论文部分内容阅读
目的了解公共场所工作人员二手烟(SHS)暴露、禁烟标识和烟草危害相关知识水平等情况。方法2014年4—7月,采用立意抽样的方法在国家慢性病综合防控示范区中选取6个项目区(县)的医疗卫生机构、政府机构和餐饮机构3类公共场所的1 676名工作人员进行问卷调查。结果 90.58%调查对象表示不吸烟,其中65.48%遭受SHS暴露,多因素分析发现工作场所类别(政府vs.餐饮:OR=3.094,95%CI=1.752~5.464)、经济地区(东部vs.西部:OR=0.439,95%CI=0.330~0.582;中部vs.西部:OR=0.699,95%CI=0.522~0.936)、城乡分布(城市vs.农村:OR=0.719,95%CI=0.574~0.902)和教育水平(大专及以上vs.高中及以下:OR=1.403,95%CI=1.008~1.953)是SHS暴露的影响因素(P<0.05)。92.57%的被调查者报告过去1个月内在其工作场所内看到过禁烟标识或相关禁烟宣传,多因素分析发现,场所类别(医疗vs餐饮:OR=5.449,95%CI=2.633~11.276;政府vs.餐饮:OR=0.438,95%CI=0.205~0.934)、经济地区(东部vs.西部:OR=2.015,95%CI=1.296~3.135;中部vs.西部:OR=9.556,95%CI=4.609~19.814)、城乡分布(城市vs.农村:OR=2.567,95%CI=1.667~3.951)和性别(女性vs.男性:OR=0.389,95%CI=0.248~0.608)是其影响因素(P<0.05)。烟草危害相关知识的正确回答率在44.10%~92.74%之间,回答正确率较低的问题为“低焦油”(44.10%)和“淡味”(47.54%)卷烟问题。结论公共场所工作人员SHS暴露严重,应进一步推进禁烟标识覆盖、提高烟草危害相关知识水平及推进相关法律法规出台与执行等措施,防止SHS暴露。
Objective To understand the SHS exposure, the smoking ban and the knowledge about the harm of tobacco in public places. Methods From April to July 2014, 1,676 staff from 3 public health and medical institutions, government agencies and catering establishments in 6 project areas (counties) were selected by means of deliberate sampling in the national integrated prevention and control of chronic diseases. Questionnaire. Results 90.58% of respondents said they were not smoking, 65.48% of them were exposed to SHS. Multivariate analysis found that the workplace categories (government versus catering: OR = 3.094, 95% CI = 1.752-5.464) OR = 0.439, 95% CI = 0.330-0.582; central vs. western: OR = 0.699, 95% CI = 0.522-0.936) And educational level (college or above vs. high school and below: OR = 1.403, 95% CI = 1.008-1.9515) were the influencing factors of SHS exposure (P <0.05). 92.57% of the respondents reported seeing no smoking signs or related non-smoking advertisements in their workplaces in the past month. Multivariate analysis showed that the categories of places (medical vs catering: OR = 5.449, 95% CI = 2.633 ~ 11.276; Government vs. Food: OR = 0.438, 95% CI = 0.205-0.934). In the economic regions (eastern versus western: OR = 2.015, 95% CI = 1.296-3.1335; central vs. western: OR = 9.556, 95% CI = 4.609 ~ 19.814). The distribution of urban and rural areas (urban vs. rural areas: OR = 2.567,95% CI = 1.667-3.951) and gender (female vs male: OR = 0.389,95% CI = 0.248-0.608) (P <0.05). The correct answer rates of tobacco-related knowledge ranged from 44.10% to 92.74%, and the questions with lower correct rates were cigarette low-tar (44.10%) and light (47.54%) cigarettes. Conclusion SHS in public places are exposed severely. Measures should be taken to further promote the coverage of no-smoking signs, improve the knowledge about tobacco hazards and promulgate the promulgation and implementation of relevant laws and regulations so as to prevent the exposure of SHS.