摘要
目的:比较西部地区大、中小学教师心理健康水平的差异,评估不同层次教师心理健康状况。方法:①于2003-01/2004-12根据年龄、性别、民族、教育程度和城乡等组成情况对西部地区12省包括新疆、甘肃、宁夏、青海、陕西、云南、广西、四川、重庆、内蒙古、西藏、贵州教师进行分层抽样。所有被试均为从事教育一线工作的教师,且均对调查项目知情同意。男3019人,女3110人;年龄18￣62岁;小、中、大学教师分别为1363,3692和1074人。②选用康奈尔医学指数问卷评估纳入教师生理和心理状况,采用焦虑自评量表和抑郁自评量表和90项症状自评量表评估纳入教师心理健康状况。康奈尔医学指数问卷包括18个部分,共有195个问题,分数越高表明生理和心理问题越严重。焦虑自评量表:总分50～59分为轻度焦虑,60～69分为中度,>69分以上为重度焦虑;抑郁自评量表:总分53～62分为轻度抑郁,63～72分为中度抑郁,>72分为重度抑郁。症状自评量表包括躯体化、强迫症状、人际关系、抑郁、焦虑、敌对、恐怖、偏执、精神病性及其他10个因子,共90个项目,每个项目按从无到严重5个等级(1～5)计分,评分越高说明该项心理症状越明显。总分160～199分为轻度心理问题,200～240分为轻度心理问题,>240分为重度。③计量资料差异比较采用方差分析。结果:教师6129人均进入结果分析。①康奈尔指数问卷评分结果:小、中、大学教师总分、精神症状评分比较,差异明显(F=12.945,12.076,P<0.01)。大、中、小学教师在生理及心理健康方面,除消化系统、生殖泌尿系统、抑郁分项量表无明显差异外(P>0.05),其余差异均达到显著性(P<0.05～0.01)。②焦虑自评量表和抑郁自评量表评估结果:有焦虑情绪者和有抑郁情绪者的总检出率分别为29.73%和29.51%。小、中、大学教师焦虑自评量表评分结果比较,差异明显[(43.66±11.25),(43.73±12.53),(38.33±11.45)分,F=88.022,P<0.01];抑郁自评量表比较,差异明显[(44.87±13.32),(44.24±16.98),(39.01±12.46)分,F=54.336,P<0.01],上述两量表总分均以大学教师最低。③症状自评量表评估结果:有轻度心理问题944人(15.44%),有中度心理问题473名(7.73%),有重度心理问题679人(11.10%)。大、中、小学教师的有心理问题者总检出率分别为24.7%,36.4%,35.6%。大、中、小学校教师的症状自评量表总分和10个因子分比较,差异明显(P<0.01)。大学教师除躯体化因子评分外,其他因子阳性症状均分均低于中、小教师。结论:不同层次学校教师的心理健康水平有差异,以中学教师心理健康水平最低。
AIM： To compare and evaluate the mental health level of college and middle-primary school teachers from western areas.
METHODS： ①According to age, gender, nationality, educational background and area, a total of 6 129 teachers aged 18-62 years were enrolled by stratified sampling from 12 provinces in the western area between January 2003 and December 2004, including 3 019 males and 3 110 females. They were all in-office teachers and informed of the detection scheme, 1 363 in primary school, 3 692 in middle school and 1 074 in college. ②All the subjects were evaluated by Comell Medical Index （CMI）, Self-Rating Anxiety Scale （SAS）, Self-Rating Depression Scale （SDS） and Symptom Checklist 90 （SCL-90）, respectively. CMI questionnaire included 195 questions of 18 sections, the higher marks indicated the severer problems of physiology and psychology. SAS： 50-59 scores as mild anxiety, 60-69 scores as moderate and over 69 scores as severe. SDS： 53-62 scores as mild depression, 63-72 scores as moderate and over 72 scores as severe. SCL-90 questionnaire adopted 90 itemsof 10 factors： somatization, obsessive-compulsive, interpersonal sensitivity, depression, anxiety, hostility, phobic anxiety, paraniod ideation, psychoticism and addition. Five degrees were used, the higher the marks were, the worse the mental symptom was. Total score of 160-199 scores as mild mental problem, 200-240 scores as moderate and over 240 scores as severe.③Measurement data was compared with analysis of variance.
RESULTS： All 6 129 teachers entered the result analysis. ①CMI questionnaire evaluation： There were significant differences in the total score and psychiatric symptom between college teachers and middle-primary school teachers （F = 12.945, 12.076, P 〈 0.01）. There were also statistical differences in mental and mental health of teachers （P 〈 0.05- 0.01）, except digestive system, genitourinary system and depression subscale （P 〉 0.05）.②Comparative results of SAS and SDS： The total rate of detection for anxiety and depression was 29.73% and 29.51% respectively. There was significant difference in SAS scores and SDS scores [（43.66±11.25）, （43.73±12.53）, （38.33±11.45） scores, F =88.022, P 〈 0.01; （44.87±13.32）, （44.24±16.98）, （39.01±12.46） scores, F =54.336, P 〈 0.01], and the college teachers＇ total scores was lower than middle-primary school teachers.③SCL-90 outcomes： There were 944 subjects （15.44%） presented mild mental problem, 473 （7.73%） moderate and 679 （11.10%） severe. The total positive rates of mental problem in SAS, SDS and SCL-90 were 24.7%, 36.4% and 35.6% separately. Significant differences were found between the total score and 10 factor scores of SCL-90 （P〈 0.01）. Except somatization, the college teachers＇ positive symptom scores were lower than middle-primary school teachers.
CONCLUSION： The mental health level is different among college teachers and primary-middle school teachers, especially middle school teachers get the lowest level.
出处
《中国组织工程研究与临床康复》
CAS
CSCD
北大核心
2007年第39期7887-7890,共4页
Journal of Clinical Rehabilitative Tissue Engineering Research
基金
国家教育部"十五"规划课题(FBB011474)~~
