|本期目录/Table of Contents|

[1]邓峰,王红林,杨培荣,等.宝鸡市慢性非传染性疾病综合干预效果分析[J].慢性病学杂志,2014,(04):246-250.
　DENG Feng *,WANG Hong-lin,YANG Pei-rong,et al.Analysis on the effect of comprehensive intervention of chronic non-infectious diseases in Baoji city[J].,2014,(04):246-250.
点击复制

宝鸡市慢性非传染性疾病综合干预效果分析(PDF)

《慢性病学杂志》[ISSN:1674-8166/CN:11-5900/R]

卷:
期数:
2014年04期
页码:
246-250
栏目:
论著
出版日期:
2014-06-27

文章信息/Info

Title:
Analysis on the effect of comprehensive intervention of chronic non-infectious diseases in Baoji city
作者:
邓峰1; 王红林1; 杨培荣1; 屈蒙1; 杨彪1; 高建民2
1.宝鸡市疾病预防控制中心，陕西宝鸡721006；2. 西安交通大学公共政策与管理学院，陕西西安710049
Author(s):
DENG Feng * ; WANG Hong-lin; YANG Pei-rong; QU Meng; YANG Biao; GAO Jian-ming
* Baoji CenterforDiseaseControlandPrevention,Baoji,Shaanxi721016,China Correspondingauthor:DENGFeng,E-mail：bjsdf@126.com
关键词:
慢性病; 综合干预; 调查
Keywords:
Chronic diseases;  Comprehensive intervention;  Investigation
分类号:
R376.4
DOI:
-
摘要:
目的 比较实施与未实施慢性非传染性疾病综合干预措施的地区居民慢性病危险因素、疾病控制情 况，分析慢性病综合干预效果。方法 干预实施后，采取随机抽样方法分别在干预地区（眉县、千阳县） 和非干预地区（凤翔县、凤县）选择干预组575人和对照组782人进行问卷调查、体格测量、膳食调查、 血压、血糖和血脂测定，比较干预组与对照组慢性病患病和指标异常情况，相关危险因素分析。结果 干 预组高血压患病率(20.35%)、空腹血糖异常率(21.56%)、LDL-C(28.46%)、HDL-C(36.15%)和血脂总异常 率(56.92%)均低于对照组，差异均有统计学意义（P＜0.05）；干预组吸烟率和饮酒率均低于对照组，差异有 统计学意义（P＜0.05）；干预组谷类、蔬菜类、蛋类、鱼虾类、豆类摄入量均高于对照组，差异有充计学 意义（P＜0.05），油和盐摄入量低于对照组，差异有统计学意义（P＜0.05）；BMI营养状况评价显示，超 重率干预组（25.43%）低于对照组（29.71%），肥胖率干预组（6.01%）低于对照组（8.03%）。结论 应尽 快在全国范围内建立政府主导、部门协作、社会参与的慢性病综合干预长效机制，实施分类有针对性地干 预措施，以有效降低慢性病及其危险因素对城乡居民健康的危害。
Abstract:
Objective To compare chronic diseases risk factors, and chronic diseases control of patients between the implementation and not the implementation of chronic non communicable diseases compre-hensive intervention measures for residents, and to analyze the effect of chronic diseases comprehensive intervention. Methods After the intervention, using random sampling method575 people in the inter-vention area (Mei county, Qianyang county) and 782 people in the non-intervention area (Fengxiang county, Feng county) were selected to intervention group and control group. They were conducted the questionnaire survey, anthropometric measurements, dietary survey, and measurement of blood pressure, blood glucose and blood lipid, compared with the prevalence of chronic diseases and index, risk factors between intervention group and control group. Results The prevalence rate of hypertension (20.35%), the abnormal rate of fasting screening blood glucose (21.56%), LDL-C (28.46%), HDL-C (36.15%) and serum total abnormal rate (56.92%) of whole crowd intervention group were all lower than those of control group, and there was significant difference. The rate of smoking and drinking was significantly higher in control group and intervention group. The cereals, vegetables, eggs, fish, beans intake in in-tervention group were higher than those of control group, oil and salt intake were lower than control group. BMI nutritional status displayed that, the overweight rate of intervention group (25.4%) was low-er than that of control group (29.7%), obesity rate of intervention group (6.0%) was lower than that ofcontrol group (8.0%).Conclusions Comprehensive intervention system, which is leaded by the local government, cooperated with different departments and with high social participation, should be estab-lished throughout the country as soon as possible. The intervention with specific targets should be im-plemented in order to effectively reduce harm and chronic diseases risk factors for both urban and rural residents.

参考文献/References:

[1] WHO. Innovative Care for Chronic Conditions: Building Blocks forAction［R］．Geneva,WHO,2002:11-13.
[2］国务院新闻办.中国的医疗卫生事业白皮书［R］．2012:14.
[3］Asaria P, Chisholm D, Mathers C,et al. Chronic disease pre? vention: Health effects and financial costs of strategies to re? duce salt intake and control tobacco use［J］．Lancet,2007, 370(9604):2044-2053.
[4］Lim SS, Gaziano TA, Gakidou E,et al. Prevention of cardio? vascular disease in high- risk individuals in low- income and middle-income countries: Health effects and costs［J］．Lan? cet,2007,370:2054-62.
[5］Jamison DT, Breman JG, Measham AR,et al. Disease Con? trol Priorities in Developing Countries［M］．New York: Ox? ford University Press and Washington DC: World Bank. 2006: 287.
[6］Sims M, Maxwell R, Bauld L,et al.2010. Short terms impact of smoke-free legislation in England: retrospective analysis of hospital admissions for myocardial infarction［J］．Br Med J, 2010,340:c2161
[7］Li G, Zhang P, Wang J,et al. 2008. The long-term effect of lifestyle interventions to prevent diabetes in the China Da Qing Diabetes Prevention Study: A20-year follow-up study［J］． Lancet,2008,371:1783-1789.
[8］WHO. Closing the gap in a generation: health equity through action on the social determinants of health［M］．Commission on Social Determinants of Health Final Report, Geneva,2008: 194.
[9］PuskaP,VartiainenE,LaatikainenT,et al. The North Karel? ia Project: From North Karelia to national action ［M］．Hel? sinki:HelsinkiUniversity Printing House,2009:3:.
[10］WHO. Preventing chronic diseases: a vital investment［R］． Switzerland:WHO,2005:28.
[11］Steven H. Woolf MD, Kurt C,et al. A sense of priorities for the health care commons［J］．Am J Prev Med,2006,31(1): 99-102.
[12］Editorials. In Economics as well as medicine prevention is bet? ter than cure, aged and aging ［J］．Age Ageing,2004,33(3) 217-218.

备注/Memo

备注/Memo:
基金项目：陕西省卫生厅资助项目（S2012027） 作者简介：邓峰，在读博士，主要从事流行病与卫生统计学研究工作 通信作者：邓峰，E-mail:bjsdf@126.com
更新日期/Last Update: 2014-04-30