成都市流动人口生命质量两领域影响因素分析比较研究

目的 了解成都市流动人口生命质量状况，分析比较其生理健康领域和心理健康领域生命质量的影响因素，为改善流动人口健康状况相关政策制定提供依据。方法 本研究采用应答推动抽样（RDS）方法在成都市抽取了2549名≥16岁的非成都市户籍务工人员进行问卷调查，采用SF-12量表评估调查对象生命质量状况。结果 成都市流动人口生命质量生理健康总评（PCS）和心理健康总评（MCS）分别为51.35±7.27分和49.48±10.37分。多分类logistic回归分析结果显示:以高水平PCS为对照，16~37岁（OR=0.204，P<0.001）、近一年医疗费用支出＜100元（OR=0.384，P=0.004）、与雇主关系好（OR=0.445，P=0.007）发生低水平PCS的风险更低；目前没有工作（OR=5.612，P<0.001）、近一年应住院未住院（OR=5.702，P=0.020）、两周内患病（OR=2.164，P<0.001）发生低水平PCS的风险更高；自评收入比成都市平均水平差者发生中等水平PCS的风险更高（OR=1.834，P=0.006）。以高水平MCS为对照，与雇主关系好发生低水平MCS的风险更低（OR=0.562，P=0.010），16~37岁（OR=2.307，P=0.002）、就业身份为自营劳动者（OR=2.603，P=0.038）和其他（OR=3.009，P=0.031）、对居住环境不满意（OR=1.567，P=0.003）、近一年应住院未住院（OR=3.665，P=0.004）、健康知识得分≤6分（OR=2.623，P<0.001）、两周内患病（OR=2.417，P<0.001）、邻里互助较少（OR=1.648，P=0.007）、对成都不适应（OR=3.115，P=0.044）发生低水平MCS的风险更高。结论 成都市流动人口的生命质量与个人和社会层面的多种因素有关，且生理健康和心理健康两领域影响因素存在差异，今后关于流动人口健康管理和服务的政策需从社区卫生服务、居住环境、劳动保障等方面重点完善。

Comparative analysis of influencing factors in two fields of life quality of floating population in Chengdu

Objective To understand the quality of life of floating population in Chengdu, and to analyze and compare the influencing factors of quality of life in the field of physical and mental health, so as to provide basis for relevant policies to improve the health status of floating population. Methods In this study, Respondent-Driven Sampling (RDS) method was used to collect 2,549 non-registered migrant workers aged ≥16 years old in Chengdu for questionnaire survey, and SF-12 scale was used to evaluate the quality of life of the respondents. Results Physical component summary (PCS) and mental component summary (MCS) of quality of life of the floating population in Chengdu were 51.35±7.27 and 49.48±10.37, respectively. The results of multivariate logistic regression analysis showed that the risk of low-level PCS compared with high-level PCS was lower in the respondents who were 16 to 37 years old (OR=0.204, P<0.001), the respondents whose medical expenses in the past year were less than 100 yuan (OR=0.384, P=0.004), and the respondents who had a good relationship with their employers (OR=0.445, P=0.007). The floating population currently unemployed (OR=5.612, P<0.001), should have been hospitalized for the past year (OR=5.702, P=0.020), and had been ill within two weeks (OR=2.164, P<0.001) were at higher risk of low-level PCS. The floating population who deemed his income was lower than the average level in Chengdu had a higher risk of moderate PCS (OR=1.834, P=0.006). With high-level MCS as the control, the respondents who had a good relationship with employers were at lower risk of low-level MCS (OR=0.562, P=0.010). The respondents who were 16 to 37 years old (OR=2.307, P=0.002), whose employment status were self-employed workers (OR=2.603, P=0.038) or others (OR=3.009, P=0.031), unsatisfied with the living environment (OR=1.567, P=0.003), should have been hospitalized for the past year (OR=3.665, P=0.004), scored less than 6 points on health-related knowledge (OR=2.623, P<0.001), fell ill within two weeks (OR=2.417, P<0.001), had less neighborhood assistance each other (OR=1.648, P=0.007), and not used to living in Chengdu (OR=3.115, P=0.044) have a higher risk of low-level MCS. Conclusion The quality of life of the floating population in Chengdu is related to various factors at the personal and social level. In addition, there are differences in influencing factors in the fields of physical health and mental health. In the future, policies on health management and service of floating population need to be improved from the aspects of community health service, living environment and labor security.