發(fā)布時間：2018-04-15 19:09

  本文選題：營養(yǎng)狀況 + 干預性研究　； 參考：《青島大學》2017年碩士論文

【摘要】：目的對小學生及家長進行強化干預和常規(guī)干預,比較強化干預和常規(guī)干預的干預效果,探討強化干預措施的有效性和進一步推廣的可行性。方法選取青島市市南區(qū)4所小學3~5年級的學生及家長分為干預組和對照組:干預組學生697人,對照組學生731人;干預組家長1113人,對照組家長1234人,干預組進行“特制教學計劃”“健康教育課程”和“大手拉小手”等有針對性的強化干預,對照組進行以“快樂10分鐘”為主的常規(guī)干預,且在干預前后對調查學生及家長進行問卷調查,對小學生進行體格檢查,評價營養(yǎng)干預效果,并運用SPSS19.0軟件對資料采用χ~2檢驗和t檢驗進行統(tǒng)計學分析。結果小學生健康知識知曉率:通過1年的干預措施,干預組提高了19.09%,對照組提高了3.31%(P0.01)。小學生健康行為養(yǎng)成率:干預前干預組和對照組相差不大(P0.05),干預后干預組“經(jīng)常吃新鮮蔬菜”、“經(jīng)常吃新鮮水果”和“放學后及周末進行體育鍛煉”明顯高于對照組(P0.01);通過1年的干預措施,干預組“每天都吃早餐”、“經(jīng)常吃新鮮蔬菜”、“經(jīng)常吃新鮮水果”、“每天都喝奶”、“放學后及周末進行體育鍛煉”均有明顯提高(P0.01),對照組變化不大(P0.05)。小學生BMI的變化情況:通過1年的干預措施,干預組小學生BMI增長值為(0.60±1.56)kg/m~2,對照組為(1.06±1.51)kg/m~2(P0.01)。小學生營養(yǎng)狀況:干預組和對照組改善均不明顯(P0.05)。家長營養(yǎng)干預結果:干預后,干預組小學生家長營養(yǎng)知識知曉率有明顯改善;小學生家長營養(yǎng)知識知曉率隨著文化程度的增高而增高(P0.05);干預組小學生家長大部分健康行為養(yǎng)成率有所提高。結論通過1年的營養(yǎng)干預措施,相較于常規(guī)干預,有針對性的營養(yǎng)健康教育對提高小學生和家長的營養(yǎng)知識知曉率、健康行為養(yǎng)成率和預防營養(yǎng)性疾病的發(fā)生等方面更有優(yōu)勢。
[Abstract]:Objective to compare the effect of intensive intervention and routine intervention on primary school students and their parents, and to explore the effectiveness and feasibility of intensive intervention.Methods the students and their parents were divided into two groups: intervention group (697 students), control group (731 students), intervention group (1113 parents) and control group (1234 parents).The intervention group received intensive intervention such as "special teaching plan" "health education course" and "big hand pulling small hand", while the control group received routine intervention with "happiness 10 minutes" as the main intervention.The students and parents were investigated by questionnaire before and after the intervention, the pupils were examined by physical examination, the effect of nutritional intervention was evaluated, and the data were analyzed statistically by 蠂 ~ 2 test and t test by SPSS19.0 software.Results the awareness rate of pupils' health knowledge: after one year's intervention, the intervention group increased 19.09% and the control group increased 3.31% P 0.01.The rate of health behavior formation of primary school students: there was no significant difference between the intervention group and the control group before the intervention, but the intervention group "often ate fresh vegetables" after the intervention."eat fresh fruit" and "physical exercise after school and weekend" were significantly higher than those in control group (P 0.01). After one year's intervention, the intervention group "ate breakfast every day", "often ate fresh vegetables", "often ate fresh fruit", and "often ate fresh fruit"."drinking milk every day", "physical exercise after school and weekend" were significantly improved, the control group did not change P0.05.The change of BMI in primary school students: after one year's intervention, the increase value of BMI in the intervention group was 0.60 鹵1.56 kg 路kg 路m ~ (-2) and that in the control group was 1.06 鹵1.51 kg 路kg ~ (-2) 路kg ~ (-1) 路kg ~ (-1) 路kg ~ (-1) 路m ~ (-1).Nutritional status of primary school students: the intervention group and the control group were not significantly improved P0.05.Results of parental nutrition intervention: after intervention, the awareness rate of parents' nutrition knowledge in the intervention group was obviously improved;The awareness rate of parents' nutrition knowledge increased with the increase of education level, and the rate of healthy behavior formation of most parents in the intervention group increased.Conclusion compared with routine intervention, nutritional health education has more advantages in improving the awareness rate of nutrition knowledge, developing healthy behavior and preventing the occurrence of nutritional diseases in primary school students and parents after one year's nutrition intervention.
【學位授予單位】：青島大學
【學位級別】：碩士
【學位授予年份】：2017
【分類號】：R153.2

