农村中学生暴力遭遇的流行病学研究

发布时间：2018-07-04 18:51

本文选题：暴力遭遇 + 受害者　；参考：《中南大学》2007年博士论文

【摘要】： 第一章农村中学生暴力遭遇及其危险因素研究目的: (1)了解农村中学暴力遭遇发生率,包括总的发生率以及年龄别、性别发生率等; (2)了解农村中学生暴力遭遇的流行特征,如暴力遭遇类型、遭遇场所、原因和后果等; (3)了解农村中学生暴力遭遇的危险因素,包括人口学、行为和社会心理因素等; (4)为农村中学生暴力干预提供研究依据。方法: 本研究为横断面研究,采用WHO暴力遭遇调查问卷,对随机选择的3620名农村中学生进行横断面的询问调查。采用epidata3.0进行数据录入,应用描述性统计方法分析各种类型暴力遭遇发生率及暴力遭遇特征,x~2检验分析各组暴力遭遇发生率的差别。以农村中学生从小至今或过去一年暴力遭遇作为应变量,应用logistic回归模型(Method=BackWard:LR,α_入=0.05,α_出=0.10),以人口学、行为和社会心理等因素为自变量,筛查可能的危险因素。结果: (1)在3620名被调查者中,41.0%的被调查者从小至今遭遇暴力,其中,情感暴力、躯体暴力和性暴力遭遇的发生率分别为27.4%、30.6%和3.2%。33.8%的被调查者在过去一年中遭遇暴力,其中,情感暴力、躯体暴力和性暴力遭遇的发生率分别为21.5%、24.3%和2.0%。 (2)男生从小至今和过去一年暴力遭遇发生率(51.3%和42.9%)高于女生(31.2%和25.3%)(x~2=151.54,P＜0.01和x~2=125.06,P＜0.01)。初中女生从小至今和过去一年暴力遭遇发生率(34.8%和29.6%)高于高中女生(27.7%和21.1%)(x~2=11.11,P＜0.01和x~2=18.06,P＜0.01);初中男生过去一年暴力遭遇发生率(45.8%)高于高中男生(39.8%)(x~2=6.50,P＜0.01)。 (3)施暴者中比例最多的是同学和校友(40.4%),其次是老师(21.3%)和陌生人(20.0%);学校是暴力遭遇的主要场所(55.7%),其次,放学途中(17.2%)和游乐场所(12.2%)。暴力遭遇的后果常见为心理伤害(67.9%),其次为皮肤擦(淤)伤(30.7%);仅31.8%受害者遭受暴力事件后寻求他人帮助。 (4)多因素logistic回归分析结果表明:从小至今,15-16岁年龄组的农村中学生暴力遭遇的危险性相对较高(OR=1.34,P＜0.01),过去一年,13-14岁和15-16岁年龄组的农村中学生暴力遭遇的危险性相对较高(OR=1.48,P＜0.01;OR=1.57,P＜0.01)。从小至今和过去一年,女生遭遇暴力的危险性低于男生(OR=0.49,P＜0.01和OR=0.51,P＜0.01);经常泡网吧者遭遇暴力的危险性高于不或极少泡网吧者(从小至今OR=1.39,P＜0.01和过去一年OR=1.27,P＜0.05,下同);同样,经常玩电游者(OR=1.50,P＜0.05和OR=1.49,P＜0.05)、经常吸烟者(OR=1.82,P＜0.05和OR=2.03,P＜0.05)、经常欺负他人者(OR=3.78,P＜0.01和OR=3.28,P＜0.01)、经常目睹父母吵架者(OR=1.34,P＜0.05和OR=1.39,P＜0.05)遭遇暴力的危险性均较高。学习成绩中等者遭遇暴力的危险性相对较高(OR=1.41,P＜0.01和OR=1.44,P＜0.05);自评自尊水平中等和低等者遭遇暴力的危险性高于自评自尊水平高等者(OR=1.48,P＜0.01;OR=1.24,P＜0.05和OR=1.63,P＜0.01;OR=1.36,P＜0.01)。结论: (1)农村中学生从小至今遭遇暴力发生率为41.0%,过去一年中遭遇暴力发生率为33.8%; (2)施暴者中比例最多的是同学和校友,其次是老师和陌生人;学校是暴力遭遇的主要场所,其次,放学途中和游乐场所。 (3)与农村中学生暴力遭遇有关的危险因素包括:人口学因素(如13-14岁和15-16岁年龄、男性)、行为因素(如经常泡网吧、玩电游、吸烟、欺负他人和学习成绩中等)和社会心理因素(如经常目睹父母吵架、自评自尊水平中、低等)。在农村中学生中,应针对上述危险因素,开展暴力预防。第二章农村中学生暴力遭遇及其行为问题研究目的: (1)采用Achenbach儿童行为自陈量表(Yourself Report,YSR)评定与分析农村中学生行为问题; (2)探讨农村中学生行为问题与暴力遭遇的相互关系,为农村中学生暴力“行为干预”提供科学依据。