首页 > 资讯 > 中学教师亚健康疲劳与健康促进生活方式

中学教师亚健康疲劳与健康促进生活方式

泰然健康网
2024-12-07 09:00

摘要:

目的探讨健康促进生活方式对中学教师亚健康疲劳影响。

方法 2013年4 — 5月采用横断面调查方法在广东省广州市采用简单随机抽样（随机数表法）随机抽取3个区的中学教师8 111名作为调查对象，在被调查者年度体检时进行现场调查。健康状况及疲劳的判定主要结合被调查者的体检报告及亚健康评定量表（SHMS V1.0），生活方式的评估使用健康促进生活方式量表（HPLP-II）。

结果共有1 586人发生疲劳，疲劳的现患率为19.55 %，其中，亚健康疲劳31.72 %（503人），疾病疲劳65.89 %（1 045人），远高于健康者疲劳2.39 %（38人）。回归分析发现健康促进生活方式对亚健康疲劳有明显影响（P < 0.05），在校正一般人口学资料的模型中，相对于优秀的促进健康生活方式（最小暴露者），差的生活方式（最高暴露者）发生亚健康疲劳的危险性高达70倍（OR = 69.63，95 % CI = 26.80～180.87），一般的生活方式（较高暴露者）发生亚健康疲劳的危险性高达16倍（OR = 15.87，95 % CI = 8.43～29.89），次优的生活方式发生亚健康疲劳的危险性为2倍（OR = 2.05，95 % CI = 1.07～3.93）；而且进一步的回归分析显示HPLP-II6个维度处于差的、一般的及次优的等级时，处于亚健康疲劳的危险度也增加（P < 0.05），其中，差的、一般的压力管理、人际关系、心灵成长对亚健康疲劳发生的危险度较高。

结论亚健康疲劳与不良生活方式影响因素密切相关。

Abstract:

Objective To investigate how health-promoting lifestyle affecting on the fatigue of suboptimal health (FSH) among middle school teachers.

Methods A cross-sectional survey was conducted among 8 111 middle school teachers randomly selected in three districts of Guangzhou city. The participants were asked to complete the Health-Promoting Lifestyle Profile (HPLP-II) and Sub-Health Measurement Scale V1.0 (SHMS V1.0) while taking routine physical examination between April and May 2013. Health status and fatigue of the participants were assessed based on physical examination reports and SHMS V1.0 and lifestyle was evaluated with HPLP-II.

Results Among the 8 111 participants, 1 586 reported fatigue status and the prevalence rate of fatigue was 19.55%. Of the participants reporting fatigue status, 31.72% (503) and 65.89% (1 045) were categorized as suboptimal health-related and disease-related fatigue, much higher than the ratio (2.39%, 38) of fatigue under normal health. Regression analyses revealed a significant association between suboptimal health-related fatigue and healthy lifestyle (P < 0.05). After adjusting for demographic variables, the participants with poor lifestyle were approximately 70 times (odds ratio [OR]: 69.63, 95% confidence interval [95% CI]: 26.80 – 180.87) more likely to have FSH, while those with general and suboptimal lifestyle were about 16 times (OR: 15.87, 95% CI: 8.43 – 29.89) and 2 times (OR: 2.05, 95% CI: 1.07 – 3.93) more likely to have FSH compared to the participants with excellent health-promoting lifestyle. Further regression analyses demonstrated that the participants with poor, general and suboptimal status of six dimensional lifestyle defined in HPLP-II were also at higher risk of FSH (P < 0.05 for all), especially for those with unhealthy status for the dimensions of stress management, interpersonal relationship, and spiritual growth.

Conclusions Un-healthy lifestyles are significantly related to an increased risk of fatigue of suboptimal health among middle school teachers.

表 1 健康状态与疲劳的人群分布情况

疲劳能否缓解健康亚健康疾病合计人数构成比（%）人数构成比（%）人数构成比（%）人数构成比（%）能 1 060 96.54 1 895 79.02 3 570 77.36 6 525 80.45 否 38 3.46 503 20.93 1 045 22.64 1 586 19.55 合计 1 098 13.54 2 398 29.56 4 615 56.90 8 111 100.00

