大学生自伤行为现状及影响因素研究

发布时间：2018-06-19 19:15

本文选题：大学生 + 自伤行为　；参考：《皖南医学院》2017年硕士论文

【摘要】：目的:对芜湖市、淮南市四所高校进行调查,描述大学生自伤行为的流行现状,分析大学生自伤行为的影响因素,为大学生自伤行为的防治提供科学依据。方法:采用分层整群抽样的方法选取两地四所高校进行问卷调查,采用匿名调查的方法进行调查,调查内容包括大学生的基本人口学情况、自我伤害行为情况、父母养育方式量表、青少年生活事件量表。结果:本次研究共调查4989人,平均年龄为(20.19±1.58)岁,有1526人进行过1~2次自伤行为,占30.58%,有538人进行过3次及以上自伤行为,占1.78%。1.一般人口学特征与大学生自伤行为检出率:1)年龄:本次调查人群中,大学生年龄最小为15岁,年龄最大为27岁。16岁组,1~2次自伤检出率最高,19岁组3次及以上自伤行为检出率最高,不同年龄组自伤行为发生次数有差别,χ2=31.724,P0.001。2)独生子女:共调查1706名独生子女,占34.20%,独生子女中有208人进行过3次或以上自伤行为(占12.19%),高于非独生子女,且独生子女与非独生子女自伤行为进行次数有差别(χ2=6.048,P=0.049)。3)出生地:造成组织伤、无肉眼可见伤、造成心理伤害自伤行为、总体自伤行为中,出生地不同自伤行为检出率不同(P0.05)。4)院校类型:共调查4243名医学院校大学生,746名非医学专业大学生。在造成组织伤、无肉眼可见伤、具有潜在危害行为、造成心理伤害、总体自伤行为中,医学类专业与非医学类专业大学生自伤行为检出率不同(P0.001)。5)父母文化程度:父亲文化程度为初中的有2339人,占46.88%,造成组织损伤、具有潜在危害、造成心理伤害自伤行为中,父亲不同文化程度的大学生发生自伤行为次数有差别(χ2=31.394,P0.001;χ2=15.681,P=0.047;χ2=18.774,P=0.016)。母亲文化程度为初中的最多,有1819人,占36.46%,造成心理伤害自我伤害行为中,母亲不同文化程度的大学生发生自我伤害行为次数差别有统计学意义(χ2=22.298,P=0.004)。6)父母职业:父亲职业为农民的有1561人,占31.29%,造成组织伤、无肉眼可见伤自我伤害行为中,父亲不同职业的大学生发生自我伤害行为次数差别有统计学意义(χ2=24.027,P=0.020;χ2=36.763,P0.001)。总体来看,父亲不同职业的大学生发生自伤行为次数有差别(χ2=22.489,P=0.032)。母亲职业为农民的有1633,占32.73%,无肉眼可见伤、造成心理伤害自伤行为中,母亲不同职业的大学生发生自我伤害行为次数差别有统计学意义(χ2=25.023,p=0.015;χ2=25.768,p=0.012)。总体上,母亲不同职业的大学生发生自我伤害行为次数差别有统计学意义(χ2=27.806,p=0.006)。7)家庭类型:调查对象来自核心家庭的有3564人,占71.44%,扩展家庭1109人,占22.33%,单亲家庭185人,占3.71%,重组家庭126人,占2.53%。高致命、具有潜在危害、造成心理伤害自伤行为中,来自不同家庭类型的大学生发生自我伤害行为次数差别有统计学意义(χ2=15.130,p=0.012;χ2=12.800,p=0.046;χ2=13.773,p=0.032)。8)主要照顾者:大学生主要照顾者为父母的最多,为4497人。造成组织伤、无肉眼可见伤、具有潜在危害、造成心理伤害、总体自伤行为中,主要照顾者不同的大学生进行自伤行为次数不同(p0.05)。2.与父母关系和大学生自伤行为:造成组织损伤、无肉眼可见损伤、具有潜在危害行为、造成心理伤害、总体自伤行为中,与不同父母关系大学生进行自伤行为次数差异有统计学意义(p0.05)。3.父母养育方式、青少年生活事件与大学生自伤行为:1)父母养育方式:不同自伤行为发生次数中,父亲惩罚、严厉,过干涉,拒绝、否认过保护评分不同且组间比较均有差异(p0.05);不同自伤行为发生次数中,母亲情感温暖、理解,过干涉、过保护,拒绝、否认,惩罚、严厉评分有差别且组间比较均有差异(p0.05)。2)青少年生活事件:不同自伤行为发生次数中,受惩罚、丧失、人际压力、学习压力、适应评分均有差别且组间比较均有差异(p0.05)。4.logistic回归分析:单因素分析中,按照α=0.10,有性别、年龄、是否为独生子女等30个变量进入多因素logistic回归模型中。男性发生自伤行为的可能性比女性高(or=0.515,95%ci为0.409~0.650);年龄与大学生自伤行为相关(or=0.922,95%ci为0.859~0.991);与母亲关系好坏与大学生自伤行为有关(or=1.527,95%ci为1.139~2.048)。对自己要求高低、学习成绩自评、遇到困难向朋友同学求助与大学生自伤行为相关(or=0.741,95%ci为0.604~0.910;or=0.691,95%ci为0.554~0.863;or=0.759,95%ci为0.605~0.951)。父亲情感温暖、理解是大学生自伤行为发生的保护因素,父亲过保护、母亲偏爱被试、丧失、人际压力、学习压力、适应是大学生自伤行为发生的危险因素(p0.05)。结论:本次研究发现大学生自我伤害行为检出率较高,1~2次检出率为30.58%。男性、与母亲关系不和睦、对自己要求低、学习成绩自评较差、遇到困难不求助的大学生更有可能进行自伤行为。父亲过保护、母亲偏爱被试、大学生遇到丧失、人际压力、学习压力、适应事件是大学生进行自伤行为的危险因素。父亲情感温暖、理解是大学生自伤行为发生的保护因素。父母应该加强与子女的沟通,及时了解子女的心理需求。学校应该密切观察大学生的心理变化,如有需要及时给予干预。学校还应加大正能量、积极向上生命态度的宣传,学校辅导员应该多关心大学生的心理健康情况,定期开展正确宣泄负面情绪方法的指导课程。
[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.
【学位授予单位】：皖南医学院
【学位级别】：硕士
【学位授予年份】：2017
【分类号】：B845.67

【参考文献】