697名男大学生约会暴力问题调查

目的 初步了解男大学生约会暴力发生情况.方法 采用横断面回顾性调查方法,以某大学的学生为调查对象,就有关约会中暴力发生情况进行不记名自填式问卷调查.结果 在被调查的697名男生中,有73.5%(512/697)报告有过约会.在有约会的512名男生中,在调查前的12个月中,有29.7%曾对异性恋人/约会的异性朋友施加过躯体暴力(7.0%)、或精神暴力(27.7%)、或性暴力(2.1%),有25.2%曾受到对方的躯体暴力(10.4%)、或精神暴力(21.9%)、或性暴力(1.6%)的攻击.童年期有被父母体罚情感虐待经历的学生,约会暴力的发生率明显偏高.结论 大学男生中约会暴力问题并非少见.重视开展以学校和社区为基础的预防教育与健康服务.     

697名男大学生约会暴力问题调查

目的 初步了解男大学生约会暴力发生情况.方法 采用横断面回顾性调查方法,以某大学的学生为调查对象,就有关约会中暴力发生情况进行不记名自填式问卷调查.结果 在被调查的697名男生中,有73.5%(512/697)报告有过约会.在有约会的512名男生中,在调查前的12个月中,有29.7%曾对异性恋人/约会的异性朋友施加过躯体暴力(7.0%)、或精神暴力(27.7%)、或性暴力(2.1%),有25.2%曾受到对方的躯体暴力(10.4%)、或精神暴力(21.9%)、或性暴力(1.6%)的攻击.童年期有被父母体罚情感虐待经历的学生,约会暴力的发生率明显偏高.结论 大学男生中约会暴力问题并非少见.重视开展以学校和社区为基础的预防教育与健康服务.     

河北省某大专学生约会暴力经历与心理健康问题关联

[目的]了解大专学生约会暴力发生情况,探讨约会暴力经历对大学生心理健康的影响.[方法]用自填式问卷,于2007年4月对河北某大专学校1 762名学生就有关约会暴力经历进行不记名问卷调查.[结果]在被调查的1 762名大学生中,有722人最近1年内有约会暴力经历(受到约会伴侣的暴力攻击或/和对约会伴侣施暴),发生总率为41.0%.其中,男生发生率为47.0%,高于女生的37.3%(x2=16.17,P=0.000).男生施暴行为发生率为38.8%,高于女生的33.6%(x2=4.77,P=0.029).男生受到约会暴力攻击发生率为39.1%,高于女生的发生率22.7%(x2=54.32,P=0.000).与没有约会暴力经历的学生比较,有约会暴力经历学生躯体化、强迫症状、人际关系敏感、抑郁、焦虑、敌对、恐怖、偏执因子得分≥1的检出率高,自尊量表的平均得分值低,差异有统计学意义.[结论]在我国大学生约会暴力现象常见,是影响心理健康的一个重要因素.     

某大专学校女生约会暴力发生情况调查

目的 了解大专女生约会暴力发生情况,为今后深入开展青少年约会暴力问题研究及预防工作提供参考依据.方法 采用自填式问卷,于2007年4月对河北某大专学校1 094名女生有关约会暴力经历进行不记名问卷调查.结果 在被调查的1 094名大专女生中,有368名(33.6%)女生报告在约会中曾对恋人实施暴力行为;有248名(22.7%)女生报告在约会中曾受到恋人的暴力攻击;有408名(37.3%)报告曾对恋人或约会的异性朋友施暴或受到对方的暴力攻击.儿童期有家庭暴力经历的学生约会暴力发生率明显高于无家庭暴力的学生.结论 约会暴力在大学女生中并非少见,提示青少年约会暴力问题值得关注.     

