Chinese General Practice ›› 2025, Vol. 28 ›› Issue (13): 1614-1621.DOI: 10.12114/j.issn.1007-9572.2024.0298
• Original Research • Previous Articles
Received:
2024-08-12
Revised:
2024-11-18
Published:
2025-05-05
Online:
2025-03-17
Contact:
LIU Huanzhong
通讯作者:
刘寰忠
作者简介:
作者贡献:
赵丽丽负责研究设计、论文撰写与修改;刘乐伟负责研究设计、论文选题和修改;耿峰、莫大明负责研究实施、论文修改;刘寰忠负责研究设计、论文选题、论文修改、经费获取,对文章整体负责。
基金资助:
Add to citation manager EndNote|Ris|BibTeX
URL: https://www.chinagp.net/EN/10.12114/j.issn.1007-9572.2024.0298
组别 | 人数 | 性别(男/女) | 年龄( | BMI( | CTQ得分( | CES-D得分( | PANSI得分( | 25(OH)D水平( | |||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
情感虐待 | 躯体虐待 | 性虐待 | 情感忽视 | 躯体忽视 | 总得分 | ||||||||
对照组 | 89 | 56/33 | 15.0±1.7 | 21.0±4.3 | 6.5±1.9 | 5.4±1.3 | 5.1±0.8 | 9.7±3.9 | 7.8±2.9 | 45.0±5.8 | 7.7±7.5 | 20.0±5.5 | 22.4±7.1 |
抑郁障碍组 | 168 | 46/122 | 15.4±1.6 | 21.0±4.2 | 11.7±4.5 | 7.3±3.0 | 5.9±2.3 | 15.9±5.1 | 10.7±3.3 | 51.4±12.8 | 37.7±12.0 | 48.6±12.7 | 15.0±4.7 |
t(χ2)值 | 30.700a | -1.880 | 0.105 | -13.178 | -6.846 | -3.700 | -10.692 | -6.897 | -5.501 | -24.675 | -25.096 | 8.798 | |
P值 | <0.001 | 0.061 | 0.916 | <0.001 | <0.001 | <0.001 | <0.001 | <0.001 | <0.001 | <0.001 | <0.001 | <0.001 |
Table 1 Comparison of clinical data between adolescent patients with depressive disorder and control group
组别 | 人数 | 性别(男/女) | 年龄( | BMI( | CTQ得分( | CES-D得分( | PANSI得分( | 25(OH)D水平( | |||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
情感虐待 | 躯体虐待 | 性虐待 | 情感忽视 | 躯体忽视 | 总得分 | ||||||||
对照组 | 89 | 56/33 | 15.0±1.7 | 21.0±4.3 | 6.5±1.9 | 5.4±1.3 | 5.1±0.8 | 9.7±3.9 | 7.8±2.9 | 45.0±5.8 | 7.7±7.5 | 20.0±5.5 | 22.4±7.1 |
抑郁障碍组 | 168 | 46/122 | 15.4±1.6 | 21.0±4.2 | 11.7±4.5 | 7.3±3.0 | 5.9±2.3 | 15.9±5.1 | 10.7±3.3 | 51.4±12.8 | 37.7±12.0 | 48.6±12.7 | 15.0±4.7 |
t(χ2)值 | 30.700a | -1.880 | 0.105 | -13.178 | -6.846 | -3.700 | -10.692 | -6.897 | -5.501 | -24.675 | -25.096 | 8.798 | |
P值 | <0.001 | 0.061 | 0.916 | <0.001 | <0.001 | <0.001 | <0.001 | <0.001 | <0.001 | <0.001 | <0.001 | <0.001 |
组别 | 人数 | CTQ得分(分) | CES-D得分(分) | PANSI得分(分) | 25(OH)D水平(μg/L) | |||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
情感虐待 | 躯体虐待 | 性虐待 | 情感忽视 | 躯体忽视 | 总得分 | |||||
对照组 | 89 | 6.6±0.4 | 5.5±0.3 | 5.2±0.2 | 9.9±0.5 | 7.8±0.4 | 45.4±1.2 | 8.5±1.2 | 21.2±1.2 | 21.8±0.6 |
抑郁障碍组 | 168 | 11.6±0.3 | 7.3±0.2 | 5.8±0.2 | 15.8±0.4 | 10.7±0.3 | 51.2±0.9 | 37.3±0.8 | 48.0±0.8 | 15.3±0.4 |
