目的 比较面对面健康教育方法与小手牵大手健康教育方法对饮茶型氟中毒病区居民健康相关行为的干预效果.方法 对饮茶型氟中毒病区居民分别进行面对面健康教育和小手牵大手健康教育干预,采取问卷调查的方式,分别在干预前和干预后进行饮茶型氟中毒健康相关行为实施情况调查,比较两种健康教育方式对人群健康相关行为改变率的差异及对不同饮茶相关行为实施率的影响结果.结果 面对面健康教育干预后健康相关行为的总体改变率为53.5％,小手牵大手健康教育干预后健康相关行为改变率为68.6％,两种干预后饮茶型氟中毒健康相关行为改变率差异有统计学意义(P＜0.05).危害健康的行为中干预前后是否饮浓茶的行为改变率差异有统计学意义(P＜0.05),而是否饮隔夜茶,是否饮长时间煮沸的茶,是否经常饮砖茶等其他危害健康的行为两种方法差异无统计学意义(P＞0.05),而是否茶中加奶,是否饮低氟砖茶,是否主动购买低氟砖茶等促进健康的行为二者差异有统计学意义(P＜0.01).结论 两种健康教育均能使饮茶型氟中毒病区人群改变不良饮茶习惯,培养健康的生活方式,两种健康教育方法效果有差异,小手牵大手较好.%Objective To compare the effects of two kinds of health education intervention methods (Face to face and Hand hold hands) in brick tea type fluorine poisoning area. Methods Two kinds of health education intervention methods (Face to face and Hand hold hands) were given to the residents in fluorine poisoning area, and the survey of implementation of brick tea fluorine related behavior were conducted by the method of questionnaire. Compare the health related behaviors change rates of two health education methods and the difference between implementation rates of different brick tea related behaviors. Results The health related behaviors change rates of Face to face and Hand hold hands are 53. 5% and 68. 6% , respectively, and there was significant difference between the two methods (P <0. 05). It shows significant difference between the implementation rates of whether drinking strong tea after the interventions (P < 0. 05 ) , while there were no significant differences between whether drinking overnight tea and whether boiling tea (P > 0. 05). Whether drinking tea with milk, whether drinking and buy low fluorine brick tea shows significant difference between the two methods (P <0.01). Conclusion Through the two kinds of health education intervention methods, people in brick tea fluorsis area can consciously change their bad tea drinking habits, and try to cultivate healthy life style. There is difference between two kinds of health education methods, Hand hold hands is better.
展开▼
