The impact of cognitive level about injury prevention on the incidence of accidental injuries children and adolescents in Shenzhen
-
摘要:
目的 了解深圳市儿童青少年伤害预防认知水平及意外伤害发生现状，进一步明确伤害预防认知水平对意外伤害发生的影响。 方法 基于多阶段抽样的方法，抽取深圳市龙华区观湖街道的4所学校，选取学校内4年级以上的儿童青少年作为研究对象，共4 867人。采用χ2检验比较儿童青少年的个人因素和家庭因素在意外伤害发生中分布的差异，并利用多水平logistic回归分析模型分析意外伤害发生与伤害预防认知水平的关系。 结果 4 867名儿童青少年中，伤害预防认知水平低者2 479名(50.93%)，伤害预防认知水平高者2 388名(49.07%)。178名儿童青少年曾发生意外伤害，意外伤害发生率为3.66%(95% CI：3.13%~4.18%)。儿童青少年在不同伤害预防认知水平下的意外伤害发生率差异有统计学意义(P＜0.05)。多因素logistic回归分析模型分析显示，与伤害预防认知水平高的儿童青少年相比，伤害预防认知水平低者(OR=2.615, 95% CI：1.833~3.731)发生意外伤害的风险呈上升趋势。 结论 深圳市儿童青少年意外伤害发生率相对较低，儿童青少年的伤害预防认知水平对意外伤害发生有影响。未来可考虑实施提升儿童青少年伤害预防认知水平的措施，以降低意外伤害发生率。 Abstract:Objective To assess cognitive level about injury prevention and the incidence of accidental injuries among children and adolescents in Shenzhen, as well as the relationship between the cognitive level and incidence of accidental injuries. Methods Using a multi-stage sampling approach, a total of 4 867 children and adolescents from the fourth grade and above were recruited as study subjects from four schools selected in Guanhu Street, Longhua District, Shenzhen. The chi-square test was used to compare the differences in the distribution of individual and family factors in the occurrence of unintentional injuries among children and adolescents, and a multifactorial logistic regression analysis model was used to analyse the factors influencing the incidence of unintentional injuries. Results Among these 4 867 participants, 2 479 (50.93%) and 2 388 (49.07%) had a low and high level of cognitive about injury prevention, respectively. 178 reported experiencing accidental injuries within the past 12 months and the incidence rate of accidental injuries was 3.66% (95% CI: 3.13%-4.18%). There was a significant difference in the incidence of unintentional injuries among children and adolescents at different levels of injury prevention awareness (P < 0.05). Multivariable logistic regression analysis model analysis showed that compared to those with high cognitive levels about injury prevention, those with low cognitive levels (OR=2.615, 95% CI: 1.833-3.731) had an increased risk of experiencing accidental injuries. Conclusions The incidence of accidental injuries among children and adolescents in Shenzhen is relatively low, and their level of cognitive awareness regarding injury prevention has an impact on the occurrence of accidental injuries. In the future, consideration may be given to implementing measures to raise the level of awareness of injury prevention among children and adolescents in order to reduce the incidence of unintentional injuries. -
Key words:
- Accidental /
- Injury /
- Children and adolescents /
- Cognitive level
-
表 1 研究对象一般特征
Table 1. General characteristics of the study population
因素Factor 频数
Frequency伤害发生人数
Number of individuals with injuries伤害发生率
Incidence rate of injuries/%χ2值
valueP值
