广西某医科院校在校生健康素养现状及影响因素分析

目的 了解广西某医科大学在校生健康素养水平,分析其影响因素,为学校开展健康教育和制定干预措施提供依据。 方法 对广西某医科大学2 410名在校本科学生进行健康素养问卷调查,并对健康素养相关影响因素进行单因素和logistic回归分析。 结果 本次调查覆盖医学、理学、法学、文学、管理学、教育学6个学科,包含22个本科专业及130个班级。各学科门类健康素养水平依次为医学57.73%、管理学45.57%、理学29.85%、文学29.06%、教育学 27.12%、法学20.78%。logistic回归分析显示学科是健康素养的影响因素,以医学为参照,理学、法学、文学、管理学、教育学的OR值分别为2.539(95%CI:1.447~4.455)、6.233(95%CI:3.493~11.084)、2.919(95%CI:1.900~4.486)、1.759(95%CI:1.244~2.468)、3.119(95%CI:1.703~5.714);年级越高,健康素养水平也越高,以大一年级为参照,大二、大三、大四OR值分别为0.427(95%CI:0.336~0.542)、0.225(95%CI:0.175~0.288)、0.167(95%CI:0.130~0.213)。 结论 各学科知识体系各异,学生培养过程不同,各学科各维度健康素养水平差距较大,且健康意识有待提高。

Status quo and influencing factors of health literacy among undergraduates in a medical university in Guangxi

Objective To investigate the health literacy level of undergraduates in a medical college in Guangxi, to analyze its influencing factors, and to provide evidence for conducting health education in the university and developing intervention measures.Methods A questionnaire survey on health literacy was conducted among 2,410 undergraduates in a medical university in Guangxi. Single factor analysis and logistic regression analysis were performed to identify the factors influencing health literacy. Results Six disciplines, namely, medicine, nature science, law, literature, management science and education, were involved in this survey, including 22 undergraduate majors and 130 classes. The health literacy level of medicine was the highest (57.73%), followed by management science (45.57%), nature science (29.85%), literature (29.06%), education (27.12%) and law (20.78%). Logistic regression analysis showed that the discipline was the factor influencing health literacy. Based on medicine, the OR values of nature science, law, literature, management science and education were 2.539 (95%CI:1.447-4.455), 6.233 (95%CI: 3.493-11.084), 2.919 (95%CI: 1.900-4.486), 1.759 (95%CI: 1.244-2.468) and 3.119 (95%CI: 1.703-5.714), respectively. The higher the grade, the higher the health literacy level. Taking the freshman year as the reference, the OR values of sophomore, junior and senior years were 0.427 (95%CI: 0.336-0.542), 0.225 (95%CI:0.175-0.288) and 0.167 (95%CI: 0.130-0.213), respectively. Conclusions The knowledge system of each discipline is different, and the training processes of undergraduates are diverse. There is a big gap in the health literacy level among various disciplines and dimensions, and the health consciousness needs to be improved.