陆军航空兵122名空勤与地勤人员1:1配对心理健康状况比较
륙군항공병122명공근여지근인원1:1배대심리건강상황비교
Comparison of mental health between aircrew and ground crew at ratio of 1:1 among 122 army airmen
  • 万方数据
    中国临床康复 중국림상강복
    CHINESE JOURNAL OF CLINICAL REHABILITATION
    2005年 28期 238-239 ,共2页

    赛晓勇%陈少云%范文圣%许迎喜%闫永平

    새효용%진소운%범문골%허영희%염영평

    军事人员/心理学%问卷%抽样研究 軍事人員/心理學%問捲%抽樣研究
    군사인원/심이학%문권%추양연구
    背景:陆军航空兵空勤人员训练任务较重,对飞行人员的心理素质的评估及早发现相应的心理问题并及时处理.目的:比较陆军航空兵空勤与地勤人员心理健康状况的差异,并为制定相应常模提供参考数据.设计:整群抽样调查,配对设计.单位:解放军七一六八七部队、解放军七一五二一部队、解放军第四军医大学流行病学教研室.对象:2001-02用整群抽样的方式抽取了驻训部队陆军航空兵某部全体空勤人员122名,同时抽取地勤人员122名.按年龄相差不到3岁,性别、民族相同进行1:1匹配的原则,全部被调查者均为男性,汉族,年龄23～52岁.方法:采用康奈尔健康问卷分别对陆军航空兵空勤人员和地勤人员进行调查,采用不计名、集中填写方式、被调查者当场填写独立完成,当场交卷.康奈尔健康问卷分18个部分,195个问题,涉及4个方面内容:躯体症状,既往史和家庭史,一般健康和习惯,精神症状.以康奈尔健康问卷总分≥30为有躯体和精神障碍,精神部分得分≥10为有精神障碍作为标准比较两组受试对象的心理健康情况.主要观察指标:空勤人员和地勤人员康奈尔健康问卷躯体和精神部分各因子分和总分.结果:空勤组和地勤组各122例的测试结果均纳入结果分析.两组受试对象躯体和精神症状评定结果:康奈尔健康问卷总分低得分者(总分为0～14分),空勤组高于地勤组(81.5%和59.8%,P＜0.05);精神部分低得分者(得分为0～9分),空勤组明显高于地勤组(99.2%和91.8%P＜0.01);有躯体和精神障碍者(总分≥30分,精神部分得分≥10分)者空勤组低于地勤组(4.1%和12.3%,P＜0.05);有精神障碍者(精神部分得分≥10分),空勤组明显低于地勤组(0.8%和8.2%,P＜0.01).躯体部分空勤组除肌肉和骨骼、皮肤因子分高于地勤组外(P＞0.05),余因子分皆低于地勤组,其中眼和耳、神经系统、泌尿生殖系统、疲劳感因子的评分两组比较,差异有显著性(P＜0.05);精神部分空勤组各因子皆低于地勤组,除紧张因子外,其余各因子评分两组比较,差异有显著性(P＜0.05).结论:陆军航空兵空勤人员康奈尔健康问卷总体心理健康状况优于地勤人员,空勤人员仍存在一部分心理健康问题.
    배경:륙군항공병공근인원훈련임무교중,대비행인원적심리소질적평고급조발현상응적심리문제병급시처리.목적:비교륙군항공병공근여지근인원심리건강상황적차이,병위제정상응상모제공삼고수거.설계:정군추양조사,배대설계.단위:해방군칠일륙팔칠부대、해방군칠일오이일부대、해방군제사군의대학류행병학교연실.대상:2001-02용정군추양적방식추취료주훈부대륙군항공병모부전체공근인원122명,동시추취지근인원122명.안년령상차불도3세,성별、민족상동진행1:1필배적원칙,전부피조사자균위남성,한족,년령23～52세.방법:채용강내이건강문권분별대륙군항공병공근인원화지근인원진행조사,채용불계명、집중전사방식、피조사자당장전사독립완성,당장교권.강내이건강문권분18개부분,195개문제,섭급4개방면내용:구체증상,기왕사화가정사,일반건강화습관,정신증상.이강내이건강문권총분≥30위유구체화정신장애,정신부분득분≥10위유정신장애작위표준비교량조수시대상적심리건강정황.주요관찰지표:공근인원화지근인원강내이건강문권구체화정신부분각인자분화총분.결과:공근조화지근조각122례적측시결과균납입결과분석.량조수시대상구체화정신증상평정결과:강내이건강문권총분저득분자(총분위0～14분),공근조고우지근조(81.5%화59.8%,P＜0.05);정신부분저득분자(득분위0～9분),공근조명현고우지근조(99.2%화91.8%P＜0.01);유구체화정신장애자(총분≥30분,정신부분득분≥10분)자공근조저우지근조(4.1%화12.3%,P＜0.05);유정신장애자(정신부분득분≥10분),공근조명현저우지근조(0.8%화8.2%,P＜0.01).구체부분공근조제기육화골격、피부인자분고우지근조외(P＞0.05),여인자분개저우지근조,기중안화이、신경계통、비뇨생식계통、피로감인자적평분량조비교,차이유현저성(P＜0.05);정신부분공근조각인자개저우지근조,제긴장인자외,기여각인자평분량조비교,차이유현저성(P＜0.05).결론:륙군항공병공근인원강내이건강문권총체심리건강상황우우지근인원,공근인원잉존재일부분심리건강문제.
    BACKGROUND: The training task for aircrew of army airmen is very heavy, the evaluation of flight personnel on psychological diathesis is performed to early discover and deal with corresponding questions.OBJECTIVE: To compare the difference of mental health between aircrew and ground crew of army airmen and provide reference data for implementing corresponding norms.DESIGN: Chester sampling investigation and paired design were applied.SETTING: the 71687 Force of Chinese PLA, the 71521 Force of Chinese PLA, Department of Epidemiology, Fourth Military Medical University of Chinese PLAPARTICIPANTS: By chester sampling, 122 aircrew and 122 ground crew of one army airmen in one stationed training troop were randomized in February 2001. The pairs were made at ratio of 1:1 