方法: 本研究采用横断面研究方法,对3620名随机选择的农村中学生进行问卷调查。暴力遭遇采用WHO暴力遭遇调查问卷,农村中学生行为问题评定采用Achenbach儿童行为自陈量表(CBCL)。采用epidata3.0进行数据录入,应用描述性统计方法分析暴力遭遇发生率及行为问题检出率,x~2检验分析组间暴力遭遇发生率和行为问题检出率的差别;采用logistic回归模型(Method=Baek Ward:LR,α_入=0.05,α_出=0.10)分析农村中学生暴力遭遇与行为有关的危险因素。结果: (1)3260名被调查的农村中学生,1225人(33.8%)在过去一年中经历过暴力遭遇,其中,男生暴力遭遇的发生率(42.9)高于女生(25.3%),差别具有统计学意义(x~2=125.06,P＜0.01);农村中学生总的行为问题检出率为14.3%(519/3620),暴力遭遇组行为问题检出率(22.4%)高于非暴力遭遇组(10.9%)(x~2=99.206,P＜0.01),同样,男生或女生暴力遭遇组行为问题检出率分别为19.8%和26.1%,均高于非暴力遭遇组(8.7%和11.3%)(x~2=45.551,P＜0.01;x~2=65.161,P＜0.01);农村中学生暴力遭遇组各行为问题因子,包括退缩、躯体化、焦虑抑郁、社交、思维、注意、违纪、攻击、自我身份等9个因子,检出率分别为4.2%、11.9%、3.8%、6.7%、4.3%、3.5%、5.6%、4.6%和1.9%,均高于非暴力遭遇组(2.1%、5.3%、1.4%、3.1%、1.5%、1.2%、1.9%、0.9%、0.4%和10.2%),且差别均具有统计学意义(P＜0.05或P＜0.01)。 (2)在logistic逐步回归分析中,将可能影响农村中学生暴力遭遇的危险因素,如人口学因素、家庭背景、个人学习成绩等作为控制变量,结果显示:与农村中学生暴力遭遇有关的行为因子,主要是躯体化(OR=2.16,95%CI:1.57-2.97)、社交(OR=1.88,95%CI:1.18-2.99)、思维(OR=1.94,95%CI:1.05-3.60)、违纪(OR=2.29,95%CI:1.27-4.16)、攻击(OR=3.85,95%CI:1.70-8.69)等因子;男生为躯体化(OR=2.13,95%CI:1.26-3.58)、社交(OR=2.25,95%CI:1.05-4.80)、违纪(OR=2.84,95%CI:1.41-5.71)等因子;女生为躯体化(OR=2.29,95%CI:1.54-3.41)、思维(OR=2.72,95%CI:1.09-6.75)、违纪(OR=2.81,95%CI:1.05-7.51)、攻击(OR=16.72,95%CI:3.66-76.35)等因子。结论: (1)农村中学生暴力遭遇组行为问题检出率高于非暴力遭遇组; (2)农村中学生暴力遭遇与其自身的行为问题有关,与暴力相关的行为问题因子包括躯体化、社交、思维、违纪和攻击等因子; (3)农村中学生暴力预防与干预项目的实施,应将有行为问题的农村中学生列入重点人群。第三章自尊在农村中学生行为与暴力遭遇间的中介效应目的: 探讨自尊在农村中学生行为与暴力遭遇间的中介效应。方法: 本研究采用横断面研究方法,对3620名随机选择的农村中学生进行问卷调查。暴力遭遇采用WHO暴力遭遇调查问卷,农村中学生行为问题评定采用Achenbach儿童行为自陈量表(CBCL),自尊水平的评价采用Rosenberg自评量表。相关分析和多元逐步回归模型分析各测量变量之间的联系,中介效应模型和Sobel-Test检验验证中介变量在自变量与应变量之间的完全或部分中介效应。结果: 多元线性逐步回归分析结果表明,加入中介变量(自尊),减少行为与暴力遭遇之间的联系强度(β从0.232到0.226);Sobel检验证实:自尊(中介变量)在行为与暴力遭遇之间起部分中介效应(β从0.232到0.226,Sobel-Z value=2.340,P＜0.05);采用同样的模型,分别对言语、躯体和性暴力遭遇进行分析,结果表明:自尊(中介变量)在行为与言语暴力遭遇之间起部分中介效应(β从0.225到0.200,Sobel-Z value=1.992,P＜0.05);而自尊(中介变量)在行为与躯体暴力或性暴力遭遇之间无中介效应。结论: 自尊水平在农村中学生行为与暴力遭遇(尤其言语暴力)之间起部分中介效应。
[Abstract]:The first chapter is about violent encounter and its risk factors among rural middle school students.
