论文部分内容阅读
目的探讨社区获得性肺炎(CAP)与医院获得性肺炎(HAP)危险因素的差异,为防制突发公共卫生事件提供科学依据。方法连续收集山西医科大学第一附属医院2008年5月-2009年10月肺炎病例244例肺炎病例,筛检其中社区获得性肺炎178例,医院获得性肺炎66例,对比分析2组病例危险因素的差异。结果单因素分析结果显示,2组人群在性别(χ2=5.524,P=0.019)、年龄(χ2=18.355,P<0.001)、受教育程度(χ2=19.711,P<0.001)、基础疾病(χ2=5.384,P=0.016)、被动吸烟(χ2=5.935,P=0.015)和肺炎病人或呼吸道感染病例接触史(χ2=48.641,P<0.001)方面差异有统计学意义,而在职业、吸烟、饮酒和外出旅游史方面差异均无统计学意义,多因素分析结果显示,年龄大(OR=1.541,P=0.002)、高中学历(OR=0.217,P=0.008)、有基础疾病(OR=0.365,P=0.006)、居住在外市(OR=0.424,P=0.039)差异有统计学意义。结论社区获得性肺炎与医院获得性肺炎危险因素不同,应采取不同的防制措施。
Objective To explore the differences of risk factors between community-acquired pneumonia (CAP) and hospital-acquired pneumonia (HAP) and provide a scientific basis for preventing public health emergencies. Methods A total of 244 cases of pneumonia were collected from May 2008 to October 2009 in the First Affiliated Hospital of Shanxi Medical University. Among them, 178 cases of community-acquired pneumonia and 66 cases of hospital-acquired pneumonia were screened. The risk factors of two groups were compared The difference. Results The results of univariate analysis showed that there were significant differences in education level (χ2 = 19.711, P <0.001), basic diseases (χ2 = 5.524, P = 0.019) = 5.384, P = 0.016), passive smoking (χ2 = 5.935, P = 0.015) and history of exposure to pneumonia or respiratory tract infection (χ2 = 48.641, P <0.001) (OR = 0.217, P = 0.008), and had underlying diseases (OR = 0.365, P = 0.002). There was no significant difference in the history of drinking and traveling abroad. , P = 0.006), residing in the outside market (OR = 0.424, P = 0.039), the difference was statistically significant. Conclusion Community-acquired pneumonia and hospital-acquired pneumonia risk factors are different, should take different control measures.