2575名在校大学生亲密伴侣暴力现况研究

  目的  了解大学生约会暴力现状,探讨自我控制水平、对约会暴力的态度与施暴行为的关系。  方法  于2018年3 — 6月,采取整群抽样方法选取4所大学2 264名学生作为调查对象,采用约会暴力问卷、自我控制简明版量表、约会暴力态度问卷进行调查。  结果  2 264名调查对象中,施暴经历阳性报告率为68.77 %,其中男生为62.88 %,女生为73.68 %,差异有统计学意义（χ² = 5.87,P = 0.018）;三、四年级总体报告率高于一、二年级（χ² = 16.21,P = 0.035）。其中,70.26 %的大学生对对方实施过 ≥ 3次的暴力行为。施暴类型中,精神暴力报告率最高,为78.68 %,其次为躯体暴力报告率（57.88 %）及性暴力报告率（9.57 %）。其中,女生实施精神暴力的行为明显高于男生（χ² = 16.492,P = 0.016）,而在性胁迫方面,男生施暴行为显著高于女生（χ² = 11.02,P = 0.000）。施暴行为发生的常见原因为出现分歧双方沟通不良时（65.06 %）,缺乏自尊和尊重他人、言行举止不当（57.29 %）,不守时、不守信（52.41 %）。相对于无施暴行为者,施暴经历阳性组的自我控制得分明显偏低（t = 2.89,P = 0.016）,约会暴力态度问卷得分较高,差异有统计学意义（t = 6.85,P = 0.000）。  结论  大学生约会暴力行为发生率较高,低自我控制能力、对约会暴力的接受度与施暴行为密切相关。     

大学生暴力遭遇情况调查

目的调查高校大学生暴力遭遇发生情况,为制定大学生暴力预防措施提供科学依据。方法以长沙市的某师范类和公安类2所本科院校的1 365名大学生为研究对象,采用分层整群随机抽样方法,对曾经或过去12个月内的暴力遭遇发生情况进行匿名问卷调查,分析大学生暴力遭遇的特点。结果被调查对象中暴力遭遇发生率为75.2%。其中,精神暴力、躯体暴力和性暴力遭遇发生率分别为72.5%,30.8%和28.3%;娱乐场所是遭遇暴力的主要场所,占43.8%;遭遇暴力的对象主要来自陌生人,占27.2%。结论大学生暴力遭遇发生率较高,应给予足够的重视,采取针对性的措施进行干预。     

某医专学校在校学生恋爱状况和恋爱暴力发生情况调查

目的:了解某医学专科学校在校大学生恋爱状况和恋爱暴力发生的分布情况.方法:选取某医学专科学校在校一、二年级3421名学生为研究对象,在线问卷调查方式调查校男、女生恋爱经历和恋爱暴力发生情况.结果:在3421名在校学生中,有恋爱经历的学生占50.7％,女生主动躯体暴力(34.5％)、主动精神暴力(24.2％)高于男生(15.5％,17.8％).男生被动躯体暴力(24.7％)、主动性暴力(7.3％)检出率高于女生(16.9％、0.9％),性别间差异有统计学意义(P值均＜0.05).二年级男生主动躯体暴力(20.3％)、主动精神暴力(23.5％)和被动精神暴力(24.6％)检出率高于一年级男生(13.3％、15.1％、17.3％),独生子的被动躯体暴力(28.7％)高于非独生子(21.5％),城镇男生被动躯体暴力(29.1％)和被动精神暴力(24.6％)高于农村男生(21.6％、16.1％),差异有统计学意义(P值均＜ 0.05).结论:大学生普遍存在恋爱和恋爱暴力现象,且分布有明显性别特异性.     

童年期被虐待经历对大学生恋爱暴力发生的影响

目的 了解大学生恋爱暴力的发生情况及童年期被虐待经历对大学生恋爱暴力发生的影响。方法 采用滚雪球抽样的方法,对北京市7所大学的1 130名大学生进行不记名自填式问卷调查。结果 1 130名大学生中50.8%最近一年有过恋爱经历,其中遭受和实施恋爱暴力的比例分别为16.9%和11.1%。遭受肢体暴力、情感虐待和性暴力的比例分别为14.1%、10.6%和9.9%,实施肢体暴力、情感虐待和性暴力的比例分别为8.0%、7.1%和3.7%。有509名(45.0%)大学生在童年期曾有被父母虐待的经历,其中被用力徒手打、用物品打、在其他人面前遭到羞辱和目睹父母打架或父母打兄弟姐妹的比例分别为41.6%、24.9%、13.1%和24.5%。具有童年期被虐待经历的大学生遭受和实施恋爱暴力的比例均高于童年期没有被虐待经历的大学生,差异具有统计学意义(P=0.005)。结论 大学生恋爱暴力问题不容忽视,童年期遭受父母虐待经历对大学生恋爱暴力的发生具有一定影响。     

某院校大专男生约会暴力发生情况

约会暴力(dating violence)是在约会(或恋爱)关系中一方指从躯体、性或心理方面故意控制或支配对方,造成一定程度伤害的任何行为[1].大学生群体中的约会暴力包括性侵犯、身体损害、精神暴力等多个方面;不仅指男性对女性的侵犯,也包括女性对男性.为此,笔者于2013年5月对山东省某学院443名成年男生进行了约会暴力发生情况的问卷调查,同时进行症状自评量表(SCL-90)测试,拟探讨约会暴力经历对学生心理健康的影响.     

