中小學(xué)校供水與學(xué)生衛(wèi)生知識(shí)的現(xiàn)況研究
發(fā)布時(shí)間：2018-08-16 11:03
【摘要】：目的：了解中小學(xué)校供水情況、環(huán)境衛(wèi)生和學(xué)生個(gè)人衛(wèi)生知識(shí)水平和行為的現(xiàn)狀,為學(xué)校以及教育主管部門(mén)制定有關(guān)干預(yù)計(jì)劃或政策提供基線資料。 方法：按照整群隨機(jī)抽樣方法,選擇陜西省、廣西省、湖南省、安徽省和重慶市的10個(gè)縣的100所學(xué)校為調(diào)查現(xiàn)場(chǎng),完成機(jī)構(gòu)基線調(diào)查與學(xué)生衛(wèi)生知識(shí)調(diào)查。調(diào)查數(shù)據(jù)用EpiData3.1進(jìn)行錄入,同時(shí)進(jìn)行邏輯糾錯(cuò),使用spss17.0對(duì)數(shù)據(jù)進(jìn)行整理和分析。對(duì)機(jī)構(gòu)調(diào)查的數(shù)據(jù)作統(tǒng)計(jì)描述以及學(xué)校類(lèi)型和學(xué)校所在地之間的比較；對(duì)學(xué)生問(wèn)卷的抽樣調(diào)查分析涉及統(tǒng)計(jì)描述以及學(xué)校類(lèi)型、學(xué)校所在地、性別、調(diào)查方式和年齡組間的統(tǒng)計(jì)推斷；對(duì)學(xué)生問(wèn)卷的衛(wèi)生知識(shí)和行為部分采用賦值法(正確=1,不正確=0)求得總分,并把總分作為因變量和其他相關(guān)的協(xié)變量建立Logistic回歸模型,探究學(xué)校中影響其衛(wèi)生知識(shí)和行為評(píng)分的主要因素。統(tǒng)計(jì)描述時(shí),對(duì)于計(jì)量資料,若符合正態(tài)分布,用均值(x)反映其集中趨勢(shì),用標(biāo)準(zhǔn)差(S)反映其離散趨勢(shì)；若不符合正態(tài)分布,則用中位數(shù)(M)反映其集中趨勢(shì),用四分位數(shù)間距(QL-QL)反映其離散趨勢(shì)。統(tǒng)計(jì)推斷對(duì)于率的資料采用x2檢驗(yàn),必要時(shí)采用Fisher精確概率法,統(tǒng)計(jì)分析結(jié)果給出檢驗(yàn)統(tǒng)計(jì)量及其對(duì)應(yīng)的P值,假設(shè)檢驗(yàn)水準(zhǔn)定為α=0.05。 結(jié)果：1)學(xué)校衛(wèi)生管理情況：學(xué)校大部分的衛(wèi)生管理工作實(shí)施率在80%以上,但是學(xué)校學(xué)生衛(wèi)生自我評(píng)價(jià)的開(kāi)展率較低,為48.9%。僅有不到一半的學(xué)校(42.9%)聘請(qǐng)健康教育老師,12%的學(xué)校配置專(zhuān)職的校醫(yī)(或保健教師)。學(xué)校健康教育課覆蓋率較高,為95%,但是衛(wèi)生習(xí)慣的形成率卻較低。非寄宿學(xué)校的大部分衛(wèi)生管理工作差于寄宿學(xué)校,鄉(xiāng)村學(xué)校的衛(wèi)生管理工作差于縣城學(xué)校。 2)學(xué)校供水情況：學(xué)校對(duì)“飲水監(jiān)督管理”方面的政策熟悉的較多,而對(duì)“二次供水衛(wèi)生規(guī)范”和“供水單位衛(wèi)生規(guī)范”熟悉較少。但是在學(xué)校類(lèi)型和學(xué)校所在地的比較中未發(fā)生學(xué)校對(duì)供水衛(wèi)生政策的了解有統(tǒng)計(jì)學(xué)差異。集中式供水的覆蓋率較低,為50.0%,非寄宿制學(xué)校和縣城學(xué)校多采用集中的自來(lái)水,而寄宿學(xué)校和鄉(xiāng)村學(xué)校多采用自備水源。學(xué)校自備水源周邊的防護(hù)率為90.9%,但是水源和蓄水池的消毒率均較低,不到一半的學(xué)校對(duì)水質(zhì)進(jìn)行定期檢測(cè),在這些學(xué)校中僅30.4%的學(xué)校有完備的消毒記錄。37所學(xué)校有二次供水設(shè)施,一半以上均無(wú)消毒設(shè)備,僅有32.4%的學(xué)校開(kāi)展一年二次的水質(zhì)檢測(cè)。學(xué)校中供學(xué)生使用的水龍頭總數(shù)雖然能達(dá)到,但分布在男女廁所的水龍頭數(shù)較少。調(diào)查的學(xué)校中有一半的學(xué)校的供水設(shè)施能得到很好的維護(hù),運(yùn)行良好。學(xué)校管理者認(rèn)為供水系統(tǒng)不能正常運(yùn)行的原因主要是系統(tǒng)老化和系統(tǒng)設(shè)計(jì)不當(dāng)。 3)學(xué)生衛(wèi)生知識(shí)知曉情況：有87%的學(xué)生認(rèn)為學(xué)習(xí)成績(jī)與衛(wèi)生知識(shí)同樣重要；多數(shù)學(xué)生對(duì)衛(wèi)生知識(shí)感興趣。