Objective:
(1) to understand the incidence of violence in rural secondary schools, including the total incidence and age, sex incidence, etc.
(2) to understand the epidemiological characteristics of violence among rural middle school students, such as the types of violence encountered, the locations, causes and consequences.
(3) to understand the risk factors of violence among rural middle school students, including demography, behavior and social psychological factors.
(4) to provide evidence for rural middle school students' violent intervention.
Method:
In this study, a cross-sectional study was conducted in a cross-sectional study. A cross-sectional survey was conducted on 3620 rural middle school students randomly selected by the questionnaire of WHO violence. Epidata3.0 was used for data entry and descriptive statistics were used to analyze the incidence of various types of violence and the characteristics of violence. The incidence of violence in each group was analyzed by x~2 test. The difference. Using the logistic regression model (Method=BackWard:LR, alpha =0.05, alpha =0.10), and the variables of demography, behavior and social psychology as independent variables, the possible risk factors were screened.
Result:
(1) of the 3620 respondents, 41% of the respondents had been exposed to violence since childhood. Among them, the incidence of emotional violence, physical violence and sexual violence was 27.4%, 30.6% and 3.2%.33.8% were subjected to violence in the past year, of which, the incidence of emotional violence, physical violence and sexual violence was 21.5%, 24.3%, respectively. And 2.0%.
(2) the incidence of violent encounter between young boys and the past year (51.3% and 42.9%) is higher than that of girls (31.2% and 25.3%) (x~2=151.54, P < 0.01 and x~2=125.06, P < 0.01). The incidence of violence encountered by junior high school girls from childhood and past year (34.8% and 29.6%) is higher than that of high school girls (27.7% and 21.1%) (x~2=11.11, P < 0.01 and x~2=18.06, P < < < 42.9%); The incidence of violence among boys in the past year (45.8%) was higher than that in high school boys (39.8%) (x~2=6.50, P < 0.01).
(3) among the perpetrators, the most proportions were students and alumni (40.4%), followed by teachers (21.3%) and strangers (20%); school was the main place for violence (55.7%), second, on the way (17.2%) and amusement place (12.2%). The consequences of violence were common to psychological injury (67.9%), followed by skin rubbing (30.7%); only 31.8% victims suffered. Seek help from others after the violence.
(4) the results of multiple factor Logistic regression analysis showed that the risk of violence encountered by rural middle school students in the 15-16 year old age group was relatively high (OR=1.34, P < 0.01). The risk of violence in rural middle school students at 13-14 and 15-16 years old was relatively high (OR=1.48, P < 0.01; OR=1.57, P < 0.01) in the past year. One year, the risk of violence was lower than that of boys (OR=0.49, P < 0.01 and OR=0.51, P < 0.01); the risk of frequent Internet cafe victims was higher than that of Internet cafes (OR=1.39, P < 0.01 and OR=1.27 in the past year, P < 0.05, the same below); also, often playing electric visitors (OR=1.50, P < 0.05 and OR=1.49, P < 0.05). Regular smokers (OR=1.82, P < 0.05 and OR=2.03, P < 0.05) often bullied others (OR=3.78, P < 0.01 and OR=3.28, P < 0.01), and often witnessed parents' quarrels (OR=1.34, P < 0.05 and OR=1.39, P < 0.05) with higher risk of violence. 5): the risk of violence was higher than those of self self esteem (OR=1.48, P < 0.01; OR=1.24, P < 0.05 and OR=1.63, P < 0.01; OR=1.36, P < 0.01).
Conclusion:
(1) the incidence of violence among rural middle school students has been 41% since childhood. The incidence of violence in the past year was 33.8%.
(2) most of the perpetrators were classmates and alumni, followed by teachers and strangers; schools were the main places for violence, followed by school trips and playgrounds.
(3) the risk factors associated with rural middle school students' violence include demographic factors (such as 13-14 years and 15-16 years of age, male), behavioral factors (such as regular Internet cafes, playing electricity, smoking, bullying others and middle school grades) and sociopsychological factors (such as witnessing parents quarreling, self-evaluation, low level, low). Among rural middle school students, The prevention of violence should be carried out in view of the above risk factors.
The second chapter is about violent encounter and behavior problems of rural middle school students.
Objective:
(1) Achenbach Yourself Report (YSR) was used to assess and analyze behavioral problems of rural middle school students.
(2) to explore the relationship between behavior problems and violence in rural middle school students, so as to provide a scientific basis for violence intervention among rural middle school students.
