中国城乡3?6岁儿童忽视状况的比较研究

李敏; 潘建平; 张松杰; 张华; 杨子尼; 王维清; 曹春红; 王飞; 杨小梅; 牛倩; 申鸿

Abstract

李敏,潘建平,张松杰,张华,杨子尼,王维清,曹春红,王飞,杨小梅,牛倩,申鸿.中国城乡3?6岁儿童忽视状况的比较研究[J].Chinese journal of Epidemiology,2012,33(2):140-144

中国城乡3?6岁儿童忽视状况的比较研究

Comparative study on the situation of neglected children aged 3-6 year-olds between urban and rural areas of China

Received:August 09, 2011

DOI：

KeyWord: 儿童忽视城乡比较研究

English Key Word: Child neglect Urban and rural Comparative study

FundProject:国家自然科学基金(30872127)

Author Name	Affiliation	E-mail
LI Min	Department of Public Health, College of Medicine, XV an Jiaotong University、Xi'an 710061, China
PAN Jian-ping	Department of Public Health, College of Medicine, XV an Jiaotong University、Xi'an 710061, China	jppan@126.com
ZHANG Song-jie	Department of Public Health, College of Medicine, XV an Jiaotong University、Xi'an 710061, China
ZHANG Hua	Department of Public Health, College of Medicine, XV an Jiaotong University、Xi'an 710061, China
YANG Zi-ni	Department of Public Health, College of Medicine, XV an Jiaotong University、Xi'an 710061, China
WANG Wei-qing	Department of Public Health, College of Medicine, XV an Jiaotong University、Xi'an 710061, China
CAO Chun-hong	Department of Public Health, College of Medicine, XV an Jiaotong University、Xi'an 710061, China
WANG Fei	Department of Public Health, College of Medicine, XV an Jiaotong University、Xi'an 710061, China
YANG Xiao-mei	Department of Public Health, College of Medicine, XV an Jiaotong University、Xi'an 710061, China
NIV Qian	Department of Public Health, College of Medicine, XV an Jiaotong University、Xi'an 710061, China
SHEN Hong	Department of Public Health, College of Medicine, XV an Jiaotong University、Xi'an 710061, China

Hits: 3209

Download times: 1321

Abstract:

目的调查分析中国城乡3~6岁儿童的忽视状况, 为分析比较相关影响因素奠定基础。方法按照“中国农村3~6岁儿童忽视评价常模”和“中国3~6岁城区儿童忽视常模”规定的量表及评价方法, 采用多阶段分层整群抽样方法, 分别在2002年1月对14个省25个市1163名城市3~6岁儿童(其中男童占49.6%, 少数民族占4.5%)和2010年11月对10个省26个市4096名农村儿童(其中男童占50.6%, 少数民族占6.2%)进行调查。结果城乡3~6岁儿童总忽视率分别为28.0%和53.7%, 总忽视度分别为42.2和44.4, 差异均有统计学意义(P<0.05);城乡儿童各年龄组间忽视率和忽视度差异也均有统计学意义(PC0.05);城乡男童的忽视率分别为32.6%和55.9%, 女童的忽视率分别为23.7%和51.6%;男童的忽视度分别为42.7和44.6, 女童的忽视度分别为41.8和44.3, 差异均有统计学意义(PC0.05)。城乡儿童在6个不同忽视类型的总体发生率分别为5.1%~12.9%和13.1%~26.6%, 其中除安全忽视外, 城乡儿童其他层面忽视率的差异均有统计学意义(P值均<0.05);城乡儿童不同忽视类型的忽视度分别为39.4~43.4和36.5~48.2, 城乡儿童各忽视类型忽视度的差异均有统计学意义(P值均<0.05)。城市儿童以教育、情感、身体忽视为重, 农村儿童以身体、社会和教育忽视为重;而在安全方面受忽视均较轻。城乡均以单亲家庭的儿童忽视率最高(分别为42.9%和60.0%), 差异无统计学意义(P>0.05)。无论年龄或性别, 城乡儿童均以单项(各忽视中任一类型)受忽视为主(发生率分别为16.5%和22.7%, 构成比分别为58.9%和45.1%)。结论中国城乡3~6岁儿童忽视状况差别较大, 农村儿童受忽视的频度和强度均高于城市儿童;城乡男童受忽视的频度均高于女童;除安全忽视外, 农村儿童在其他层面受到更多和更严重的忽视;城乡儿童均以单亲家庭受忽视的频度最高, 且以单项受忽视为主。

English Abstract:

Objective To investigate and analyze the situation of urban and rural neglected children aged 3-6, in China, so as to provide basis for the analysis and comparison on relevant risk factors. Methods 1163 urban children aged 3-6(with 49.6% males and 4.5% with minority ethnicity) were investigated from 25 cities of 14 provinces, autonomous regions and municipalities in the whole country. Multi-stage stratified cluster sampling method was used. Again, using the same sampling method, 4096 rural children(of whom 50.6% were males with 6.2% as minorities) were chosen from 26 cities of 10 provinces or municipalities. Identification of children being neglected was based on “Child Neglect Evaluation Norms of Children Aged 3-6 Years in Urban/Rural China”.SPSS-Windows 13.0 was employed for data analysis. Scores, frequency/degrees, age, sex and types(physical, emotional, educational, safety, medical and social) of children under negligence on every group of the regions, were calculated. %2 test(Chi-Square) and Analysis of variance(ANOVA) were processed to determine the significance of their differences. Results The overall frequencies of negligence were 28.0% and 53.7% respectively among the urban and rural children aged 3-6, while the total degrees of negligence were 42.2 and 44.4 respectively. Significant difference was found between children from the urban and the rural areas(尸<0.05). Significant difference was also found between urban and rural children on every age group(P<0.05). The frequencies of negligence among males were 32.6% and 55.9% respectively in urban and rural areas while among females, the figures appeared to be 23.7% and 51.6% respectively. The degrees of negligence were 42.7 and 44.6 among male while 41.8 and 44.3 among female children, in the urban or rural areas. Significant differences were found on male or female between urban and rural groups(0.05). Frequencies of negligence in urban children aged 3-6 for the six types were from 5.1% to 12.9%, with the frequency in rural areas as 13.1%-26.6%. Significant difference was found between urban and rural group for any other type(P<0.05), in addition to the safety type. The degrees of negligence in urban children aged 3-6 for the different type were between 39.4 and 43.4, while in the rural areas as from 36.5 to 48.2, with significant difference for every type(尸<0.05). The degrees of negligence related to education, emotion, or physical strength were more serious on children from the urban than from the rural areas. The highest frequency of child negligence was seen in the single-parent families on both urban and rural groups(42.9% and 60.0% respectively), with no significant difference found(P>0.05). The urban and rural children aged 3-6 were mainly involved in single item of negligence, with incidence rates as 16.5% and 22.7% and proportions as 58.9% and 45.1% respectively, despite the factors as age or sex. Conclusion There were large differences on the situation of negligence between the urban and rural children aged 3-6. The frequencies and degrees of negligence in every age group and different sex for children living in the rural areas were higher than those urban children. The frequency of negligence among boys was higher than girls for both urban and rural areas. The rural children had suffered more serious negligence than the urban children at any other type, in addition to the ‘ safety, ? Both urban and rural children had the highest frequency of negligence in single-parent family, and were mainly suffered from single item of negligence.

View Fulltext Html FullText View/Add Comment Download reader