表 2 503名亚健康疲劳者的一般人口学特征

特征人数构成比（%）年龄（岁）　≤ 25 19 3.78 　25～35 264 52.49 　> 35 220 43.74 性别　男性 157 31.21 　女性 346 68.79 婚姻　未婚 66 13.12 　已婚 437 86.88 学历水平　初中以下 2 0.00 　高中或大专 112 22.27 　本科以上 389 77.34 吸烟　不吸 450 89.46 　吸 39 7.75 　戒烟 2 0.40 　缺失值 12 2.39 饮酒　从不 205 40.76 　很少 172 34.19 　有时 97 19.28 　经常 11 2.19 　总是 2 0.40 　缺失值 16 3.18

表 3 亚健康疲劳者与健康者的健康促进生活方式总分及各维度得分差异比较（$bar x pm s$，分）

特征健康亚健康疲劳 t值 P值 HPLP-II总分 142.64 ± 23.45 116.18 ± 21.74 21.44 < 0.001 自我实现 28.59 ± 4.95 21.87 ± 5.50 24.36 < 0.001 健康责任 20.17 ± 5.32 18.13 ± 4.56 7.43 < 0.001 运动和锻炼 20.08 ± 5.45 16.38 ± 4.58 13.22 < 0.001 营养 23.72 ± 4.18 18.43 ± 3.76 24.28 < 0.001 人际关系 26.57 ± 4.51 21.61 ± 4.35 20.67 < 0.001 压力管理 23.72 ± 4.18 18.43 ± 3.76 24.29 < 0.001

表 4 亚健康疲劳与健康促进生活方式的多元logistic回归分析

变量参照组 β a $S_{overline x}$ Wald χ2值 OR值 95 % CI P值总体评价优秀　差 4.24 0.49 75.89 69.63 26.80～180.87 < 0.001 　一般 2.76 0.32 73.22 15.87 8.43～29.89 < 0.001 　良好 0.72 0.33 4.64 2.05 1.07～3.93 0.031 自我实现优秀　差 3.37 0.33 102.25 29.09 15.14～55.91 < 0.001 　一般 3.38 0.20 281.55 29.25 19.72～43.39 < 0.001 　良好 1.25 0.18 48.38 3.49 2.46～4.97 0.000 健康责任优秀　差 1.54 0.33 21.28 4.66 2.42～8.95 < 0.001 　一般 1.06 0.32 10.85 2.88 1.54～5.42 0.001 　良好 0.47 0.35 1.78 1.60 0.80～3.18 0.183 运动和锻炼优秀　差 2.44 0.27 79.78 11.46 6.71～19.56 < 0.001 　一般 1.80 0.25 52.82 6.04 3.72～9.81 < 0.001 　良好 0.70 0.27 6.67 2.01 1.18～3.40 0.010 营养优秀　差 2.45 0.33 55.61 11.56 6.08～21.99 < 0.001 　一般 1.71 0.27 39.80 5.53 3.25～9.40 < 0.001 　良好 0.18 0.29 0.37 1.19 0.68～2.09 0.541 人际关系优秀　差 3.64 0.47 60.48 37.98 15.19～94.99 < 0.001 　一般 2.85 0.23 157.71 17.37 11.12～27.10 < 0.001 　良好 0.96 0.23 17.96 2.61 1.68～4.07 < 0.001 压力管理优秀　差 4.17 0.45 84.40 64.99 26.67～158.35 < 0.001 　一般 3.40 0.24 207.86 30.02 18.90～47.67 < 0.001 　良好 1.19 0.23 26.10 3.28 2.08～5.18 < 0.001 　　注：a校正一般人口统计学特征变量，包括年龄、性别、婚姻状态、学历水平、吸烟、饮酒等。 [1]

Hilderink PH, Collard R, Rosmalen JG, et al. Prevalence of somatoform disorders and medically unexplained symptoms in old age populations in comparison with younger age groups: a systematic review[J]. Ageing Res Rev, 2013, 12(1): 151 – 156.

[2] 马宁, 刘民. 亚健康状态的流行病学研究进展[J]. 中国预防医学杂志, 2012, 13(7): 556 – 559. [3] 练秋红, 曾婷, 李全敏, 等. 广州市居民亚健康的组成因子及亚健康危险因素的调查[J]. 现代预防医学, 2013, 40(7): 1294 – 1298. [4] 杨志敏, 周雯. 亚健康疲劳状态的研究现状[J]. 江西中医学院学报, 2009, 21(3): 95 – 97. [5] 朱嵘. 亚健康管理[M]. 中国中医药出版社, 2010. [6] 陈洁瑜, 吴六国, 程静茹, 等. 中学教师亚健康与健康促进生活方式的相关性研究[J]. 现代预防医学, 2015, 42(12): 2206 – 2210, 2231. [7]

Chen J, Cheng J, Liu Y, et al. Associations between breakfast eating habits and health-promoting lifestyle, suboptimal health status in Southern China: a population based, cross sectional study[J]. J Transl Med, 2014, 12: 348.