according to age difference less than 3 years and same sex and nationality. The investigated persons were all male, of Han and aged varied from 23 to 52 years.METHODS: Cornell health questionnaire was adopted respectively in investigation of aircrew and ground crew of army airmen. The investigated persons finished and handed in questionnaire independently on the spot in manner of secretion and centralized filling-up. Cornell health questionnaire is composed of 18 sections, including 195 questions, involving 4 aspects,named somatic symptoms, medial and family history, general health and habit and mental symptoms. The total score of Cornell health questionnaire ≥ 30 indicates somatic and mental disturbance and the score of mental section ≥ 10 indicates mental disturbance, both of which are taken as the criteria in comparison of psychological health in receptors of two groups.MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Every factor score and total score in somatic and mental sections in Cornell health questionnaire for aircrew and ground crew.RESULTS: The tested results of each 122 cases in either aircrew group or ground crew group entered result analysis. Evaluated results of somatic and mental symptoms in receptors of two groups: the total score was low in Cornell health questionnaire (0-14 scores), of which, the total score in aircrew group was higher than that in ground crew group (81.5% and 59.8%,P ＜ 0.05); the score in mental section was low (0-9 scores), of which, that in aircrew group was higher remarkably than that in ground crew group (99.2% and 91.8%, P ＜ 0.01); the score for the receptors with somatic and mental disturbance (total score≥30, score in mental section ≥ 10) in aircrew group was lower than those in ground crew group (4.1% and 12.3%, P ＜ 0.05); the score for the receptors with mental disturbance (score in mental section≥ 10) in aircrew group was lower remarkably than ground crew group (0.8% and 8.2%, P ＜ 0.01). For somatic section in aircrew group, except the factors of muscle, skeleton and skin, their scores were higher than those in ground crew group (P ＞ 0.05), the scores of the rest factors were all lower than those in ground crew group, of which, the difference was significant in evaluation of factors of eye, ear, nervous system, urinary reproductive system and fatigue in comparison of two groups (P ＜ 0.05). The score of every factor in mental section of aircrew group was lower than those in ground crew group. Except tension factor, in comparison of the rest factors in two groups, the significant difference was present (P ＜ 0.05).CONCLUSION: Overall psychological health state in Cornell questionnaire of aircrew in army airmen was superior to ground crew. Aircrew still presents a part of psychological health questions, mainly in somatic section and inadaptability was the most positive response in mental section, suggesting that aircrew probably presents inadaptable phenomena.
    원문보기 원문다운로드 사이트로이동
저자의 최근 논문