value性别Gender 10.865 ＜0.001 女Female 2 088 55 2.63 男Male 2 779 123 4.43 年级Grade 2.728 0.256 小学4~6年级Grade 4 to 6 of primary school 2 997 120 4.00 初中Junior high school 1 447 44 3.04 高中High school 423 14 3.31 住宿情况Accommodation 2.336 0.126 住校Board at school 1 511 46 3.04 走读Attend a day school 3 356 132 3.93 户籍所在地Registered residence 9.155 0.027 本市Local 457 23 5.03 本省外市Other areas within the province 1 777 62 3.49 外省Other provinces 2 362 76 3.22 外籍Foreign nationality 271 17 6.27 父母工作情况Parents′ work situation 9.148 0.002 父母均未外出打工Neither parent working away from home 3 666 117 3.19 父母至少一方外出打工At least one parent working away from home 1 201 61 5.08 主要监护人Primary guardian 5.443 0.249 父亲Father 661 27 4.08 母亲Mother 2 923 100 3.42 继父/继母Stepfather/stepmother 4 1 25.00 祖父母/外祖父母Grandparents 200 8 4.00 其他亲属Other relatives 1 079 42 3.89 监护人的文化程度Guardian′s educational level 4.662 0.324 小学及以下Elementary school or below 439 23 5.24 初中Secondary school 2 102 72 3.42 高中/技校/中专High school or technical secondary school 1 415 51 3.60 大专Junior college 674 21 3.12 大学本科及以上Bachelor′s degree or above 237 11 4.64 每日平均交流时间Average daily communication time/min 2.279 0.517 < 10 599 27 4.51 10~ < 30 1 546 54 3.49 30~ < 60 1 278 41 3.21 ≥60 1 444 56 3.88 亲子主要沟通方式Main communication method between parents and children 14.491 ＜0.001 双方都会主动与对方交流Both actively communicating with each other 3 813 122 3.20 主动找照料者交流Initiate communicating with the caregiver 507 17 3.35 被动等照料者交流Passively waiting for the caregiver to communicate 447 30 6.71 亲子交流主要话题Main topics of parent-child communication 3.267 0.514 学习成绩好坏Academic performance 1 927 66 3.43 吃穿住行等物质条件Material conditions including food, clothing, housing, and transportation 822 31 3.77 体育娱乐交友等社交活动Sports, leisure, and social activities 883 38 4.30 忧伤苦恼等心理思想动态Emotional and psychological issues 806 22 2.73 其他Others 329 12 3.65 
下载: 导出CSV
表 2 儿童青少年伤害发生情况
Table 2. Incidence of injuries among children and adolescents
项目Project 类别Category 意外伤害发生例数Number of accidental injuries ① 发生季节Season of occurrence 春Spring 21(11.80) 夏Summer 42(23.59) 秋Autumn 66(37.08) 冬Winter 49(27.53) 发生时间段Time period of occurrence 00:01~06:00 11(6.19) 06:01~12:00 47(26.40) 12:01~18:00 73(41.01) 18:01~24:00 47(26.40) 发生原因Cause of injuries 机动车车祸Motor vehicle accident 3(1.69) 非机动车车祸Non-motor vehicle accident 10(5.62) 跌倒/坠落Falls/drop 94(52.81) 钝器伤Blunt force injury 11(6.18) 火器伤Firearm injury 1(0.56) 刀/锐器伤Knife/sharp object injury 17(9.55) 烧烫伤Burns and scalds 10(5.62) 窒息/悬吊(异物﹑压﹑闷﹑捂窒息﹑鱼刺/骨头卡喉、悬吊) Asphyxiation/hanging (foreign objects, compression, suffocation, fish bones or bone choking, hanging) 2(1.12) 溺水Drowning 1(0.56) 发生原因Cause of injuries 动物伤(狗﹑猫﹑蛇等咬伤；蜜蜂﹑黄蜂等昆虫刺蛰) Animal bites (dog, cat, snake bites; Insect stings such as bees, wasps) 11(6.18) 其他Others 18(10.11) 伤害部位Injury location 头部Head 30(16.85) 上肢Upper limb 61(34.27) 下肢Lower limb 59(33.15) 多部位Multiple locations 3(1.69) 其他Others 25(14.04) 伤害结局Injury outcome 正在治疗Under treatment 39(21.91) 痊愈Recovered 128(71.91) 残疾Disability 2(1.12) 其他Others 9(5.06) 注：①以人数(占比/%)表示。
Note：①Number of people(proportion/%).