學(xué)生對(duì)衛(wèi)生知識(shí)的知曉率較低,特別是對(duì)預(yù)防腹瀉途徑的正確認(rèn)識(shí)率只有17.4%,對(duì)通過(guò)洗手能預(yù)防的疾病的正確認(rèn)識(shí)率僅有11%,對(duì)“直接喝哪種水不生病”的正確認(rèn)識(shí)率只有36%。在衛(wèi)生知識(shí)的知曉方面縣城學(xué)生知曉率(%)普遍高于鄉(xiāng)村學(xué)生知曉率(%,P0.05),女生的知曉率(%)普遍高于男生知曉率(%,P0.05)。對(duì)于女生來(lái)說(shuō),約有57.6%的學(xué)生不知道女生的生理期,寄宿學(xué)校的女生對(duì)生理期的知曉率高于非寄宿學(xué)校的女生(P0.05)�？h城的女生對(duì)女生生理期的知曉率高于鄉(xiāng)村的女生(P0.05)。 結(jié)論：1)大多數(shù)學(xué)校的衛(wèi)生管理工作實(shí)施率在80%以上,衛(wèi)生管理制度比較全,城市學(xué)校衛(wèi)生管理工作好于農(nóng)村學(xué)校； 2)95%學(xué)校開(kāi)始了健康教育,但50%以上學(xué)校缺乏專(zhuān)門(mén)健康教育教師； 3)大多數(shù)學(xué)校供水來(lái)源為自來(lái)水和自備水源,不同學(xué)校水源存在差異,大多數(shù)學(xué)校供水設(shè)施老化,管理人員不熟悉二次供水的知識(shí)和規(guī)范標(biāo)準(zhǔn)； 4)學(xué)生的衛(wèi)生知識(shí)水平不高,主要影響因素包括性別、健康教育課、學(xué)校環(huán)境衛(wèi)生、廁所衛(wèi)生等。學(xué)校應(yīng)加強(qiáng)學(xué)生健康教育,做好衛(wèi)生知識(shí)的宣傳和衛(wèi)生行為的指導(dǎo)工作。
[Abstract]:OBJECTIVE: To understand the status of water supply, environmental hygiene and students'personal hygiene knowledge and behavior in primary and secondary schools, and to provide baseline data for schools and education authorities to formulate intervention plans or policies.
Methods: 100 schools in 10 counties of Shaanxi Province, Guangxi Province, Hunan Province, Anhui Province and Chongqing City were selected as the investigation sites by cluster random sampling method to complete the baseline survey and student health knowledge survey. Statistical descriptions of the survey data and the comparison between the types of schools and the locations of the schools were made. Sampling investigation and analysis of student questionnaires involved statistical descriptions and statistical inferences among school types, school locations, gender, survey methods and age groups. Valuation method was used to assess the health knowledge and behavior of the students'questionnaires. Logistic regression model was established by using the total score as a dependent variable and other related covariates to explore the main factors affecting school health knowledge and behavior scores. If it does not conform to the normal distribution, the centralized trend is reflected by the median (M) and the discrete trend is reflected by the quartile spacing (QL-QL).