Method:
In this study, a cross-sectional study was used to conduct a questionnaire survey on 3620 rural middle school students randomly selected. Violence encountered a questionnaire of WHO violence. The behavior problems of rural middle school students were assessed by Achenbach children's behavior self scale (CBCL). Epidata3.0 was used to record a number of data, and descriptive statistics were used to analyze the violence suffered. The incidence rate of occurrence and the detection rate of behavior problems, the difference between the incidence of violent encounter and the detection rate of behavior problems between groups were analyzed by x~2 test, and the risk factors related to violence and behavior in rural middle school students were analyzed by logistic regression model (Method=Baek Ward:LR, =0.05 and =0.10).
Result:
(1) 3260 rural middle school students who were investigated and 1225 (33.8%) experienced violence in the past year. Among them, the incidence of violence in boys (42.9) was higher than that of girls (25.3%). The difference was statistically significant (x~2=125.06, P < 0.01); the prevalence rate of behavior problems in rural middle school students was 14.3% (519/3620), and the behavior problems of violence encounter group were detected. The rate (22.4%) was higher than that of non violent encounter group (10.9%) (x~2=99.206, P < 0.01). Similarly, the detection rates of behavioral problems in boys and girls were 19.8% and 26.1%, respectively, higher than those of non violent encounter groups (8.7% and 11.3%) (x~2=45.551, P < 0.01; x~2=65.161, P < 0.01);
9 factors, such as withdrawal, somatization, anxiety and depression, social, thinking, attention, discipline, aggression, self identity, were 4.2%, 11.9%, 3.8%, 6.7%, 4.3%, 3.5%, 5.6%, 4.6% and 1.9%, respectively, and were all higher than those in the non violent encounter group. The difference was statistically significant (P < 0.05 or P < 0.01).
(2) in the logistic stepwise regression analysis, the risk factors that may affect the violence encountered in rural middle school students, such as demographic factors, family background and personal learning achievement, are used as control variables. The results show that the behavioral factors related to the violence encounter in rural middle school students are mainly somatization (OR=2.16,95%CI:1.57-2.97) and social (OR=1.88,95%CI:1.1 8-2.99), thinking (OR=1.94,95%CI:1.05-3.60), OR=2.29,95%CI:1.27-4.16, attack (OR=3.85,95%CI:1.70-8.69) and other factors; boys are OR=2.13,95%CI:1.26-3.58, OR=2.25,95%CI:1.05-4.80, OR=2.84,95%CI:1.41-5.71 and other factors; girls are somatization (OR=2.29,95%CI:1.54-3.41), thinking (OR=2.72,95%CI:1.09). -6.75), violation of discipline (OR=2.81,95%CI:1.05-7.51), attack (OR=16.72,95%CI:3.66-76.35) and other factors.
Conclusion:
(1) the prevalence rate of group violence problems among rural middle school students was higher than that of non violent group.
(2) the violence encountered by the rural middle school students is related to their own behavior problems, and the factors related to violence include somatization, social social, thinking, violation of discipline and attack.
(3) the implementation of violence prevention and intervention program for rural middle school students should include rural middle school students with behavioral problems in key groups.
The third chapter is about the mediating effect of self-esteem on behavior and violence in rural middle school students.
Objective:
To explore the mediating effect of self-esteem on behavior and violence in rural middle school students.
Method:
In this study, a cross-sectional study was used to conduct a questionnaire survey on 3620 rural middle school students randomly selected. The violence encountered a questionnaire of WHO violence. The behavior problems of rural middle school students were evaluated by Achenbach children's behavior self scale (CBCL), the self-respect level was assessed by the Rosenberg self rating scale. The regression model is used to analyze the relationship between the variables, and the mediator effect model and the Sobel-Test test verify the complete or partial mediator effect between the variable and the independent variable.
Result:
Multiple linear stepwise regression analysis showed that the connection intensity between behavior and violence was reduced by adding intermediary variables (self-esteem) (beta from 0.232 to 0.226); Sobel test confirmed that self esteem (intermediary variable) played a partial mediating effect between behavior and violence (beta from 0.232 to 0.226, Sobel-Z value=2.340, P < 0.05); the same model was used. The analysis of speech, body and sexual violence showed that self-esteem (intermediary variable) played a partial mediating effect between behavior and verbal violence (beta from 0.225 to 0.200, Sobel-Z value=1.992, P < 0.05), and self esteem (intermediary variable) had no mediator effect between behavior and somatic violence or sexual violence.
Conclusion:
Self esteem level plays a mediating role between rural middle school students' behavior and violence (especially verbal violence).
【学位授予单位】：中南大学
【学位级别】：博士
【学位授予年份】：2007
【分类号】：G637;R181.3

【引证文献】