下载: 导出CSV
表 3 儿童青少年伤害预防认知水平与发生伤害的多因素分析
Table 3. Multivariate analysis of injury occurrence and awareness level among children and adolescents
因素Factor 频数Frequency ① 单因素分析Univariate analysis 多因素分析Multivariate analysis OR值value
(95% CI)P值
valueOR值value
(95% CI)P值
value性别Gender 女Female 2 088(42.90) 1.000 1.000 男Male 2 779(57.10) 1.712(1.239~2.365) 0.001 1.544(1.107~2.154) 0.010 年级Grade 小学4~6年级Grade 4 to 6 of primary school 2 997(61.58) 1.000 ― ― 初中Junior high school 1 447(29.73) 0.752(0.529~1.068) 0.112 高中High school 423(8.69) 0.821(0.467~1.441) 0.492 住宿情况Accommodation 住校Board at school 1 511(31.05) 1.000 ― ― 走读Attend a day school 3 356(68.95) 1.304(0.927~1.834) 0.127 户籍所在地Registered residence 本市Local 457(9.39) 1.000 ― ― 本省外市Other areas within the province 1 777(36.51) 0.682(0.418~1.113) 0.126 外省Other provinces 2 362(48.53) 0.627(0.389~1.011) 0.056 外籍Foreign nationality 271(5.57) 1.263(0.662~2.409) 0.479 父母工作情况Parents′ work situation 父母均未外出打工Neither parent works away from home 3 666(75.32) 1.000 1.000 父母至少一方外出打工At least one parent works away from home 1 201(24.68) 1.623(1.183~2.228) 0.003 1.528(1.101~2.121) 0.011 主要监护人Primary guardian 父亲Father 661(13.58) 1.000 ― ― 母亲Mother 2 923(60.06) 0.832(0.539~1.283) 0.405 继父/继母Stepfather/stepmother 4(0.08) 7.827(0.788~77.735) 0.079 祖父母/外祖父母Grandparents 200(4.11) 0.958(0.437~2.189) 0.958 其他亲属Other 1 079(22.17) 0.951(0.581~1.558) 0.951 监护人的文化程度Guardian′s educational level 小学及以下Elementary school and below 439(9.02) 1.000 ― ― 初中Secondary school 2 102(43.19) 0.642(0.397~1.038) 0.071 高中/技校/中专High school or technical secondary school 1 415(29.07) 0.676(0.408~1.120) 0.129 大专Junior college 674(13.85) 0.582(0.318~1.064) 0.079 大学本科及以上Bachelor′s degree or above 237(4.87) 0.880(0.421~1.839) 0.734 每日平均交流时间Average daily communication time/min < 10 599(12.31) 1.000 ― ― 10~ < 30 1 546(31.76) 0.767(0.478~1.229) 0.270 30 ~< 60 1 278(26.26) 0.702(0.428~1.153) 0.162 ≥60 1 444(29.67) 0.855(0.535~1.367) 0.512 亲子主要沟通方式Main communication method between parents and children 被动等照料者交流Passively wait for the caregiver to communicate 447(9.18) 1.000 1.000 主动找照料者交流Initiate communication with the caregiver 507(10.42) 0.482(0.262~0.887) 0.019 0.525(0.284~0.969) 0.039 双方都会主动与对方交流Both actively communicate with each other 3 813(80.40) 0.459(0.304~0.694) ＜0.001 0.610(0.400~0.928) 0.021 亲子交流主要话题Main topics of parent-child communication 学习成绩好坏Academic performance 1 927(39.59) 1.000 ― ― 吃穿住行等物质条件Material conditions including food, clothing, housing, and transportation 822(16.89) 1.105(0.715~1.707) 0.652 体育娱乐交友等社交活动Sports, leisure, and social activities 883(18.14) 1.268(0.844~1.906) 0.253 忧思苦恼等心理思想动态Emotional and psychological issues 806(16.57) 0.791(0.485~1.291) 0.349 其他Others 429(8.81) 1.067(0.570~1.997) 0.838 伤害预防认知水平Level of awareness of injury prevention 高High 2 479(50.93) 1.000 1.000 低Low 2 388(49.07) 2.863(2.037~4.025) ＜0.001 2.644(1.854~3.769) ＜0.001 注：“―”单因素分析中差异无统计学意义。
①以频数(占比/%)表示。
Note: "―" there were no statistically significant differences in univariate analysis.
①Frequency(proportion/%).
