CAJ | 학술논문

目的了解上海、北京、长沙3个城市的居民对焦虑障碍和抑郁症的知晓度.方法采用二阶随机抽样法抽取上海、北京和长沙3个城市2072名居民作为调查对象,采用以焦虑障碍(广泛性焦虑症、惊恐障碍、社交焦虑症)和抑郁症案例为主体的精神健康调查问卷进行调查,每人随机完成2个案例的问卷调查.分别采用独立样本t检验和方差分析、卡方检验、配对样本t检验、多元线性逐步回归对识别分、求助方式及社会距离分进行统计分析.结果共收回有效问卷1805份,共3610个案例,其中焦虑障碍案例2696个,抑郁症案例914个.调查对象对抑郁症(47.2％,431/914)的正确判断率高于焦虑障碍38.0％(1025/2 696).分别有85.8％(2312/2696)和(94.3％,862/914)的受访者认为焦虑障碍或抑郁症与环境因素有关;自我调节(84.0％,3031/3610)和心理咨询(82.3％,2972/3610)是2种最主要的应对措施;＞60％的调查对象愿意与焦虑障碍或抑郁症患者一起工作、做邻居、聊天或做朋友.教育程度高、年龄＜35岁及见/听到过类似情况者对焦虑障碍的识别分较高;教育程度高者及女性对抑郁症的识别分较高.对于焦虑障碍,年龄≥35岁及没见/听过类似情况的调查对象的社会距离分较高;对于抑郁症,男性及没见/听过类似情况者的社会距离分较高.上海[(1.8±1.1)分]、北京[(1.8±1.0)分]、长沙[(1.8±1.0)分]的居民对焦虑障碍的识别分差异无统计学意义(F=0.005,P＞0.05),上海[(2.2±1.0)分]和北京[(2.2±1.1)分]居民对抑郁症的识别分高于长沙居民[(2.0±1.1)分;F=3.44,P＜0.05];3个城市居民在焦虑障碍和抑郁症的归因、求助方式和态度方面差异有统计学意义.结论 3个城市的居民对焦虑障碍的知晓度低于抑郁症,对两类疾病的归因和应对措施了解不够全面,并且对此类患者的态度有待改善.
목적 료해상해、북경、장사3개성시적거민대초필장애화억욱증적지효도.방법 채용이계수궤추양법추취상해、북경화장사3개성시2072명거민작위조사대상,채용이초필장애(엄범성초필증、량공장애、사교초필증)화억욱증안례위주체적정신건강조사문권진행조사,매인수궤완성2개안례적문권조사.분별채용독립양본t검험화방차분석、잡방검험、배대양본t검험、다원선성축보회귀대식별분、구조방식급사회거리분진행통계분석.결과 공수회유효문권1805빈,공3610개안례,기중초필장애안례2696개,억욱증안례914개.조사대상대억욱증(47.2％,431/914)적정학판단솔고우초필장애38.0％(1025/2 696).분별유85.8％(2312/2696)화(94.3％,862/914)적수방자인위초필장애혹억욱증여배경인소유관;자아조절(84.0％,3031/3610)화심리자순(82.3％,2972/3610)시2충최주요적응대조시;＞60％적조사대상원의여초필장애혹억욱증환자일기공작、주린거、료천혹주붕우.교육정도고、년령＜35세급견/은도과유사정황자대초필장애적식별분교고;교육정도고자급녀성대억욱증적식별분교고.대우초필장애,년령≥35세급몰견/은과유사정황적조사대상적사회거리분교고;대우억욱증,남성급몰견/은과유사정황자적사회거리분교고.상해[(1.8±1.1)분]、북경[(1.8±1.0)분]、장사[(1.8±1.0)분]적거민대초필장애적식별분차이무통계학의의(F=0.005,P＞0.05),상해[(2.2±1.0)분]화북경[(2.2±1.1)분]거민대억욱증적식별분고우장사거민[(2.0±1.1)분;F=3.44,P＜0.05];3개성시거민재초필장애화억욱증적귀인、구조방식화태도방면차이유통계학의의.결론 3개성시적거민대초필장애적지효도저우억욱증,대량류질병적귀인화응대조시료해불구전면,병차대차류환자적태도유대개선.
Objective To assess knowledge about anxiety disorder and depression among residents in three cities in China.Methods In Shanghai,Beijing and Changsha,2 072 residents were selected via two-stage random sampling.All respondents were asked to complete a mental health questionnaire,including demographic information,two of the four case vignettes describing generalized anxiety disorder,panic disorder,social anxiety disorder and depression followed by questions relevant to the cases.The independent-samples t-test,analysis of variance,paired-samples t-test and multiple linear stepwise regression analysis were used to analyze the recognition scores,help-seeking methods and social distance scores.Results There were 1 805 respondents completed the questionnaire,including 2 696 cases of anxiety disorder and 914 cases of depression in total.Correct judgment rate of depression (47.2％,431/914) was higher than anxiety disorder (38.0％,1 025/2 696).A majority of respondents believed that anxiety disorder (85.8％,2 312/2 696) and depression (94.3％,862/914) were caused by environmental factors.Psychological counseling (82.3％,2972/3610) and self-regulation (84.0％,3031/3610) were the two most frequent suggestions of help-seeking.There were more than 60％ of the respondents willing to work,be neighbors,chat or make friends with patients with anxiety disorder or depression respectively.Higher education,younger age and having seen/heard a similar case were related to higher recognition scores of anxiety disorder.Higher education and female were related with that of depression.In addition,respondents who was 35 years old or above hadn't seen/heard a similar case got higher social distance scores of anxiety disorder.Male and not having seen/heard a similar situation were related to higher social distance scores of depression.Significant differences of identification scores were found between Shanghai (2.2± 1.0),Beijing (2.2± 1.1) and Changsha (2.1 ± 1.1),F=3.44,P＜0.05.Differences about cause of and coping strategies for anxiety disorder and depression also existed among residents in these cities.Conclusion Public knowledge towards anxiety disorder is not as good as depression.Most people don't have comprehensive understanding of the cause of and coping strategies for anxiety disorder and depression.Attitudes to these patients remains to be improved.