论文部分内容阅读
目的:了解流动人口避孕节育干预对计划生育/避孕节育、服务与需求的影响。方法:选择上海市闵行区作为研究现场,采用多阶段整群抽样的方法,从流动人口集中的工厂、建筑工地、服务娱乐场所抽取入选对象2 001例,随机分为干预组和对照组。干预组除给予常规计划生育服务外,还进行包括倡导、动员、管理、培训、宣传教育、咨询服务、技术服务、随访服务和转诊机制等各项干预活动。对照组仅给予常规计划生育服务。分别在基线调查和干预活动开展12个月后的评估调查时对服务对象进行面对面的结构式问卷调查,调查内容包括一般人口学特征、流动特征、接受计划生育服务情况及需求情况。结果:评估调查时随访到1 791例(失访率10.49%)。评估调查时干预组办理《婚育证明》的比例增加(P<0.000 1),对照组2次调查时差异无统计学意义;评估调查时干预组和对照组对象接受宣传教育、技术、随访服务的比例均显著提高,且除宣传教育外,干预组显著高于对照组。学历、工作场所、平均月收入、流动方式、户籍地均影响研究对象的宣传教育和咨询服务需求,婚姻状况、性别和在现居住地居住时间对宣传教育服务也有影响。结论:以工作场所为基础的综合干预有助于提高流动人口接受计划生育宣传教育、咨询、随访和技术服务,但未发现影响流动人口的宣传教育和咨询服务需求。
Objective: To understand the effect of contraceptive intervention on family planning, contraception, services and demand among floating population. Methods: A total of 2 001 patients were selected from factories, construction sites and entertainment venues where floating population was concentrated in Minhang District of Shanghai Municipality as the research site and were divided into intervention group and control group randomly. In addition to regular family planning services, the intervention group also carried out various interventions including advocacy, mobilization, management, training, publicity and education, counseling services, technical services, follow-up services and referral mechanisms. The control group was given routine family planning services only. Face-to-face structured questionnaires were conducted during the 12-month assessment of baseline survey and interventions. The survey included general demographic characteristics, mobility characteristics, family planning services received and needs. Results: The survey was followed up to 1 791 cases (10.49% rate of follow-up). There was no significant difference in the two surveys of the control group between the intervention group and the control group when evaluating the survey (P <0.0001); the subjects in the intervention group and the control group received publicity, education, technology and follow-up services The proportion increased significantly, and in addition to education, the intervention group was significantly higher than the control group. Education, work place, average monthly income, mode of migration, place of residence affect the education and counseling needs of the respondents, marital status, gender and residence time in current residence. CONCLUSIONS: Comprehensive workplace-based interventions have helped to raise migrants’ access to family planning education, counseling, follow-up and technical services, but failed to find outreach, education and counseling services that affect migrants.