下载: 导出CSV
-
[1] Yin XL, Dai WC, Du YK, et al. The injury mechanisms and injury pyramids among children and adolescents in Zhuhai City, China[J]. BMC Public Health, 2021, 21(1): 436. DOI: 10.1186/s12889-021-10425-4. [2] GBD Adolescent Transport and Unintentional Injuries Collaborators. Adolescent transport and unintentional injuries: a systematic analysis using the global burden of disease study 2019[J]. Lancet Public Health, 2022, 7(8): e657-e669. DOI: 10.1016/S2468-2667(22)00134-7. [3] Liu YF, Dong YH, Yan XJ, et al. Global trends and regional differences in non-transport unintentional injuries mortality among children and adolescents, 1990 to 2019: results from the global burden of disease 2019 study[J]. Chin Med J (Engl), 2022, 135(17): 2056-2065. DOI: 10.1097/cm9.0000000000002315. [4] Andersen IK, Lauritsen J. Social inequalities in unintentional childhood injury incidence suggest subgroup identification and differentiation in the municipal planning of preventive efforts[J]. Scand J Public Health, 2020, 48(2): 200-206. DOI: 10.1177/1403494819850429. [5] 沈翰林, 励晓红, 陈凯悦, 等. 上海市0-6岁儿童父母的儿童安全健康素养现状及其影响因素[J]. 医学与社会, 2023, 36(11): 8-14. DOI: 10.13723/j.yxysh.2023.11.002.Shen HL, Li XH, Chen KY, et al. Status quo and influencing factors of health literacy of 0 to 6 years[J]. Medicine and Society, 2023, 36(11): 8-14. DOI: 10.13723/j.yxysh.2023.11.002. [6] 董泽松, 祁慧, 刘传星, 等. 西部4省(区)民族地区留守儿童健康素养与意外伤害的关系[J]. 中国健康教育, 2019, 35(5): 414-417. DOI: 10.16168/j.cnki.issn.1002-9982.2019.05.007.Dong ZS, Qi H, Liu CX, et al. Association of health literacy and unintentional injurious among left-behind children in ethnic mimority areas in 4 western provinces[J]. Chin J Health Educ, 2019, 35(5): 414-417. DOI: 10.16168/j.cnki.issn.1002-9982.2019.05.007. [7] 赵劭娟, 余晓萱, 于传宁, 等. 深圳市龙华区中小学生伤害流行特征及影响因素分析[J]. 中国慢性病预防与控制, 2022, 30(10): 760-763. DOI: 10.16386/j.cjpccd.issn.1004-6194.2022.10.009.Zhao SJ, Yu XX, Yu CN, et al. Analysis on the epidemic characteristics and influencing factors of injury among primary and secondary school students in Longhua District, Shenzhen[J] Chin J Prev Contr Chron Dis, 2022, 30(10): 760-763. DOI: 10.16386/j.cjpccd.issn.1004-6194.2022.10.009. [8] Celen R, Ozaydin T, Yorulmaz A. Determination of risk factors associated with unintentional injury in children: case-control study[J]. Public Health Nurs, 2023, 40(2): 250-7. DOI: 10.1111/phn.13165. [9] Hashimoto A, Kawaguchi H, Hashimoto N. Contribution of the technical efficiency of public health programs to national trends and regional disparities in unintentional childhood injury in Japan[J]. Front Public Health, 2022, 10: 913875. DOI: 10.3389/fpubh.2022.913875. [10] Wong RS, Tung KTS, Ho FKW, et al. Effect of a mobile game-based intervention to enhance child safety: randomized controlled trial[J]. J Med Internet Res, 2024, 26: e51908. DOI: 10.2196/51908. [11] Zhang SC, Yang R, Li PL, et al. Interactive effects between health literacy and mobile phone dependence as well as its relation with unintentional injuries in middle school students][J]. Zhonghua Liu Xing Bing Xue Za Zhi, 2018, 39(12): 1549-1554. DOI: 10.3760/cma.j.issn.0254-6450.2018.12.003. [12] Joshi MS, Maclean M, Stevens C. Accident frequency and unrealistic optimism: children's assessment of risk[J]. Accid Anal Prev, 2018, 111: 142-146. DOI: 10.1016/j.aap.2017.11.034. [13] 杨双蓓, 黄莹, 王渝娟, 等. 云南某县留守中小学生意外伤害重复发生流行特征及影响因素分析[J]. 卫生软科学, 2021, 35(6): 92-96. DOI: 10.3969/j.issn.1003-2800.2021.06.022.Yang SB, Huang Y, Wang YJ, et al. Analysis of the prevalence characteristics and influencing factors of repeated occurrence of accidental injuries among left-behind primary and middle school students in a county in Yunnan Province, China[J]. Soft Science of Health, 2021, 35(6): 92-96. DOI: 10.3969/j.issn.1003-2800.2021.06.022. -
