论文部分内容阅读
目的:有效提升全封闭环境中官兵的心理健康水平,探索有效的综合心理干预方法。方法:随机抽取在全封闭环境中工作30天的官兵318人,随机分为对照组158人和干预组160人。对照组采取常规教育,在此基础上,干预组采用综合干预法进行干预。采用症状自评量表(SCL-90)对两组进行心理测评。结果:两组进驻后所处环境、任务及管理方式差异不显著。全封闭环境第1天,与对照组比较,干预组在各因子分值上差异不显著(P>0.05);与军人常模比较,对照组和干预组在各因子分值上均有差异非常显著(P<0.01)。第4周结束后与对照组比较,干预组各因子分值显著低于对照组,具有差异非常显著(P<0.01);与军人常模比较,对照组在总分、躯体化、焦虑、恐怖和偏执因子分值上显著高于军人常模(P<0.01),仅敌对因子分值低于军人常模(P<0.05),在强迫症状、人际关系敏感、抑郁和精神病性因子分值差异不显著(P>0.05);与军人常模比较,干预组各因子分值均低于军人常模,在躯体化因子分值上差异显著(P<0.05),在总分、强迫症状、人际关系敏感、抑郁、焦虑、敌对、偏执和精神病性因子分值上差异非常显著(P<0.01),仅在恐怖因子分值上差异不显著(P>0.05)。结论:在全封闭环境中,采取综合干预方法对官兵身心健康进行全方位维护,能进一步提升官兵身心健康水平。
Objective: To effectively improve the mental health of officers and men in a totally enclosed environment and to explore effective methods of comprehensive psychological intervention. Methods: A total of 318 officers and men who were working in an enclosed environment for 30 days were randomly divided into control group (158) and intervention group (160). The control group to take routine education, on this basis, the intervention group using a comprehensive intervention intervention. Symptom Checklist (SCL-90) was used to conduct psychological assessment of both groups. Results: There was no significant difference in the environment, tasks and management style between the two groups after their presence. Compared with the control group, there was no significant difference (P> 0.05) between the scores of each factor in the intervention group on the first day of full-closed environment. Compared with the norm of the military, the difference between the control group and the intervention group was significant Significant (P <0.01). Compared with the control group, the score of each factor in the intervention group was significantly lower than that in the control group at the end of the fourth week (P <0.01). Compared with the norm, the scores of the total score, somatization, anxiety, horror (P <0.01). Only the scores of hostile factors were lower than the norm of servicemen (P <0.05), and there was no significant difference in obsessive-compulsive symptoms, interpersonal sensitivity, depression and psychotic factors (P> 0.05). Compared with the norm, the score of each factor in the intervention group was lower than that of the serviceman, and there was significant difference in somatization factor scores (P <0.05). In the total score, obsessive-compulsive disorder The scores of relationship sensitivity, depression, anxiety, hostility, paranoid and psychotic factors were significantly different (P <0.01), but not significant (P> 0.05). Conclusion: In an all-encompassing environment, comprehensive interventions can be taken to safeguard the health of officers and men comprehensively, which can further enhance the physical and mental health of officers and men.