 1633 and 32.73% of the peasants, and there was no visible injury to the naked eye. In the behavior of psychological injury, there was a significant difference in the number of self injurious behavior between the mothers of different professions (x 2=25.023, p=0.015; X 2=25.768, p=0.012). Meaning (chi 2=27.806, p=0.006).7) family type: 3564 people from the core family, accounting for 71.44%, 1109 extended families, 22.33%, 185 family and 3.71% of single parent families, 126 of the family, which have high fatal and potential harm to 2.53%., resulting in self injury from different types of family types. There were statistical significance (x 2=15.130, p=0.012; X 2=12.800, p=0.046; Chi 2=13.773, p=0.032).8) main caregivers: the main caregivers of college students were the most parents, which were 4497. It caused tissue injury, no visible injury to the naked eye, potential harm, psychological injury, and the overall self injury behavior, the main caregivers of different college students carried out. Different times of self injury (P0.05).2. and parental relationship and college students' self injury behavior: cause tissue injury, no visible damage to the naked eye, potentially harmful behavior, cause psychological injury, and in the overall self injury behavior, the number of self injury behavior of college students with different parents' relationship is statistically significant (P0.05).3. parenting style, teenager Life events and self injury behavior of college students: 1) parental rearing patterns: the number of different self injury behavior, father punishment, severity, interference, refusal, and denial of different protection scores and differences between groups (P0.05); mother's emotional warmth, understanding, overinterference, over protection, refusal, denial, punishment, severity in the occurrence of different injuries. There were differences in scores and differences among groups (P0.05).2) adolescent life events: in the number of different injuries, punishment, loss, interpersonal stress, learning pressure, and adaptation scores were different and there was a difference between groups (P0.05).4.logistic regression analysis: in single factor analysis, according to alpha =0.10, sex, age, and only one life In the multifactor logistic regression model, 30 variables such as children were involved in the multiple factor regression model. The possibility of self injury was higher than that of the female (or=0.515,95%ci 0.409~0.650); age was related to the self injury behavior of college students (or=0.922,95%ci 0.859~0.991); the relationship with the mother was related to the self injury behavior of the college students (or=1.527,95%ci 1.139~2.048). Ask for high and low, self-evaluation of academic achievement, the difficulty of seeking help from friends and classmates and self injury of college students (or=0.741,95%ci is 0.604~0.910; or=0.691,95%ci is 0.554~0.863; or=0.759,95%ci is 0.605~0.951). Father's feeling is warm, understanding is the protection factor of College Students' self injury, father is protected, mother favors subjects, loses, people Inter pressure, learning pressure and adaptation are the risk factors for self injury behavior of college students (P0.05). Conclusion: This study found that the detection rate of self injury behavior of college students is higher, 1~2 detection rate is 30.58%. male, the relationship with the mother is not harmonious, the demand for themselves is low, the achievement of self-assessment is poor, the college students are more likely to enter the difficulties and not seek help. Self injury behavior. Father over protection, mother's preference for subjects, college students encounter loss, interpersonal pressure, learning pressure, adaptation events are the risk factors of College Students' self injury behavior. Father's emotional warmth, understanding is the protection of self injury behavior of college students. Parents should strengthen communication with their children to understand the psychological needs of their children in time. Schools should closely observe the psychological changes of college students, such as the need to intervene in time. The school should also add positive energy, positive attitude to life, school counselors should pay more attention to the psychological health of college students, and regularly carry out the right to vent the negative emotional methods of guidance courses.
【學(xué)位授予單位】：皖南醫(yī)學(xué)院
【學(xué)位級(jí)別】：碩士
【學(xué)位授予年份】：2017
【分類號(hào)】：B845.67

【參考文獻(xiàn)】

相關(guān)期刊論文 前10條

1 易利民;郭愛鴿;;地方高校大學(xué)生自傷行為狀況調(diào)查[J];教育現(xiàn)代化;2016年38期

2 黃琴琴;張連生;;大學(xué)生非自殺性自傷行為危險(xiǎn)因素分析[J];中國心理衛(wèi)生雜志;2016年08期

3 王玉龍;覃雅蘭;肖璨;藺秀云;;父母沖突與青少年自傷的關(guān)系:一個(gè)有調(diào)節(jié)的中介模型[J];心理發(fā)展與教育;2016年03期

4 湯建軍;郝加虎;韓慧;萬宇輝;李紅影;顧璇;秦同;王苗苗;;蚌埠市中學(xué)生手機(jī)使用依賴與傷害發(fā)生的關(guān)系[J];中國學(xué)校衛(wèi)生;2016年02期

5 辛秀紅;姚樹橋;;青少年直接自傷行為的發(fā)生率及與生活事件的關(guān)系[J];中國臨床心理學(xué)雜志;2016年01期

6 吳曉瑞;萬宇輝;許韶君;;高職大學(xué)生情緒癥狀與自傷行為關(guān)聯(lián)性分析[J];中國學(xué)校衛(wèi)生;2016年01期

7 周東東;況利;艾明;牛亞娟;費(fèi)立鵬;;重慶市大學(xué)生非自殺性自傷及其影響因素分析[J];重慶醫(yī)科大學(xué)學(xué)報(bào);2016年01期

8 李蘇燕;程勤華;賈孫玉;曾銀川;;高職學(xué)生自傷行為調(diào)查及功能性評(píng)估[J];四川精神衛(wèi)生;2015年03期

9 劉偉;劉偉佳;郭重山;林琳;林蓉;熊莉華;陳思宇;;廣州市2008年與2013年青少年自傷與自殺相關(guān)行為的比較研究[J];現(xiàn)代預(yù)防醫(yī)學(xué);2015年11期

10 辛秀紅;姚樹橋;;青少年生活事件量表效度與信度的再評(píng)價(jià)及常模更新[J];中國心理衛(wèi)生雜志;2015年05期

相關(guān)碩士學(xué)位論文 前10條

1 李兵超;中學(xué)生自傷行為調(diào)查分析及其干預(yù)[D];江西師范大學(xué);2016年

2 張家鑫;家庭功能與特殊家庭青少年自傷的關(guān)系[D];湖南師范大學(xué);2016年

3 陳靜;青少年自傷行為不同發(fā)展階段的心理行為因素分析[D];安徽醫(yī)科大學(xué);2015年

4 劉斌;高職醫(yī)專學(xué)生自傷行為的調(diào)查及生命態(tài)度關(guān)系的研究[D];吉林大學(xué);2015年

5 王婷婷;大學(xué)生自傷行為及其心理社會(huì)因素分析[D];安徽醫(yī)科大學(xué);2013年

6 邵際曉;重慶市青少年學(xué)生亞健康現(xiàn)況及其危險(xiǎn)行為因素研究[D];重慶醫(yī)科大學(xué);2012年

7 張繼香;青少年自我傷害行為及其影響因素研究[D];山東大學(xué);2011年

8 王蕾;大連市初中生自我傷害行為流行病學(xué)調(diào)查及相關(guān)分析[D];大連醫(yī)科大學(xué);2011年

9 王三菊;大學(xué)生自我傷害的相關(guān)因素調(diào)查分析[D];泰山醫(yī)學(xué)院;2010年

10 萬宇輝;青少年亞健康與多種身心健康問題的相關(guān)性研究[D];安徽醫(yī)科大學(xué);2009年

，

本文編號(hào)：2040977