t值 | -9.428 | -4.887 | -2.377 | -8.894 | -6.430 | -3.778 | -19.538 | -18.482 | 8.718 | |
P值 | <0.001 | <0.001 | 0.018 | <0.001 | <0.001 | <0.001 | <0.001 | <0.001 | <0.001 |
Table 2 Comparison of clinical data between adolescent patients with depressive disorder and control group after adjusting for covariates
组别 | 人数 | CTQ得分(分) | CES-D得分(分) | PANSI得分(分) | 25(OH)D水平(μg/L) | |||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
情感虐待 | 躯体虐待 | 性虐待 | 情感忽视 | 躯体忽视 | 总得分 | |||||
对照组 | 89 | 6.6±0.4 | 5.5±0.3 | 5.2±0.2 | 9.9±0.5 | 7.8±0.4 | 45.4±1.2 | 8.5±1.2 | 21.2±1.2 | 21.8±0.6 |
抑郁障碍组 | 168 | 11.6±0.3 | 7.3±0.2 | 5.8±0.2 | 15.8±0.4 | 10.7±0.3 | 51.2±0.9 | 37.3±0.8 | 48.0±0.8 | 15.3±0.4 |
t值 | -9.428 | -4.887 | -2.377 | -8.894 | -6.430 | -3.778 | -19.538 | -18.482 | 8.718 | |
P值 | <0.001 | <0.001 | 0.018 | <0.001 | <0.001 | <0.001 | <0.001 | <0.001 | <0.001 |
变量 | 年龄 | 性别 | CTQ总得分 | CTQ情感虐待分量表得分 | CTQ躯体虐待分量表得分 | CTQ性虐待分量表得分 | CTQ情感忽视分量表得分 | CTQ躯体忽视分量表得分 | PANSI得分 | CES-D得分 | 25(OH)D水平 |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
年龄 | 1.000 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
性别 | 0.192a | 1.000 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
CTQ总得分 | -0.147 | -0.137 | 1.000 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
CTQ情感虐待分量表得分 | -0.155a | -0.181a | 0.814a | 1.000 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
CTQ躯体虐待分量表得分 | 0.059 | 0.053 | 0.581a | 0.433a | 1.000 | — | — | — | — | — | — |
CTQ性虐待分量表得分 | -0.004 | -0.107 | 0.321a | 0.173a | 0.109 | 1.000 | — | — | — | — | — |
CTQ情感忽视分量表得分 | -0.155a | -0.121 | 0.815a | 0.526a | 0.283a | 0.041 | 1.000 | — | — | — | — |
CTQ躯体忽视分量表得分 | -0.169a | -0.071 | 0.744a | 0.463a | 0.231a | 0.147 | 0.600a | 1.000 | — | — | — |
PANSI得分 | -0.269a | -0.311a | 0.458a | 0.379a | 0.207a | 0.152a | 0.372a | 0.387a | 1.000 | — | — |
CES-D得分 | -0.227a | -0.255a | 0.390a | 0.300a | 0.141 | 0.128 | 0.334a | 0.364a | 0.802a | 1.000 | — |
25(OH)D水平 | 0.217a | 0.275a | -0.243a | -0.241a | -0.136 | -0.012 | -0.180a | -0.202a | -0.258a | -0.168a | 1.000 |
Table 3 Correlation analysis of CTQ scores,CES-D scores,PANSI scores and 25(OH)levels in adolescents with depressive disorders
变量 | 年龄 | 性别 | CTQ总得分 | CTQ情感虐待分量表得分 | CTQ躯体虐待分量表得分 | CTQ性虐待分量表得分 | CTQ情感忽视分量表得分 | CTQ躯体忽视分量表得分 | PANSI得分 | CES-D得分 | 25(OH)D水平 |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
年龄 | 1.000 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