某高校大学生吸烟调查

[目的]了解大学生吸烟状况及对控制吸烟的态度,为今后教育和干预措施提供科学理论依据。[方法]采用现场问卷调查方式,对1030名学生进行调查。[结果]男生吸烟率达50.3%,女生吸烟率达9.2%,男生吸烟率高于女生(P<0.005);开始吸烟的首要原因主要为好奇心,其次为社交需要和烦闷,时间主要在小学和大学阶段;大部分学生对控制吸烟行为有正确的认识,有92.6%的学生认为吸烟肯定会损害健康,但仍有25.2%的男生和4.4%的女生表示可能或肯定会在今后吸烟。[结论]应采取积极有效的综合干预策略,改变学生的不健康行为,控制吸烟。     

Dating Violence and Associated Health Risks Among High School Students with Disabilities

Children with disabilities are at a higher risk for various forms of violence including sexual violence, bullying, and physical violence compared to those without disabilities. However there are no studies documenting the prevalence of dating violence amongst a population-based sample of adolescents with disabilities. The purpose of this study is to assess the prevalence of dating violence victimization against high schools students with and without disabilities and to examine associations of dating violence with health risks by disability status among high school girls. Data from the 2009 Massachusetts Youth Health Survey were analyzed in 2011 using bivariate and multivariate logistic regression. Among high school students who had ever been on a date, girls (25.9 %, 95 % CI 19.9–31.5) and boys (9.1 %, 95 % CI 5.8–12.4) with disabilities were more likely than girls (8.8 %, 95 % CI 6.8–10.8) and boys (4.5 %, 95 % CI 3.1–5.8) without disabilities to report dating violence. Multivariate analyses indicated that high school girls with disabilities who experienced dating violence were more likely to report feeling sad or hopeless for 2 weeks or more in the past year, suicide ideation in the past 12 months, and drug use in the past 30 days compared to those with disabilities who did not report dating violence and those without disabilities who reported and did not report dating violence. High school students with disabilities are at a greater risk for dating violence victimization compared to those without disabilities and high school girls with disabilities who experience dating violence are at increased risk for experiencing poor mental health outcomes and substance abuse.     

四川大学医学生膳食营养状况调查

目的了解高校医学生的膳食营养状况，为提高大学生的营养水平提供依据。方法编制半定量食物频率问卷，检验其信度和效度，并以此为调查工具，对330名医学生进行膳食调查。结果医学生的食物构成以粮谷类、蔬菜水果类、肉类为主，但能量来源比例不合理，脂肪供能过高，碳水化合物供能过低；钙摄入不足，优质蛋白质、动物源性铁与维生素A摄入不足。结论应教育学生合理改进膳食结构，增加优质蛋白质、碳水化合物、钙、动物源性铁，维生素A摄入量，以提高营养水平。     

某中医高校学生艾滋病相关知识知晓情况的问卷调查

目的了解大学生艾滋病相关知识的知晓情况,为针对性地开展大学生艾滋病健康教育提供依据。方法采取整群分层随机抽样方法对某中医高校的581名全日制普通本科生进行匿名现场自填式问卷调查,并对调查结果进行统计分析。结果本次调查对象中大学生艾滋病相关知识、基本知识、传播途径知识知晓人数分别为455人、445人和464人,知晓率分别为78.3%,76.6%和79.9%。在艾滋病基本知识方面,大学生对"人类免疫缺陷病毒(HIV)侵犯人体的免疫系统""外表看起来健康的人有可能携带HIV""艾滋病可以预防""预防艾滋病是全社会的责任"及"检测艾滋病应到正规医院或疾病预防控制中心"的知晓率较高,分别为90.4%,89.7%,83.1%,92.6%及94.7%;但大学生对"我国目前所有省、直辖市、自治区均出现了艾滋病疫情""世界艾滋病日"和"尚无疫苗可以预防艾滋病"的知晓率较低,分别为41.7%,59.2%和66.8%。在艾滋病传播途径知识方面,大学生对"输入含有HIV的血液会感染艾滋病""正确使用安全套可减少感染艾滋病的机会""感染HIV的妇女生下的小孩可能会感染艾滋病"等知识的知晓率均较高,分别为94.0%,90.0%和92.9%;但大学生对"蚊虫叮咬不会传播HIV"和"与HIV感染者或艾滋病患者共用泳池、浴池和马桶不会感染艾滋病"的知晓率较低,分别为40.3%和55.6%。不同性别、年级、专业、家庭所在地的大学生艾滋病相关知识知晓率比较,差异均有统计学意义(P0.05)。结论大学生对艾滋病相关知识的了解还不够全面,高校应加强大学生艾滋病相关知识的健康教育,提高大学生艾滋病相关知识知晓率。     

