论文部分内容阅读
背景:生存质量作为一种较全面体现新的健康观和医学模式的评价体系引入职业伤害领域,是对传统的治疗与康复效果评价方法的补充。目的:分析安徽铜陵地区矿山职业伤害者生存质量现状及其影响因素。设计:病例对照问卷调查,Logistic单因素分析和多因素分析。单位:铜陵有色职工总医院、铜陵有色公司矿山安全科。对象:选择2000-01/2005-12安徽铜陵有色金属(集团)公司下属4个矿山234例职业伤害者为工伤组,伤害等级均经该企业安全生产部门鉴定认可;选取本单位(部门)同性别206名等情况相似职工为对照组,所有受试对象均对检测项目知情同意。方法:问卷调查在2006-12完成,调查方法采用问卷调查法,由调查对象本人填写,对小学及以下文化程度或病情严重者,由他人通过询问其本人情况和感受而代为填写。①对两组人群社会人口学特征进行调查。②采用信度、效度及敏感度均较好的世界卫生组织生存质量-100量表作为主要调查工具,调查内容包括:影响因素调查(性别、年龄、职业、学历、婚姻、吸烟、饮酒、工资、工种、伤害等级、受伤部位、类型、患其它疾病、家庭人均收入、人均住房面积、事故类型、性格类型、睡眠状况等);反映生存质量不同维度调查:分别是生理机能领域(躯体疼痛、精力、睡眠),心理状态领域(幸福感、信心等5个方面),独立性领域(日常生活能力、工作能力等4个方面),社会关系领域(人际关系、社会交往等3个方面),物质生活环境领域(安全性、住房环境等8个方面),信仰领域(个人信仰),共计24个方面,每个方面有4个条目,再加上总体健康方面的4个条目,总计100个条目。每个条目采用线性评分法,最高5分、最低1分,生存质量自评总分条目1个,按百分制打分。③对工伤组受试对象生存质量一般情况进行单因素分析,以生存质量(6个领域)不同维度的指标得分作为因变量,以各影响因素自变量作多元逐步回归分析。主要观察指标:①两组人群社会人口学特征。②两组受试对象生存质量不同维度指标得分。③工伤组患者生存质量一般情况与影响因素的关系。结果:纳入工伤组患者234例与对照组206名均进入结果分析。①两组受试对象在性别、年龄、职业、学历、工作岗位、婚姻状况、饮酒、吸烟、工资、患其它疾病、就业类型方面人群社会人口学特征差异无统计学意义(P>0.05)。②工伤组受试对象生理领域、独立性领域及总生存质量得分低于对照组(P<0.05)。③影响工伤组受试对象生存质量的因素有是否为中毒和窒息事故,是否伤及踝及脚、颅脑,是否发生撕脱伤以及工作任务轻重;多因素分析提示,腰部伤、工资水平、与同事及家人关系影响工伤组受试对象生存质量。结论:安徽铜陵地区矿山工伤者生存质量较未发生工伤者低,影响的因素是多方面的,但以受伤部位、事故及受伤类型、工作经济状况、社会家庭关系为主。
Background: Quality of life, as a kind of appraisal system that embodies new concept of health and medical practice, is introduced into the field of occupational injury. It is a supplement to the traditional evaluation methods of treatment and rehabilitation. Objective: To analyze the current situation of quality of life in mine occupational injury and its influencing factors in Tongling area, Anhui Province. Design: A case-control questionnaire, Logistic single-factor analysis and multivariate analysis. Unit: Tongling Nonferrous General Hospital, Tongling Nonferrous Metals Mine Safety Division. PARTICIPANTS: A total of 234 occupational injuries from 4 mines of Tongling Nonferrous Metals (Group) Company of Anhui from January 2000 to December 2005 were selected as work-related injuries, and their injury levels were appraised and approved by the production safety department of the enterprise. The selection of the unit (department) 206 similar sex workers as the control group, all subjects were informed consent of the test items. Methods: The questionnaire was completed in 2006-12. The survey method was surveyed by questionnaire, filled in by the respondents themselves. For those with primary school education or below, those with serious education or serious illness were asked to fill out by asking others about their own situation and feelings. ① The two groups of population socio-demographic characteristics survey. ② The World Health Organization Quality of Life Scale -100, which has good reliability, validity and sensitivity, was used as the main survey tool. The survey included: survey of influencing factors (sex, age, occupation, education, marriage, smoking, Salary, type of work, level of injury, type of injury, other diseases, per capita income of the family, per capita housing area, type of accident, type of personality, sleep status, etc.); quality of life survey of different dimensions: physiological function , Energy, sleep), psychology (happiness, confidence, etc.), independence (four aspects of daily living and working ability), social relations (three aspects including social relations and social interaction) , Physical environment (safety, housing environment, etc.), belief area (personal belief), totaling 24 aspects, 4 items in each area, plus 4 items in total health, totaling 100 Entries. Each entry uses a linear score, up to 5 points, a minimum of 1 point, a self-rated quality of life total score of 1, according to percentile scoring. ③ The univariate analysis of the general quality of life of the subjects in the work-injury group was conducted with the index scores of different dimensions of the quality of life (6 fields) as the dependent variable and the multiple factors of the influencing factors as the multiple stepwise regression analysis. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: ① Socio-demographic characteristics of two groups of people. ② two groups of subjects quality of life indicators of different dimensions score. ③ work-related injuries in patients with quality of life in general and the relationship between influencing factors. Results: 234 cases were included in the work-injury group and 206 cases in the control group were included in the result analysis. ① There was no significant difference in socio-demographic characteristics between the two groups in terms of sex, age, occupation, education, job, marital status, alcohol consumption, smoking, wages, other diseases and employment types (P> 0.05). ② The scores of physical area, independence field and total quality of life in the work-injury group were lower than those in the control group (P <0.05). The factors affecting the quality of life of the workers in the work-injury group were whether they were poisoning and asphyxia, whether they hurt the ankle, the feet, the brain or not, and the severity of their tasks. Multivariate analysis suggested that the patients with lumbar injuries, The relationship with colleagues and their families affected the quality of life of the workers in the work-injury group. CONCLUSION: The quality of life of mine workers in Tongling area of Anhui Province is lower than that of those who did not. The factors that influence the quality of life are many. However, the main factors are injury location, accident and injury type, working economy status and social family relationship.