
Chinese General Practice ›› 2025, Vol. 28 ›› Issue (14): 1773-1780.DOI: 10.12114/j.issn.1007-9572.2024.0290
Special Issue: 心理健康最新文章合辑; 孕产妇健康研究最新文章合辑
• Original Research·Research on the Management of Specifical Population • Previous Articles Next Articles
Received:2024-05-16
Revised:2024-09-26
Published:2025-05-15
Online:2025-03-06
Contact:
JIANG Lei
通讯作者:
姜蕾
作者简介:作者贡献:
吴大东提出研究命题,负责研究的构思与设计;姜蕾负责深圳市围产期抑郁筛查与干预项目的实施协调与质量控制;吴大东、姜蕾负责论文最终版本的修订,对论文负责;刘慧敏负责数据的收集;张嘉怡负责数据的清洗与统计学分析;张嘉怡、刘思源负责论文初稿的起草;赵光临负责深圳市妇幼保健管理信息系统常规数据的管理与导出;靳淑雁负责研究的监督管理。
基金资助:CLC Number:
Add to citation manager EndNote|Ris|BibTeX
URL: https://www.chinagp.net/EN/10.12114/j.issn.1007-9572.2024.0290
| 组别 | 例数 | 年龄 | 职业a | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| <25岁 | 25~35岁 | ≥36岁 | 干部/公司职员 | 工人/农民/军人 | 商人/个体户 | 家庭主妇 | ||
| 常规服务组 | 166 832 | 30 160(18.1) | 119 614(71.7) | 17 058(10.2) | 89 466(53.6) | 12 891(7.7) | 18 328(11.0) | 28 904(17.3) |
| 移动平台组 | 144 887 | 23 508(16.2) | 105 945(73.1) | 15 434(10.7) | 80 912(55.8) | 9 722(6.7) | 19 999(13.8) | 22 981(15.9) |
| χ2值 | 190.031 | 723.749 | ||||||
| P值 | <0.001 | <0.001 | ||||||
| 组别 | 教育水平a | 精神病史a | 家族病史a | |||||
| 初中及以下 | 高中/中专 | 大学/大专 | 硕士及以上 | 无 | 有 | 无 | 有 | |
| 常规服务组 | 30 265(18.1) | 31 918(19.1) | 97 751(58.6) | 6 898(4.1) | 145 113(87.0) | 479(0.3) | 145 055(87.0) | 388(0.2) |
| 移动平台组 | 24 835(17.1) | 25 085(17.3) | 87 436(60.3) | 7 531(5.2) | 135 146(93.3) | 407(0.3) | 135 093(93.2) | 435(0.3) |
| χ2值 | 413.637 | 1.847 | 7.055 | |||||
| P值 | <0.001 | 0.174 | 0.008 | |||||
Table 1 Comparison of general characteristics between the routine service group and the mobile platform group
| 组别 | 例数 | 年龄 | 职业a | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| <25岁 | 25~35岁 | ≥36岁 | 干部/公司职员 | 工人/农民/军人 | 商人/个体户 | 家庭主妇 | ||
| 常规服务组 | 166 832 | 30 160(18.1) | 119 614(71.7) | 17 058(10.2) | 89 466(53.6) | 12 891(7.7) | 18 328(11.0) | 28 904(17.3) |
| 移动平台组 | 144 887 | 23 508(16.2) | 105 945(73.1) | 15 434(10.7) | 80 912(55.8) | 9 722(6.7) | 19 999(13.8) | 22 981(15.9) |
| χ2值 | 190.031 | 723.749 | ||||||
| P值 | <0.001 | <0.001 | ||||||
| 组别 | 教育水平a | 精神病史a | 家族病史a | |||||
| 初中及以下 | 高中/中专 | 大学/大专 | 硕士及以上 | 无 | 有 | 无 | 有 | |
| 常规服务组 | 30 265(18.1) | 31 918(19.1) | 97 751(58.6) | 6 898(4.1) | 145 113(87.0) | 479(0.3) | 145 055(87.0) | 388(0.2) |
| 移动平台组 | 24 835(17.1) | 25 085(17.3) | 87 436(60.3) | 7 531(5.2) | 135 146(93.3) | 407(0.3) | 135 093(93.2) | 435(0.3) |
| χ2值 | 413.637 | 1.847 | 7.055 | |||||
| P值 | <0.001 | 0.174 | 0.008 | |||||
