校外青少年生殖健康高危行为与社会心理因素关系

目的 了解上海市青少年生殖健康知识点掌握情况，评估干预对促进中学生性与生殖健康相关知识掌握的效果。 方法 于2015年1 — 12月，采用多阶段随机整群抽样方法，抽取上海市4所中学学生，随机分为对照组和干预组，应用流行病学干预研究方法，在干预组根据干预方案进行宣传教育和培训干预活动，并评估干预效果。 结果 2015年1 — 3月，基线调查共调查795人，其中对照组389人，干预组406人。终末调查于2015年9 — 12月进行，共调查 745人，对照组383人，干预组362人。基线调查时对照组性与生殖健康知识得分及格比例为58.87 %，干预组为54.93 %，2组比较差异无统计学意义（χ² = 1.26，P = 0.26）；终末调查时干预组知识得分及格比例为72.93 %，对照组为55.61 %，干预组及格率提高，差异有统计学意义（χ² = 26.70，P < 0.01）。采用logistic回归分析组别和时间的交互作用，调查对象知识得分是否及格的组别和时间交互作用项有统计学意义（χ² = 19.01，P < 0.01）；多因素logistic回归分析显示，干预、居住方式和人均家庭月收入是知识是否及格的影响因素。 结论 中学生性与生殖健康干预项目提高了中学生对相关知识的掌握水平，对促进青少年性与生殖健康水平具有重要意义。

AIDS knowledge and sexual activity among Flemish secondary school students: a multilevel analysis of the effects of type of education

Objective To examine the awareness of reproductive knowledge and to evaluate intervention effect of health education on sexual and reproductive knowledge among middle school students in Shanghai city. Methods We recruited students in 4 middle school in Shanghai city using multistage random cluster sampling and assigned the students into an intervention group and a control group. Then we conducted baseline and final surveys with a self-designed questionnaire among all the participants before and after a 4-month education program on sexual and reproductive health (including lectures, material distribution, psychological consultation, and communication with social media) only in the intervention group. Chi-square test and logistic regression analysis were used to analyze collected data. Results Totally 795 students (406 in intervention group and 389 in control group) were self-administered with the questionnaire for the baseline survey from January to March 2015 and 745 (362 in intervention group and 383 in control group) for the final survey from September to December 2015. At the baseline survey, the proportion of the students with the passing score and above for knowledge about sexual and reproductive health was 54.93% for the intervention and 58.87% for the control group, without significant difference (χ² = 1.26, P = 0.26); but at the final survey, the proportion was significantly higher for the intervention group than that for the control group (72.93% vs. 55.61%, χ² = 26.70; P < 0.01). The results of multivariate logistic regression analysis demonstrated that the intervention program, living style and monthly household income per capita were the influencing factors of the score for knowledge about sexual and reproductive health. Conclusion The intervention program on sexual and reproductive health improved the awareness of related knowledge among middle school students and is of great significance to promote sexual and reproductive health among the adolescents.