Physical Dating Violence Victimization Among Sexual Minority Youth

Objectives. We examined (1) whether sexual minority youths (SMYs) are at increased risk for physical dating violence victimization (PDVV) compared with non-SMYs, (2) whether bisexual youths have greater risk of PDVV than lesbian or gay youths, (3) whether youths who have had sexual contact with both sexes are more susceptible to PDVV than youths with same sex–only sexual contact, and (4) patterns of PDVV among SMYs across demographic groups.Methods. Using 2 measures of sexual orientation, sexual identity and sexual behavior, and compiling data from 9 urban areas that administered the Youth Risk Behavior Surveys from 2001 to 2011, we conducted logistic regression analyses to calculate odds of PDVV among SMYs across demographic sub-samples.Results. SMYs have significantly increased odds of PDVV compared with non-SMYs. Bisexual youths do not have significantly higher odds of PDVV than gay or lesbian youths, but youths who had sexual contact with both-sexes possess significantly higher odds of PDVV than youths with same sex–only sexual contact. These patterns hold for most gender, grade, and racial/ethnic subgroups.Conclusions. Overall, SMYs have greater odds of PDVV versus non-SMYs. Among SMYs, youths who had sexual contact with both sexes have greater odds of PDVV than youths with same sex–only sexual contact. Prevention programs that consider sexual orientation, support tolerance, and teach coping and conflict resolution skills could reduce PDVV among SMYs.Dating violence refers to any stalking behaviors, psychological, physical or sexual violence perpetrated by a partner toward a current or former dating partner; violence may be perpetrated in-person or electronically (e.g., repeated unwanted texts, cyberstalking).1 The prevalence of dating violence victimization reported across studies varies by definition, measure, and population.2 In general, between 10% and 30% of adolescent samples reported experiencing some form of dating violence.2 There are few studies on dating violence among sexual minorities, defined either by sexual identity (e.g., gay or lesbian, bisexual) or by sexual contact (e.g., sexual contact with same sex–only or contact with both sexes), and they suggested that prevalence may vary from 11% to upwards of 40%.3–6 In a convenience sample of adolescents, Freedner et al. found that bisexual boys had 3.6 times the odds of experiencing any form of dating violence compared with heterosexual boys and lesbians had 2.4 times the odds of reporting fear for their safety in the context of a dating relationship compared with heterosexual girls.4 In a sample of 10 schools in New York, researchers found that 42% of lesbian, gay, and bisexual students reported experiencing physical dating violence compared with 29% of heterosexual students.3 Using data from 8 states, an analysis of the Youth Risk Behavior Surveys found that physical dating violence victimization (PDVV) in the past 12 months ranged from 6.1% to 13.8% among heterosexual students, from 19.1% to 29.2% among gay or lesbian students, and from 17.7% to 28.0% among bisexual students.6 Based on sex of sexual contact, the prevalence of dating violence victimization ranged from 11.5% to 17.1% among students who only had sexual contact with the opposite sex, from 16.3% to 26.2% among students who only had sexual contact with the same sex, and from 26.3% to 39.6% among students who engaged with both sexes.6 Only 1 study showed relatively low prevalence of PDVV―among 117 youths in the National Longitudinal Study of Adolescent Health who reported same-sex romantic or sexual relationships, 11% reported experiencing any physical violence in the past 18 months.5Many reasons exist for a higher prevalence of dating violence among sexual minority youths (SMYs). Although many youths face stressors in adolescence as they develop their social and sexual identities, this pressure may be more intense for SMYs who often grow up amidst individual and institutional stigma, prejudice, and discrimination toward sexual minorities. This hostile social environment may lead to feelings of shame and isolation, denying one’s sexuality, internalized homophobia, depression, negative health behaviors, less favorable perceptions of the quality of one’s relationships, and relationship violence.7–10 Other related reasons for increased relationship violence may include difficulties among some SMYs in navigating their gender identity and gender expression which may play a role among