性别 | 0.192a | 1.000 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
CTQ总得分 | -0.147 | -0.137 | 1.000 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
CTQ情感虐待分量表得分 | -0.155a | -0.181a | 0.814a | 1.000 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
CTQ躯体虐待分量表得分 | 0.059 | 0.053 | 0.581a | 0.433a | 1.000 | — | — | — | — | — | — |
CTQ性虐待分量表得分 | -0.004 | -0.107 | 0.321a | 0.173a | 0.109 | 1.000 | — | — | — | — | — |
CTQ情感忽视分量表得分 | -0.155a | -0.121 | 0.815a | 0.526a | 0.283a | 0.041 | 1.000 | — | — | — | — |
CTQ躯体忽视分量表得分 | -0.169a | -0.071 | 0.744a | 0.463a | 0.231a | 0.147 | 0.600a | 1.000 | — | — | — |
PANSI得分 | -0.269a | -0.311a | 0.458a | 0.379a | 0.207a | 0.152a | 0.372a | 0.387a | 1.000 | — | — |
CES-D得分 | -0.227a | -0.255a | 0.390a | 0.300a | 0.141 | 0.128 | 0.334a | 0.364a | 0.802a | 1.000 | — |
25(OH)D水平 | 0.217a | 0.275a | -0.243a | -0.241a | -0.136 | -0.012 | -0.180a | -0.202a | -0.258a | -0.168a | 1.000 |
变量 | 年龄 | 性别 | CTQ总得分 | CTQ情感虐待分量表得分 | CTQ躯体虐待分量表得分 | CTQ性虐待分量表得分 | CTQ情感忽视分量表得分 | CTQ躯体忽视分量表得分 | PANSI得分 | CES-D得分 | 25(OH)D水平 |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
年龄 | 1.000 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
性别 | -0.116 | 1.000 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
CTQ总得分 | 0.194 | 0.003 | 1.000 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
CTQ情感虐待分量表得分 | 0.112 | -0.034 | 0.583a | 1.000 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
CTQ躯体虐待分量表得分 | -0.002 | -0.017 | 0.464a | 0.389a | 1.000 | — | — | — | — | — | — |
CTQ性虐待分量表得分 | 0.091 | 0.088 | 0.404a | 0.615a | 0.112 | 1.000 | — | — | — | — | — |
CTQ情感忽视分量表得分 | 0.088 | -0.030 | 0.622a | 0.012 | 0.172 | -0.055 | 1.000 | — | — | — | — |
CTQ躯体忽视分量表得分 | 0.206 | 0.063 | 0.629a | 0.191 | -0.002 | 0.189 | 0.275a | 1.000 | — | — | — |
PANSI得分 | 0.231a | -0.125 | 0.446a | 0.235a | 0.338a | -0.009 | 0.390a | 0.253a | 1.000 | — | — |
CES-D得分 | 0.213a | -0.017 | 0.479a | 0.399a | 0.340a | 0.156 | 0.345a | 0.154 | 0.718a | 1.000 | — |
25(OH)D水平 | 0.266a | 0.273a | 0.192 | 0.069 | -0.136 | 0.001 | -0.219a | 0.160 | 0.092 | 0.089 | 1.000 |
Table 4 Correlation analysis of CTQ scores,CES-D scores,PANSI scores and 25(OH)levels in control group
变量 | 年龄 | 性别 | CTQ总得分 | CTQ情感虐待分量表得分 | CTQ躯体虐待分量表得分 | CTQ性虐待分量表得分 | CTQ情感忽视分量表得分 | CTQ躯体忽视分量表得分 | PANSI得分 | CES-D得分 | 25(OH)D水平 |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