Results: 1) School hygiene management: Most of the school hygiene management work implementation rate is above 80%, but the school students hygiene self-evaluation rate is low, 48.9%. Only less than half of the schools (42.9%) employ health education teachers, 12% of the schools allocate full-time school doctors (or health care teachers). School health education coverage The rate of hygiene management in non-boarding schools was worse than that in boarding schools, and that in rural schools was worse than that in County schools.
2) School water supply: The school is more familiar with the policy of "drinking water supervision and management", but less familiar with "secondary water supply hygiene standard" and "water supply unit hygiene standard". The coverage rate is low, at 50.0%. Most non-boarding schools and county schools use centralized tap water, while most boarding schools and rural schools use self-provided water. The protection rate around school-owned water sources is 90.9%. However, the disinfection rate of water sources and reservoirs is low. Less than half of schools carry out regular water quality testing in these schools. Only 30.4% of the schools had complete disinfection records. 37 schools had secondary water supply facilities, more than half had no disinfection equipment, and only 32.4% of the schools carried out twice a year water quality testing. The school's water supply facilities can be well maintained and run well. School administrators believe that the main reasons for the failure of the water supply system are system aging and improper system design.
3) Students'awareness of health knowledge: 87% of the students think that academic achievement is as important as health knowledge; most of the students are interested in health knowledge. Only 36% of the students knew what kind of water they drank without getting sick. The awareness rate of county students was higher than that of rural students (%, P 0.05). The awareness rate of female students (%) was higher than that of male students (%, P 0.05). For female students, about 57.6% did not know the physiological period of female students and boarding schools. The awareness rate of female students to physiological period was higher than that of non-boarding school girls (P 0.05). The awareness rate of female students to physiological period in county towns was higher than that in rural areas (P 0.05).
Conclusion: 1) The implementation rate of hygiene management in most schools is above 80%, and the hygiene management system is complete. The hygiene management in urban schools is better than that in rural schools.
2) 95% schools have started health education, but 50% of them lack special health education teachers.
3) Most schools supply water from tap water and self-provided water sources. Water sources vary from school to school. Most school water supply facilities are aging and managers are not familiar with the knowledge and standard of secondary water supply.
4) The level of students'hygiene knowledge is not high, and the main influencing factors include sex, health education courses, school environmental hygiene, toilet hygiene and so on.
【學(xué)位授予單位】：中南大學(xué)
【學(xué)位級(jí)別】：碩士
【學(xué)位授予年份】：2013
【分類(lèi)號(hào)】：R123.5
本文編號(hào)：2185796
[Abstract]:OBJECTIVE: To understand the status of water supply, environmental hygiene and students'personal hygiene knowledge and behavior in primary and secondary schools, and to provide baseline data for schools and education authorities to formulate intervention plans or policies.
Methods: 100 schools in 10 counties of Shaanxi Province, Guangxi Province, Hunan Province, Anhui Province and Chongqing City were selected as the investigation sites by cluster random sampling method to complete the baseline survey and student health knowledge survey. Statistical descriptions of the survey data and the comparison between the types of schools and the locations of the schools were made. Sampling investigation and analysis of student questionnaires involved statistical descriptions and statistical inferences among school types, school locations, gender, survey methods and age groups. Valuation method was used to assess the health knowledge and behavior of the students'questionnaires. Logistic regression model was established by using the total score as a dependent variable and other related covariates to explore the main factors affecting school health knowledge and behavior scores. If it does not conform to the normal distribution, the centralized trend is reflected by the median (M) and the discrete trend is reflected by the quartile spacing (QL-QL).
Results: 1) School hygiene management: Most of the school hygiene management work implementation rate is above 80%, but the school students hygiene self-evaluation rate is low, 48.9%. Only less than half of the schools (42.9%) employ health education teachers, 12% of the schools allocate full-time school doctors (or health care teachers). School health education coverage The rate of hygiene management in non-boarding schools was worse than that in boarding schools, and that in rural schools was worse than that in County schools.
2) School water supply: The school is more familiar with the policy of "drinking water supervision and management", but less familiar with "secondary water supply hygiene standard" and "water supply unit hygiene standard". The coverage rate is low, at 50.0%. Most non-boarding schools and county schools use centralized tap water, while most boarding schools and rural schools use self-provided water. The protection rate around school-owned water sources is 90.9%. However, the disinfection rate of water sources and reservoirs is low. Less than half of schools carry out regular water quality testing in these schools. Only 30.4% of the schools had complete disinfection records. 37 schools had secondary water supply facilities, more than half had no disinfection equipment, and only 32.4% of the schools carried out twice a year water quality testing. The school's water supply facilities can be well maintained and run well. School administrators believe that the main reasons for the failure of the water supply system are system aging and improper system design.