| 组别 | 例数 | 孕早期 | 孕中期 | 孕晚期 | 产后 | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 已筛查 | 未筛查 | 已筛查 | 未筛查 | 已筛查 | 未筛查 | 已筛查 | 未筛查 | ||
| 常规服务组 | 166 832 | 30 396(18.2) | 136 436(81.8) | 33 851(20.3) | 132 981(79.7) | 33 930(20.3) | 132 902(79.7) | 149 957(89.9) | 16 875(10.1) |
| 移动平台组 | 144 887 | 83 784(57.8) | 61 103(42.2) | 80 049(55.2) | 64 838(44.8) | 82 425(56.9) | 62 462(43.1) | 138 514(95.6) | 6 373(4.4) |
| χ2值 | 52 406.649 | 40 868.918 | 44 284.220 | 3 671.337 | |||||
| P值 | <0.001 | <0.001 | <0.001 | <0.001 | |||||
Table 2 Comparison of perinatal depression screening rates between the routine service group and the mobile platform group
| 组别 | 例数 | 孕早期 | 孕中期 | 孕晚期 | 产后 | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 已筛查 | 未筛查 | 已筛查 | 未筛查 | 已筛查 | 未筛查 | 已筛查 | 未筛查 | ||
| 常规服务组 | 166 832 | 30 396(18.2) | 136 436(81.8) | 33 851(20.3) | 132 981(79.7) | 33 930(20.3) | 132 902(79.7) | 149 957(89.9) | 16 875(10.1) |
| 移动平台组 | 144 887 | 83 784(57.8) | 61 103(42.2) | 80 049(55.2) | 64 838(44.8) | 82 425(56.9) | 62 462(43.1) | 138 514(95.6) | 6 373(4.4) |
| χ2值 | 52 406.649 | 40 868.918 | 44 284.220 | 3 671.337 | |||||
| P值 | <0.001 | <0.001 | <0.001 | <0.001 | |||||
| 组别 | 孕早期 | 孕中期 | 孕晚期 | 产后 | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 例数 | 阳性率 | 例数 | 阳性率 | 例数 | 阳性率 | 例数 | 阳性率 | |
| 常规服务组 | 30 396 | 3 609(11.9) | 33 851 | 1 998(5.9) | 33 930 | 2 944(8.7) | 149 957 | 5 025(3.4) |
| 移动平台组 | 83 784 | 11 793(14.1) | 80 049 | 6 031(7.5) | 82 425 | 6 392(7.8) | 138 514 | 3 711(2.7) |
| χ2值 | 92.693 | 96.682 | 27.672 | 110.661 | ||||
| P值 | <0.001 | <0.001 | <0.001 | <0.001 | ||||
Table 3 Comparison of perinatal depression screening positive rates between the routine service group and the mobile platform group
| 组别 | 孕早期 | 孕中期 | 孕晚期 | 产后 | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 例数 | 阳性率 | 例数 | 阳性率 | 例数 | 阳性率 | 例数 | 阳性率 | |
| 常规服务组 | 30 396 | 3 609(11.9) | 33 851 | 1 998(5.9) | 33 930 | 2 944(8.7) | 149 957 | 5 025(3.4) |
| 移动平台组 | 83 784 | 11 793(14.1) | 80 049 | 6 031(7.5) | 82 425 | 6 392(7.8) | 138 514 | 3 711(2.7) |
| χ2值 | 92.693 | 96.682 | 27.672 | 110.661 | ||||
| P值 | <0.001 | <0.001 | <0.001 | <0.001 | ||||
| 组别 | 孕早期 | 孕中期 | 孕晚期 | 产后 | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 例数 | 转诊率 | 例数 | 转诊率 | 例数 | 转诊率 | 例数 | 转诊率 | |
| 常规服务组 | 3 609 | 2 422(67.1) | 1 998 | 1 502(75.2) | 2 944 | 2 596(88.2) | 5 025 | 4 656(92.7) |
| 移动平台组 | 11 793 | 11 068(93.9) | 6 031 | 5 801(96.2) | 6 392 | 6 168(96.5) | 3 711 | 3 629(97.8) |
| χ2值 | 1 817.546 | 805.582 | 242.379 | 114.900 | ||||