年龄 | 1.000 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
性别 | -0.116 | 1.000 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
CTQ总得分 | 0.194 | 0.003 | 1.000 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
CTQ情感虐待分量表得分 | 0.112 | -0.034 | 0.583a | 1.000 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
CTQ躯体虐待分量表得分 | -0.002 | -0.017 | 0.464a | 0.389a | 1.000 | — | — | — | — | — | — |
CTQ性虐待分量表得分 | 0.091 | 0.088 | 0.404a | 0.615a | 0.112 | 1.000 | — | — | — | — | — |
CTQ情感忽视分量表得分 | 0.088 | -0.030 | 0.622a | 0.012 | 0.172 | -0.055 | 1.000 | — | — | — | — |
CTQ躯体忽视分量表得分 | 0.206 | 0.063 | 0.629a | 0.191 | -0.002 | 0.189 | 0.275a | 1.000 | — | — | — |
PANSI得分 | 0.231a | -0.125 | 0.446a | 0.235a | 0.338a | -0.009 | 0.390a | 0.253a | 1.000 | — | — |
CES-D得分 | 0.213a | -0.017 | 0.479a | 0.399a | 0.340a | 0.156 | 0.345a | 0.154 | 0.718a | 1.000 | — |
25(OH)D水平 | 0.266a | 0.273a | 0.192 | 0.069 | -0.136 | 0.001 | -0.219a | 0.160 | 0.092 | 0.089 | 1.000 |
Figure 1 Mediating effects of CES-D scores and 25(OH)D level in the relationship between CTQ scores and PANSI scores in adolescent depressive disorder
Figure 2 Mediating effects of CES-D scores and 25(OH)D level in the relationship between emotional abuse scores and PANSI scores in adolescent depressive disorder
Figure 3 Mediating effects of CES-D scores and 25(OH)D level in the relationship between emotional neglect scores and PANSI scores in adolescent depressive disorder
Figure 4 Mediating effects of CES-D scores and 25(OH)D level in the relationship between physical neglect scores and PANSI scores in adolescent depressive disorder
模型 | 项目 | 效应值 | 95%CI | 标准误 | 效应占比(%) |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
模型1 | 总效应 | 0.453 | 0.318~0.588 | 0.068 | — |
直接效应 | 0.149 | 0.054~0.245 | 0.049 | 32.9 | |
总间接效应 | 0.304 | 0.183~0.429 | 0.063 | 67.1 | |
CTQ总得分→CES-D得分→PANSI得分 | 0.280 | 0.161~0.407 | 0.063 | 61.8 | |
CTQ总得分→25(OH)D水平→PANSI得分 | 0.024 | 0.003~0.054 | 0.013 | 5.3 | |
模型2 | 总效应 | 1.077 | 0.674~1.480 | 0.204 | — |
直接效应 | 0.373 | 0.105~0.640 | 0.136 | 34.6 | |
总间接效应 | 0.704 | 0.363~1.059 | 0.175 | 65.4 | |
CTQ情感虐待分量表得分→CES-D得分→PANSI得分 | 0.634 | 0.295~0.987 | 0.176 | 58.9 | |
CTQ情感虐待分量表得分→25(OH)D水平→PANSI得分 | 0.070 | 0.008~0.151 | 0.038 | 6.5 | |
模型3 | 总效应 | 0.916 | 0.565~1.266 | 0.178 | — |
直接效应 | 0.249 | 0.014~0.483 | 0.119 | 27.2 | |