[8] 吴六国, 曹明满, 孙晓敏, 等. 大学生疲劳与健康促进生活方式的相关性分析[J]. 广州中医药大学学报, 2015, 32(3): 426 – 429. [9] 朱嵘. 《亚健康中医临床指南》解读[J]. 中国中医药现代远程教育, 2009, 2: Ⅴ – Ⅵ. [10] 许军, 冯丽仪, 罗仁, 等. 亚健康评定量表的信度效度研究[J]. 南方医科大学学报, 2011, 31(1): 33 – 38. [11] 毕建璐, 程静茹, 于冰琰, 等. 亚健康评定量表(SHMS V1.0)判定标准的制定及广东地区亚健康人群中医体质的分布情况[J]. 新中医, 2014, 46(8): 65 – 68. [12] 严美花, 陈晶, 孙晓敏, 等. 大学生疲劳与中医体质的相关性研究[J]. 热带医学杂志, 2012, 12(6): 661 – 664. [13]

Mohamadian H, Eftekhar H, Rahimi A, et al. Predicting health-related quality of life by using a health promotion model among Iranian adolescent girls: a structural equation modeling approach[J]. Nurs Health Sci, 2011, 13(2): 141 – 148.

[14]

Perez-Fortis A, Ulla DS, Padilla JL. Psychometric properties of the Spanish version of the Health-Promoting Lifestyle Profile II[J]. Res Nurs Health, 2012, 35(3): 301 – 313.

[15]

Pinar R, Celik R, Bahcecik N. Reliability and construct validity of the Health-Promoting Lifestyle Profile II in an adult Turkish population[J]. Nurs Res, 2009, 58(3): 184 – 193.

[16] 王艳娟, 武丽杰, 夏薇, 等. 中学生健康促进生活方式问卷中文版信效度分析[J]. 中国学校卫生, 2007, 28(10): 889 – 891. [17]

Walker SN, Sechrist KR, Pender NJ. The Health-Promoting Lifestyle Profile: development and psychometric characteristics[J]. Nurs Res, 1987, 36(2): 76 – 81.

[18] 曾茂春, 李辉. 国内中小学教师心理健康Meta分析[J]. 中国健康心理学杂志, 2011, 19(11): 1348 – 1350. [19] 王维英, 陈智强, 霍彧, 等. 中小学教师心理健康现状调查与对策研究[J]. 江苏教育学院学报(社会科学), 2010, 6(3): 37 – 39. [20] 田佳星, 罗淞元, 林凯璇, 等. 大学生亚健康与压力症状相关性的研究[J]. 现代中西医结合杂志, 2010, 19(16): 1951 – 1952. [21] 程静茹, 毕建璐, 李斐, 等. 中小学教师压力管理与亚健康状态的相关性分析[J]. 广州中医药大学学报, 2015, 32(1): 163 – 166. [22] 陈洁瑜, 梁国骏, 王嘉莉, 等. 睡眠与生活方式及亚健康的关系[J]. 广东医学, 2016, 37(4): 594 – 597. [23]

Poorsheikhali F, Alavi HR. Correlation of parents' religious behavior with family's emotional relations and students' self-actualization[J]. J Relig Health, 2015, 54(1): 235 – 241.

[24]

Cohen-Cole E, Fletcher JM. Detecting implausible social network effects in acne, height, and headaches: longitudinal analysis[J]. British Medical Journal, 2008, 337: a2533.

[25]

Sarris J, Logan AC, Akbaraly TN, et al. Nutritional medicine as mainstream in psychiatry[J]. Lancet Psychiatry, 2015, 2(3): 271 – 274.

[26]

Wang W, Russell A, Yan Y. Traditional Chinese medicine and new concepts of predictive, preventive and personalized medicine in diagnosis and treatment of suboptimal health[J]. EPMA J, 2014, 5(1): 4.

[27]

Wang W, Yan Y. Suboptimal health: a new health dimension for translational medicine[J]. Clin Transl Med, 2012, 1(1): 28.