论文部分内容阅读
目的:分析城乡过敏性鼻炎患者的特点,并对两者的差异进行分析和比较,为临床预防和治疗工作提供参考。方法:将某地体检人群中发现的过敏性鼻炎患者,分为城市组和农村组,从患者的性别和年龄构成、过敏性鼻炎对患者的影响、患者的患病情况、患者的生活和工作环境、相关医学知识的掌握情况、就诊和治疗情况等方面进行比较,分析城乡患者的特点和差异。结果:与城市患者比较,过敏性鼻炎对农村患者的工作、生活和心理影响相对较小,在患病程度方面,农村患者持续性重度、间歇性重度和间歇性轻度的比例分别为22.08%、38.96%和28.57%,城市患者则依次为11.80%、25.47%和44.10%;在诱发因素方面,农村患者为动物毛发、粉尘或毒害气体和有家族史的比例分别为54.55%、2.60%和10.39%,城市患者依次为31.68%、19.88%和3.11%;在居住环境和工作环境方面,农村患者居住周边有大型工厂和农牧场,工作环境接触工业粉尘、毒害气体和动物毛发的比例分别为3.90%、1.30%、15.58%、2.60%、0.00%和27.27%,城市患者依次为14.29%、8.07%、0.62%、9.94%、6.83%和1.86%;在相关医学知识掌握情况方面,农村患者对医学知识掌握和不掌握,对诱发因素准确了解、基本了解和不了解,有目的的开展疾病预防的比例分别2.60%、24.68%、32.47%、59.74%、7.79%和75.32%,城市患者依次为22.36%、6.21%、55.28%、44.10%、0.62%和92.55%;在就诊和治疗方面,农村患者未就诊、未治疗和规范治疗的比例分别为19.48%、29.87%和2.60%,城市患者依次为1.86%、3.11%和22.36%。以上各项比较,差异均有统计学意义(P<0.05);结论:城乡过敏性鼻炎的预防和治疗重点各异,对于城市患者,以改善空气质量为主。对于农村患者,需要从加强村民的医学健康教育入手。
OBJECTIVE: To analyze the characteristics of patients with allergic rhinitis in urban and rural areas, and to analyze and compare the differences between the two, providing reference for clinical prevention and treatment. Methods: The patients with allergic rhinitis found in the medical examination population were divided into urban group and rural group according to the sex and age of the patient, the influence of allergic rhinitis on the patient, the patient’s illness, the life and work of the patient Environment, relevant medical knowledge mastery, treatment and treatment and other aspects of comparison, analysis of the characteristics of urban and rural patients and differences. Results: Compared with urban patients, allergic rhinitis had less influence on the work, life and psychology of rural patients. In terms of the degree of illness, the persistent severe, intermittent and intermittent mild cases in rural patients were respectively 22.08% , 38.96% and 28.57% in urban areas and 11.80%, 25.47% and 44.10% in urban areas, respectively. In inducing factors, the proportions of rural patients with animal hair, dust or poisonous gas and family history were 54.55% and 2.60% 10.39%, and urban patients were 31.68%, 19.88% and 3.11% respectively. In terms of living environment and work environment, rural residents lived in large factories and farms around the area, and the proportions of working environment exposed to industrial dust, poisonous gas and animal hair were respectively The average number of urban patients was 14.29%, 8.07%, 0.62%, 9.94%, 6.83% and 1.86%, respectively. In terms of relevant medical knowledge, rural areas were 3.90%, 1.30%, 15.58%, 2.60%, 0.00% and 27.27% Patients with accurate knowledge of the predisposing factors, basic understanding and unknowing, and targeted prevention of diseases were 2.60%, 24.68%, 32.47%, 59.74%, 7.79% and 75.32%, respectively. Patients in urban areas Followed by 22. 36%, 6.21%, 55.28%, 44.10%, 0.62% and 92.55% respectively. In terms of treatment and treatment, the proportion of untreated and standard treatment in rural areas was 19.48%, 29.87% and 2.60% 1.86%, 3.11% and 22.36%. The above comparison, the differences were statistically significant (P <0.05); Conclusion: Prevention and treatment of allergic rhinitis in urban and rural areas of different focus, for urban patients, mainly to improve air quality. For rural patients, we need to start with strengthening the medical and health education of villagers.