3) Students'awareness of health knowledge: 87% of the students think that academic achievement is as important as health knowledge; most of the students are interested in health knowledge. Only 36% of the students knew what kind of water they drank without getting sick. The awareness rate of county students was higher than that of rural students (%, P 0.05). The awareness rate of female students (%) was higher than that of male students (%, P 0.05). For female students, about 57.6% did not know the physiological period of female students and boarding schools. The awareness rate of female students to physiological period was higher than that of non-boarding school girls (P 0.05). The awareness rate of female students to physiological period in county towns was higher than that in rural areas (P 0.05).
Conclusion: 1) The implementation rate of hygiene management in most schools is above 80%, and the hygiene management system is complete. The hygiene management in urban schools is better than that in rural schools.
2) 95% schools have started health education, but 50% of them lack special health education teachers.
3) Most schools supply water from tap water and self-provided water sources. Water sources vary from school to school. Most school water supply facilities are aging and managers are not familiar with the knowledge and standard of secondary water supply.
4) The level of students'hygiene knowledge is not high, and the main influencing factors include sex, health education courses, school environmental hygiene, toilet hygiene and so on.
【學(xué)位授予單位】：中南大學(xué)
【學(xué)位級(jí)別】：碩士
【學(xué)位授予年份】：2013
【分類(lèi)號(hào)】：R123.5
【參考文獻(xiàn)】
相關(guān)期刊論文 前10條
1 方潔;張洪波;;某高校女大學(xué)生月經(jīng)機(jī)能與心理健康狀況相關(guān)性調(diào)查[J];安徽師范大學(xué)學(xué)報(bào)(自然科學(xué)版);2011年01期
2 楊海;楊月華;蔡正華;解順堂;翟云麗;;2007年西安地區(qū)中、小學(xué)校醫(yī)配置現(xiàn)況調(diào)查[J];地方病通報(bào);2009年02期
3 劉正丹;董家梅;文大秀;全新華;;荊門(mén)市58所農(nóng)村學(xué)校食堂衛(wèi)生狀況調(diào)查[J];公共衛(wèi)生與預(yù)防醫(yī)學(xué);2007年04期
4 楊虹;鐘格梅;唐振柱;陳莉;李裕利;李裕生;;廣西城鄉(xiāng)部分中小學(xué)寄宿學(xué)校飲用水污染狀況及其影響因素分析[J];應(yīng)用預(yù)防醫(yī)學(xué);2006年06期
5 蔣擁軍;高校后勤社會(huì)化后的食品衛(wèi)生安全管理初探[J];廣西大學(xué)學(xué)報(bào)(哲學(xué)社會(huì)科學(xué)版);2003年S1期
6 黃義福,劉建國(guó),武善忠;沂水縣鄉(xiāng)鎮(zhèn)中學(xué)食堂衛(wèi)生狀況的調(diào)查[J];包頭醫(yī)學(xué)院學(xué)報(bào);2003年01期
7 應(yīng)曉軍;;學(xué)校食堂衛(wèi)生設(shè)施調(diào)查及衛(wèi)生監(jiān)督監(jiān)測(cè)結(jié)果分析[J];河北醫(yī)科大學(xué)學(xué)報(bào);2008年06期
8 鐘格梅;唐振柱;黃江平;李裕利;黎勇;劉展華;;2006年廣西農(nóng)村集中式供水水質(zhì)衛(wèi)生狀況調(diào)查[J];環(huán)境與健康雜志;2008年02期
9 白林凱;杜一嬌;岳滔;馮斌;;山西省集中式供水及二次供水衛(wèi)生狀況[J];環(huán)境與健康雜志;2009年01期
10 胡壽根;高波;范永國(guó);;信陽(yáng)市學(xué)校飲水衛(wèi)生管理現(xiàn)狀調(diào)查及監(jiān)管對(duì)策[J];河南預(yù)防醫(yī)學(xué)雜志;2012年01期
，本文編號(hào)：2185796
本文鏈接：http://sikaile.net/yixuelunwen/yufangyixuelunwen/2185796.html
最近更新
教材專(zhuān)著
