
Chinese General Practice ›› 2025, Vol. 28 ›› Issue (13): 1614-1621.DOI: 10.12114/j.issn.1007-9572.2024.0298
Special Issue: 儿科最新文章合辑; 心理健康最新文章合辑
• Original Research • Previous Articles Next 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] | LI Feng, HU Changhao, LUO Xu. Progress in the Study of Influencing Factors and Intervention Strategies of Mental Health in Elderly Patients with Multiple Chronic Conditions [J]. Chinese General Practice, 2026, 29(20): 2816-2828. |
| [2] | WANG Rui, LUO Dan, YANG Cuicui, WENG Xinyi, WANG Yubing, XU Jingjing. Complex Network Analysis of Resilience in Adolescents with Type 1 Diabetes Mellitus Based on Multi-sourced Stigma [J]. Chinese General Practice, 2026, 29(16): 2264-2272. |
| [3] | YAN Beibei, XU Huaifu. Children's Type 1 Diabetes-specific Self-reported Outcomes Scales: Measurement Properties Evaluation Based on COSMIN Guidelines [J]. Chinese General Practice, 2026, 29(12): 1624-1632. |
| [4] | LIAO Qiuhon, TAO Hong, YANG Xiaohui, YUAN Yonggui, LIN Shanshan, XU Wei, LI Yuxiu, PEI Yu. Prevalence of Depression and the Influencing Factors in Patients with Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus: a National Multicenter Cross-sectional Study [J]. Chinese General Practice, 2026, 29(12): 1558-1565. |
| [5] | LI Li, XU Tianchao, DONG Xiaomei, HUANG Hongfei, CUI Gang, LI Dongdong, ZHANG Ou, FAN Lin, WANG Qi. The Effect of Kidney Tonifying and Brain Strengthening Acupuncture Combined with Sertraline in the Treatment of Elderly Depression: a Randomized Controlled Trial [J]. Chinese General Practice, 2026, 29(11): 1399-1404. |
| [6] | YU Xinyan, MA Zhong, CAO Fan, SU Peng, LIN Ying, ZHANG Haicheng. Predicting the Risk of Depression in Elderly Patients with Cardiovascular Metabolic Diseases Using Single-lead Wearable Electrocardiography at the Community Level [J]. Chinese General Practice, 2026, 29(10): 1300-1310. |
| [7] | JIANG Xuan, CHEN Yinhai, LU Yuanwei, ZHANG Jiali, LIN Congxuan, KE Xiong. Impact of Childhood Adverse Experiences on Health-related Quality of Life in Adulthood: a Mediating Role of the Number of Chronic Diseases [J]. Chinese General Practice, 2026, 29(07): 893-899. |
| [8] | LI Juexi, LI Liyuan, GUO Yuxuan, XIAO Xiaoqiang, TANG Peiqi, PU Ting, ZUO Haixi, YANG Ting, FAN Xiaoxia, ZHOU Bo. The Childhood Trauma and Adolescent Internet Addiction: the Chain Mediation of Depression Symptoms and Academic Burnout and the Moderating Role of Gender [J]. Chinese General Practice, 2026, 29(07): 900-906. |
| [9] | CHEN Xiaoying, ZHU Xuebo, CHEN Yue. Research on the Mechanism Influencing Professional Identity of Rural Targeted-admission Medical Students Based on Social Cognitive Career Theory [J]. Chinese General Practice, 2026, 29(04): 530-537. |
| [10] | FENG Zhanpeng, TAN Sijie, GUO Zhen, CAO Liquan. Study on the Isochronous Substitution Effect of 24-hour Activity Behaviors on Metabolic Syndrome in Adolescents [J]. Chinese General Practice, 2026, 29(03): 325-330. |
| [11] | CHEN Zhixin, ZHANG Li, GUO Xinyue, ZHOU Zhongliang, ZHANG Jianduan, XU Jinhang, RONG Shengzhong, ZHAO Li, TIAN Qiyue, WANG Sufang, TIAN Xiangyang, GONG Shaoqing. Study on Dietary Factors Associated with Obesity Among University Freshmen [J]. Chinese General Practice, 2026, 29(03): 361-372. |
| [12] | Psychosomatic Endocrinology Coordination Group of the Psychosomatic Medicine Society of the Chinese Medical Association, Diabetes Prevention and Control Committee of Chinese Preventive Medicine Association. Chinese Expert Consensus on the Diagnosis and Treatment of Diabetes Comorbid with Depression [J]. Chinese General Practice, 2026, 29(03): 273-292. |
| [13] | WANG Lizhu, LI Sihan, WANG Xinyi, MAO Sunxi, QIU Yang, WANG Zhonghua. Pathway Analysis of the Impact of Diabetes Knowledge and Self-efficacy on Self-management and Quality of Survival among Rural Patients with Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus Based on ITHBC Modeling [J]. Chinese General Practice, 2025, 28(34): 4351-4358. |
| [14] | ZHAO Ziqi, LIU Mingyue, WANG Nan, LUO Zhenghao, CHEN Xinyang, LI Zheng, ZHANG Shangmingzhu, ZHANG Haoruo, CHEN Jiaqi, ZHENG Yizhan, ZHANG Xiujun, WU Jianhui. The Relationship between Lifestyle Factors and Depression: a Cross-sectional Study of Community Populations [J]. Chinese General Practice, 2025, 28(33): 4148-4158. |
| [15] | XIANG Fengling, WANG Yuankun, WANG Xiaoyan, HE Shengjie, GAN Jinhua. The Prevalence of Hyperuricemia among Children and Adolescents in China: a Meta-analysis [J]. Chinese General Practice, 2025, 28(33): 4206-4213. |
| Viewed | ||||||
|
Full text |
|
|||||
|
Abstract |
|
|||||