总间接效应 | 0.667 | 0.355~0.995 | 0.165 | 72.8 | |
CTQ情感忽视分量表得分→CES-D得分→PANSI得分 | 0.616 | 0.306~0.941 | 0.161 | 67.2 | |
CTQ情感忽视分量表得分→25(OH)D水平→PANSI得分 | 0.051 | 0.003~0.120 | 0.031 | 5.6 | |
模型4 | 总效应 | 1.466 | 0.931~2.002 | 0.271 | — |
直接效应 | 0.345 | -0.022~0.713 | 0.186 | — | |
总间接效应 | 1.121 | 0.711~1.583 | 0.223 | 100.0 | |
CTQ躯体忽视分量表得分→CES-D得分→PANSI得分 | 1.034 | 0.629~1.496 | 0.219 | 92.2 | |
CTQ躯体忽视分量表得分→25(OH)D水平→PANSI得分 | 0.087 | 0.012~0.203 | 0.049 | 7.8 |
Table 5 Double mediating effects of CES-D scores and 25(OH)D levels in the relationship between CTQ scores and PANSI scores in adolescent depressive disorder
模型 | 项目 | 效应值 | 95%CI | 标准误 | 效应占比(%) |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
模型1 | 总效应 | 0.453 | 0.318~0.588 | 0.068 | — |
直接效应 | 0.149 | 0.054~0.245 | 0.049 | 32.9 | |
总间接效应 | 0.304 | 0.183~0.429 | 0.063 | 67.1 | |
CTQ总得分→CES-D得分→PANSI得分 | 0.280 | 0.161~0.407 | 0.063 | 61.8 | |
CTQ总得分→25(OH)D水平→PANSI得分 | 0.024 | 0.003~0.054 | 0.013 | 5.3 | |
模型2 | 总效应 | 1.077 | 0.674~1.480 | 0.204 | — |
直接效应 | 0.373 | 0.105~0.640 | 0.136 | 34.6 | |
总间接效应 | 0.704 | 0.363~1.059 | 0.175 | 65.4 | |
CTQ情感虐待分量表得分→CES-D得分→PANSI得分 | 0.634 | 0.295~0.987 | 0.176 | 58.9 | |
CTQ情感虐待分量表得分→25(OH)D水平→PANSI得分 | 0.070 | 0.008~0.151 | 0.038 | 6.5 | |
模型3 | 总效应 | 0.916 | 0.565~1.266 | 0.178 | — |
直接效应 | 0.249 | 0.014~0.483 | 0.119 | 27.2 | |
总间接效应 | 0.667 | 0.355~0.995 | 0.165 | 72.8 | |
CTQ情感忽视分量表得分→CES-D得分→PANSI得分 | 0.616 | 0.306~0.941 | 0.161 | 67.2 | |
CTQ情感忽视分量表得分→25(OH)D水平→PANSI得分 | 0.051 | 0.003~0.120 | 0.031 | 5.6 | |
模型4 | 总效应 | 1.466 | 0.931~2.002 | 0.271 | — |
直接效应 | 0.345 | -0.022~0.713 | 0.186 | — | |
总间接效应 | 1.121 | 0.711~1.583 | 0.223 | 100.0 | |
CTQ躯体忽视分量表得分→CES-D得分→PANSI得分 | 1.034 | 0.629~1.496 | 0.219 | 92.2 | |
CTQ躯体忽视分量表得分→25(OH)D水平→PANSI得分 | 0.087 | 0.012~0.203 | 0.049 | 7.8 |
模型 | 项目 | 效应值 | 95%CI | 标准误 | 效应占比(%) |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
模型1 | 总效应 | 0.423 | 0.242~0.604 | 0.091 | — |
直接效应 | 0.124 | -0.039~0.286 | 0.082 | — | |
总间接效应 | 0.299 | 0.144~0.511 | 0.094 | — | |
CTQ总得分→CES-D得分→PANSI得分 | 0.298 | 0.136~0.512 | 0.097 | — | |
CTQ总得分→25(OH)D水平→PANSI得分 | 0.002 | -0.022~0.032 | 0.013 | — | |
模型2 | 总效应 | 0.681 | 0.080~1.282 | 0.302 | — |
直接效应 | -0.182 | -0.655~0.291 | 0.238 | — | |
总间接效应 | 0.863 | 0.386~1.684 | 0.336 | — | |
CTQ情感虐待分量表得分→CES-D得分→PANSI得分 | 0.857 | 0.372~1.691 | 0.340 | — | |