| P值 | <0.001 | <0.001 | <0.001 | <0.001 | ||||
Table 4 Comparison of perinatal depression referral rates between the routine service group and the mobile platform group
| 组别 | 孕早期 | 孕中期 | 孕晚期 | 产后 | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 例数 | 转诊率 | 例数 | 转诊率 | 例数 | 转诊率 | 例数 | 转诊率 | |
| 常规服务组 | 3 609 | 2 422(67.1) | 1 998 | 1 502(75.2) | 2 944 | 2 596(88.2) | 5 025 | 4 656(92.7) |
| 移动平台组 | 11 793 | 11 068(93.9) | 6 031 | 5 801(96.2) | 6 392 | 6 168(96.5) | 3 711 | 3 629(97.8) |
| χ2值 | 1 817.546 | 805.582 | 242.379 | 114.900 | ||||
| P值 | <0.001 | <0.001 | <0.001 | <0.001 | ||||
| 组别 | 孕早期 | 孕中期 | 孕晚期 | 产后 | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 例数 | 干预率 | 例数 | 干预率 | 例数 | 干预率 | 例数 | 干预率 | |
| 常规服务组 | 3 609 | 24(0.7) | 1 998 | 68(3.4) | 2 944 | 115(3.9) | 5 025 | 1 625(32.3) |
| 移动平台组 | 11 793 | 1 217(10.3) | 6 031 | 672(11.1) | 6 392 | 969(15.2) | 3 711 | 1 519(40.9) |
| χ2值 | 347.695 | 107.428 | 248.719 | 68.436 | ||||
| P值 | <0.001 | <0.001 | <0.001 | <0.001 | ||||
Table 5 Comparison of perinatal depression intervention rates between the routine service group and the mobile platform group
| 组别 | 孕早期 | 孕中期 | 孕晚期 | 产后 | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 例数 | 干预率 | 例数 | 干预率 | 例数 | 干预率 | 例数 | 干预率 | |
| 常规服务组 | 3 609 | 24(0.7) | 1 998 | 68(3.4) | 2 944 | 115(3.9) | 5 025 | 1 625(32.3) |
| 移动平台组 | 11 793 | 1 217(10.3) | 6 031 | 672(11.1) | 6 392 | 969(15.2) | 3 711 | 1 519(40.9) |
| χ2值 | 347.695 | 107.428 | 248.719 | 68.436 | ||||
| P值 | <0.001 | <0.001 | <0.001 | <0.001 | ||||
Figure 1 Trends in depression screening rates and positive rates at different stages of pregnancy and postpartum after the activation of the mobile platform
Figure 2 Trends in referral rates and intervention rates for pregnant and postpartum women with positive depression screenings after the activation of the mobile platform
| [13] |
深圳市卫生人口计生委关于印发《深圳市产后抑郁筛查与干预项目工作方案》的通知[EB/OL].(2013-09-30)[2024-03-15].
|
| [14] |
深圳市卫生健康委员会. 《深圳市围产期抑郁筛查与干预项目工作方案》[Z]. [2019]2号. 深卫健妇幼,2019.
|
| [15] |
|
| [16] |
|
| [17] |
|
| [18] |
|
| [19] |
|
| [20] |
|
| [21] |
|
| [22] |
|
| [23] |
|
| [24] |
|
| [25] |
|
| [26] |
|
| [27] |
|
| [28] |
|
| [29] |
|
| [30] |
|
| [31] |
|
| [1] |
ACOG committee opinion No. 757 summary:screening for perinatal depression[J]. Obstet Gynecol,2018,132(5):1314-1316. DOI:10.1097/AOG.0000000000002928.
|
| [2] |
|
| [3] |
|
| [4] |
杨中婷,闻萱,叶卿云,等. 中国女性生育全程抑郁检出率的Meta分析[J]. 中华疾病控制杂志,2023,27(12):1475-1479. DOI:10.16462/j.cnki.zhjbkz.2023.12.018.