【參考文獻】

相關期刊論文 前10條

1 張月珍;駱俊宏;;家長對肥胖兒童營養(yǎng)認知影響因素結構方程模型研究[J];中國婦幼健康研究;2016年08期

2 陳秀麗;湯宇洋;蔡鳳珠;張艷青;康燕蓉;;浦東新區(qū)川沙地區(qū)小學生營養(yǎng)干預效果評價[J];上海醫(yī)藥;2015年18期

3 周佳;馬迎華;段佳麗;孫穎;滕立新;趙海;;北京市中學生營養(yǎng)狀況及其與家長營養(yǎng)認知的關聯(lián)分析[J];中國學校衛(wèi)生;2015年08期

4 匡婷婷;楊來寶;楊郗;;上海市某社區(qū)小學生營養(yǎng)知識、態(tài)度與行為現(xiàn)況分析[J];上海醫(yī)藥;2015年14期

5 李春芳;;兒童單純性肥胖的生活環(huán)境因素分析對策[J];大家健康(學術版);2015年08期

6 吳寒;魏晶;劉小暉;宋揚;張華強;耿琳潔;;2013年青島市中小學生營養(yǎng)狀況分析[J];預防醫(yī)學論壇;2014年09期

7 吳秀芳;劉沛;;家庭因素對小學生營養(yǎng)知識、態(tài)度、行為的影響[J];江蘇預防醫(yī)學;2012年03期

8 石學香;李澤民;;2000年與2010年青島市城鄉(xiāng)中小學生營養(yǎng)狀況分析[J];預防醫(yī)學論壇;2012年04期

9 馮花;;營養(yǎng)宣教對南昌市城鎮(zhèn)小學生營養(yǎng)知識、營養(yǎng)態(tài)度、營養(yǎng)行為的影響[J];南昌大學學報(醫(yī)學版);2012年02期

10 張迎修;王志奎;;山東省中小學生體育煅煉對體質狀況的影響[J];中國學校衛(wèi)生;2012年02期

相關博士學位論文 前1條

1 關尚一;美國兒童青少年適宜體力活動推薦量的研究[D];華東師范大學;2010年

相關碩士學位論文 前6條

1 毛永明;體育運動干預對我國中學生體質健康影響的meta分析[D];西南大學;2011年

2 楊秀娟;球類健身運動方案對中學生健身效果的實驗研究[D];西安體育學院;2010年

3 鄧曉君;美國中小學營養(yǎng)服務研究[D];西南大學;2010年

4 趙羽莉;上海市某小學營養(yǎng)教育干預效果評估探討[D];復旦大學;2008年

5 許賢姬;延邊和沖繩縣小學生生活方式與骨密度關系的比較研究[D];延邊大學;2008年

6 夏天;對非病理性生長發(fā)育遲緩兒童青少年適宜運動干預強度的研究[D];首都體育學院;2008年

，

本文編號：1755404