CTQ情感虐待分量表得分→25(OH)D水平→PANSI得分 | 0.006 | -0.035~0.055 | 0.021 | — | |
模型3 | 总效应 | 0.550 | 0.273~0.826 | 0.139 | — |
直接效应 | 0.228 | 0.003~0.453 | 0.113 | 41.5 | |
总间接效应 | 0.322 | 0.109~0.659 | 0.141 | 58.5 | |
CTQ情感忽视分量表得分→CES-D得分→PANSI得分 | 0.322 | 0.103~0.663 | 0.143 | 58.5 | |
CTQ情感忽视分量表得分→25(OH)D水平→PANSI得分 | -0.001 | -0.043~0.045 | 0.021 | — | |
模型4 | 总效应 | 0.479 | 0.089~0.869 | 0.196 | — |
直接效应 | 0.274 | -0.010~0.559 | 0.143 | — | |
总间接效应 | 0.205 | -0.047~0.539 | 0.148 | — | |
CTQ躯体忽视分量表得分→CES-D得分→PANSI得分 | 0.202 | -0.043~0.536 | 0.146 | — | |
CTQ躯体忽视分量表得分→25(OH)D水平→PANSI得分 | 0.002 | -0.041~0.051 | 0.021 | — |
Table 6 Double mediating effects of CES-D scores and 25(OH)D levels in the relationship between CTQ scores and PANSI scores in control group
模型 | 项目 | 效应值 | 95%CI | 标准误 | 效应占比(%) |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
模型1 | 总效应 | 0.423 | 0.242~0.604 | 0.091 | — |
直接效应 | 0.124 | -0.039~0.286 | 0.082 | — | |
总间接效应 | 0.299 | 0.144~0.511 | 0.094 | — | |
CTQ总得分→CES-D得分→PANSI得分 | 0.298 | 0.136~0.512 | 0.097 | — | |
CTQ总得分→25(OH)D水平→PANSI得分 | 0.002 | -0.022~0.032 | 0.013 | — | |
模型2 | 总效应 | 0.681 | 0.080~1.282 | 0.302 | — |
直接效应 | -0.182 | -0.655~0.291 | 0.238 | — | |
总间接效应 | 0.863 | 0.386~1.684 | 0.336 | — | |
CTQ情感虐待分量表得分→CES-D得分→PANSI得分 | 0.857 | 0.372~1.691 | 0.340 | — | |
CTQ情感虐待分量表得分→25(OH)D水平→PANSI得分 | 0.006 | -0.035~0.055 | 0.021 | — | |
模型3 | 总效应 | 0.550 | 0.273~0.826 | 0.139 | — |
直接效应 | 0.228 | 0.003~0.453 | 0.113 | 41.5 | |
总间接效应 | 0.322 | 0.109~0.659 | 0.141 | 58.5 | |
CTQ情感忽视分量表得分→CES-D得分→PANSI得分 | 0.322 | 0.103~0.663 | 0.143 | 58.5 | |
CTQ情感忽视分量表得分→25(OH)D水平→PANSI得分 | -0.001 | -0.043~0.045 | 0.021 | — | |
模型4 | 总效应 | 0.479 | 0.089~0.869 | 0.196 | — |
直接效应 | 0.274 | -0.010~0.559 | 0.143 | — | |
总间接效应 | 0.205 | -0.047~0.539 | 0.148 | — | |
CTQ躯体忽视分量表得分→CES-D得分→PANSI得分 | 0.202 | -0.043~0.536 | 0.146 | — | |
CTQ躯体忽视分量表得分→25(OH)D水平→PANSI得分 | 0.002 | -0.041~0.051 | 0.021 | — |
[1] |
|
[2] |
|
[3] |
|
[4] |
|
[5] |
|
[6] |
|
[7] |
|
[8] |
|
[9] |
|
[10] |
|
[11] |
|
[12] |
张敏. 中文版儿童期虐待问卷信度及效度评价[J]. 中国公共卫生,2011,27(5):669-670.
|
[13] |
|
[14] |
|
[15] |
陈祉妍,杨小冬,李新影. 流调中心抑郁量表在我国青少年中的试用[J]. 中国临床心理学杂志,2009,17(4):443-445.
|
[16] |
王学志,宫火良,康晓然,等. 青少年自杀意念量表中文版在高中生应用的信效度分析[J]. 中国健康心理学杂志,2011,19(8):964-966. DOI:10.13342/j.cnki.cjhp.2011.08.014.
|
[17] |
赵娟娟,熊祖平,王昆,等. 青少年抑郁症患者自杀态度、意念及其与家庭环境的关系[J]. 中国儿童保健杂志,2024,32(3):334-338,343.