some SMYs and create tensions in relationships.11 SMYs, like their heterosexual peers are also influenced by strict gender roles and social norms of behaving depicted in the “mainstream” culture.12,13 For example, a partner may take on a more dominant role and expect the other partner to conform. Without visible role models, issues of dominance and submissiveness may become destructive.11 Other stressors within heterosexual couples also play out in sexual minority relationships such as power imbalances attributed to social class differences, jealousy, incompatibility, and a lack of recognition of unhealthy relationships stemming from absent role models.11 When SMYs do recognize violence in their relationships, they may be less likely to seek help for fear of reprisal or rejection upon coming out.14 Additionally, services and education received may lack cultural appropriateness.15 These factors may keep youths feeling stuck in violent relationships. SMYs may also be afraid to leave a violent relationship because they don’t see other relationship options for themselves given low visibility of sexual minorities in the community.11The short- and long-term consequences of dating violence have been well documented and include variety of negative physical, social, and mental health outcomes including injury, fear, depression, substance abuse, sexual risk behaviors, suicidal ideation, school failure, and eating disorders.12,16–19 Findings from 2 studies suggested that the consequences of dating violence among sexual minorities may be even more severe with increased risk of HIV infection in populations experiencing intimate partner violence.20,21 Numerous risk factors have been associated with dating violence in past research. These factors include having multiple sexual partners, depression, anxiety, substance use, or aggression, holding traditional gender views, having antisocial friends or friends who perpetrate dating violence, witnessing or experiencing family violence, having a poor relationship with parents, and low parental monitoring.22More research on the prevalence of dating violence among SMY youths is needed to guide research on etiology and prevention of such violence. According to Wolfe et al., adolescent dating violence may be a stepping-stone to adult intimate partner violence,23 so prevention is imperative. Specifically, understanding which sexual minorities are at increased risk is essential as sexual minorities are not a single homogenous group. Examining results within sexual minority groups (e.g., lesbian or gay or bisexual) requires large sample sizes. To date, most studies have employed relatively small convenience samples and have often grouped all sexual minorities together.4,5 Additionally, stratified analyses by race/ethnicity remain absent in the literature of dating violence among SMYs, perhaps because of sample size limitations.To address these gaps, we combined data from large population-based local Youth Risk Behavior Surveys from 2001 to 2011 to examine PDVV experienced by SMY groups and stratified analyses by demographic characteristics (e.g., gender or race/ethnicity). We used 2 measures of sexual orientation, sexual identity and sexual behavior, which allowed for the inclusion of more SMYs in the analyses, because not all youths who engage in same-sex behavior identify as a sexual minority and similarly not all youths who identify as a sexual minority engage in sexual behavior. We sought to examine the following: (1) whether SMYs (based on both definitions) are at increased risk for PDVV compared with non-SMYs, (2) whether bisexual youths have a higher risk of PDVV than do lesbian or gay youths, (3) whether youths with sexual contact with both-sexes have a higher risk of PDVV than do youths with same sex–only engagement, and (4) patterns of PDVV among SMYs in different demographic groups.     

Substance Use and Disparities in Teen Dating Violence Victimization by Sexual Identity Among High School Students

Prevention Science - Sexual minority youth (SMY) report more substance use and experience more physical and sexual dating violence victimization than heterosexual youth; however, few studies have...     

2011年济南市某高等学校大学生吸烟情况调查

[目的]了解济南市大学生吸烟情况,为预防控制吸烟行为提供依据。[方法]2011年5月,在济南市的山东某学院一～四年级,抽取400名大学生进行吸烟行为状况的调查。[结果]实际调查388人,吸烟者78人,占20.10%,这一比例,男生为30.18%,女生为7.95%(P<0.01)。78名吸烟者中,开始吸烟的原因主要是受朋友、家庭、同学、老师影响(占7.99%)、受各方面压力(占3.87%)和好奇、时尚(占14.10%),喜欢抽烟(占2.84%);吸烟的原因主要是郁闷(占5.15%);开始吸烟时间主要在高中的(占6.19%)和大学时(占7.73%);每天吸烟1～5支的占12.63%,6～10支的占2.84%。[结论]山东某学院大学生吸烟现象较为普遍。