|
[18] |
|
[19] |
|
[20] |
|
[21] |
|
[22] |
|
[23] |
|
[24] |
|
[25] |
|
[26] |
|
[27] |
|
[28] |
|
[29] |
|
[30] |
|
[31] |
|
[32] |
|
[33] |
|
[34] |
|
[35] |
|
[36] |
|
[37] |
|
[38] |
|
[1] | XIA Yuwen, SHI Huifeng, LI Mengshi, ZHANG Jingxu, WANG Xiaoli. Analysis of the Influencing Factors for Depression of Female Caregivers of Left-behind Children in Rural Area in China [J]. Chinese General Practice, 2025, 28(14): 1717-1722. |
[2] | WU Dadong, LIU Huimin, ZHANG Jiayi, LIU Siyuan, ZHAO Guanglin, JIN Shuyan, JIANG Lei. Application and Evaluation of the Mobile Platform for Perinatal Depression Screening and Intervention [J]. Chinese General Practice, 2025, 28(14): 1773-1780. |
[3] | ZHANG Ying, JIANG Xintong, WANG Pingyu. The Influencing Factors of Depression Symptoms in the Chinese Female Elderly Population Based on Health Ecology Models [J]. Chinese General Practice, 2025, 28(13): 1595-1600. |
[4] | WEI Xuan, WANG Ning, WEI Ying, CHEN Qilin, ZHAO Yang. Analysis of Depression Status and Influencing Factors in Middle-aged and Elderly Patients with Chronic Diseases in China: an Empirical Analysis Based on CHARLS Data [J]. Chinese General Practice, 2025, 28(11): 1303-1308. |
[5] | CHEN Hongxu, WANG Denglan, CHEN Yuanyuan, SHEN Juanjuan, SONG Chun, WANG Fan, KONG Tiantian. The Relationship between Remnant Cholesterol and Maternal Depression and Pregnancy Stress in the Second Trimester [J]. Chinese General Practice, 2025, 28(11): 1347-1353. |
[6] | YU Yuemin, MO Feifei, LI Lesi, PAN Jiyang. The Assessment Tools and Influencing Factors of Insomnia in Chinese Adolescents: a Scoping Review [J]. Chinese General Practice, 2025, 28(10): 1213-1219. |
[7] | CHENG Qi, YU Wenbing, LI Keke, ZUO You, JIAO Qianxin, LIU Xinhao, GAO Lili. A CiteSpace-based Analysis of Hotspots and Cutting-edge Trends in Mental Health among Middle School Students Research [J]. Chinese General Practice, 2025, 28(07): 853-862. |
[8] | LIU Qin, CHENG Min, JIANG Fengqiong, LI Xiaoyu. Meta-analysis of the Prevalence and Factors Affecting Enuresis in Chinese Children and Adolescents [J]. Chinese General Practice, 2025, 28(06): 763-770. |
[9] | FAN Haojie, LIU Lewei, XIA Lei, TIAN Yinghan, YANG Cheng, HAO Mingru, ZHAO Xin, SHEN Qingqing, MO Daming, GENG Feng, LIU Huanzhong. Correlation of Non-suicidal Self-injury with 25-Hydroxyvitamin D3 and Blood Lipid Levels in Adolescents with Major Depressive Disorder [J]. Chinese General Practice, 2025, 28(05): 612-618. |
[10] | ZHOU Mei, YANG Aiqiong, XING Ying, WANG Yuling. The Association between Nap Duration, Nighttime Sleep, and Depressive Symptoms among Elderly People in China: an Empirical Analysis based on 2020 CHARLS Data [J]. Chinese General Practice, 2025, 28(05): 560-567. |
[11] | YUAN Shuxian, LIN Yifan, ZHAO Yixuan, WEI Yi, LU Shuai, WEI Haiyan. Diagnostic Value of LH/FSH Ratio in Rapidly Progressing Central Precocious Puberty Girls [J]. Chinese General Practice, 2025, 28(03): 352-357. |
[12] | TIAN Yinghan, LIU Lewei, YANG Cheng, LING Chen, YANG Xiaoxue, FAN Haojie, ZHAO Xin, LI Jun, XIA Lei, LIU Huanzhong. Associations and Sex Differences between Depression and Cognitive Function in the Urban Elderly [J]. Chinese General Practice, 2025, 28(01): 47-52. |
[13] | HUANG Kai, ZHANG Yi, YANG Chun, YANG Ling. Advances in Gut Microbiota in Heart Failure Combined with Depression [J]. Chinese General Practice, 2024, 27(35): 4455-4461. |
[14] | LIN Yixi, PAN Shasha, ZHANG Youjie. Asset Assessment for Obesity Control among Middle School Students: a Qualitative Study [J]. Chinese General Practice, 2024, 27(33): 4176-4181. |
[15] | ZHANG Yu, YU Shuo, WANG Bingqing, RAN Qingqing, ZHANG Xiayun. Analysis of Trend in the Prevalence of Central Obesity among Children and Adolescents Aged 7-18 in Putuo District, Shanghai from 2018 to 2023 [J]. Chinese General Practice, 2024, 27(33): 4168-4175. |
Viewed | ||||||
Full text |
|
|||||
Abstract |
|
|||||