|
| [5] |
|
| [6] |
|
| [7] |
|
| [8] |
US PREVENTIVE SERVICES TASK FORCE,
|
| [9] |
|
| [10] |
|
| [11] |
|
| [12] |
|
| [32] |
|
| [33] |
|
| [34] |
|
| [35] |
张蒙,张东颖,李依霖,等. 新型冠状病毒肺炎疫情期间我国孕产妇心理健康状况调查[J]. 护理学杂志,2021,36(6):81-84. DOI:10.3870/j.issn.1001-4152.2021.06.081.
|
| [1] | WANG Yang, ZHAO Shiting, CHEN Yingying, SUN Zilin, QIU Shanhu. Key Points of Exercise Intervention and Implementation for People with Complications of Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus [J]. Chinese General Practice, 2026, 29(21): 2989-2994. |
| [2] | 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. |
| [3] | CHEN Xinyi, HUANG Ziqian, CHEN Yufeng, HUANG Jun, WENG Fan, LAI Zhisheng, XUE Yumei, CAO Xi. Diagnostic Performance of a Hand-held Single-lead ECG Device in Detecting Atrial Fibrillation and Its Potential in Atrial Fibrillation Screening in Community [J]. Chinese General Practice, 2026, 29(19): 2717-2723. |
| [4] | FAN Meixiang, YAN Yunyun, HUANG Yanyan. Interpretation and Discussion of Guidelines for Preventive Activities in General Practice: Bladder Cancer [J]. Chinese General Practice, 2026, 29(18): 2450-2453. |
| [5] | WANG Yibo, HE Kaiyu, LIANG Guofen, YANG Zhenhua, ZHAO Tingxian, LIAO Biyi, ZHANG La, LIU Shiwei, GONG Xuezhong, LIU Xusheng, GU Yueyu, QIN Xindong, SU Guobin. Diagnosis and Management of Recurrent Urinary Tract Infections in Women: a Comparison and Interpretation Based on Existing Guidelines and Evidence [J]. Chinese General Practice, 2026, 29(17): 2387-2399. |
| [6] | Chinese Nutrition Society Obesity Prevention and Control Branch. Chinese Guidelines for Behavioral and Lifestyle Interventions for Obesity [J]. Chinese General Practice, 2026, 29(16): 2113-2139. |
| [7] | SHAO Wenjuan, CAI Keshu, JIA Xiao, ZHANG Yimin. Research on the Construction and Application of a Community Intervention Model for Knee Osteoarthritis Based on Sports and Medicine Integration [J]. Chinese General Practice, 2026, 29(13): 1699-1705. |
| [8] | XIANG Tong, HUANG Yafang, WU Hao. Investigation Study on Older People's Willingness to Use Webcast Exercise Guidance: Based on the UTAUT Model and the Perceived Risk Theory [J]. Chinese General Practice, 2026, 29(13): 1720-1725. |
| [9] | HE Zhiguang, QIU Shanjiao, CHEN Zhang, LI Anchun, HUANG Wenjing. Interpretation and Discussion of the RACGP Guidelines for Preventive Activities in General Practice: Screening for Weight Issues and Preventive Strategies [J]. Chinese General Practice, 2026, 29(12): 1505-1510. |
| [10] | Chinese Geriatrics Society, National Clinical Research Center for Geriatric Diseases (Xuanwu Hospital). Chinese Expert Consensus on Screening and Comprehensive Assessment of Intrinsic Capacity in Older Adults [J]. Chinese General Practice, 2026, 29(10): 1225-1238. |
| [11] | QIU Shanjiao, CHEN Zhang, LI Anchun, HE Zhiguang, HUANG Wenjing. Screening and Case Finding for Coeliac Disease: Lessons for Chinese General Practice from the RACGP Guidelines of Preventive Activities [J]. Chinese General Practice, 2026, 29(10): 1246-1249. |
| [12] | WANG Fei, HAN Weiyu, SUN Tao. Moxibustion Combined with Three-step Therapy in the Treatment of Cancer Pain: a Network Meta-analysis [J]. Chinese General Practice, 2026, 29(09): 1203-1211. |
| [13] | WANG Chenyu, WANG Xiaoyan, ZHANG Lixiu, WANG Lina. Advances in Community Screening and Diagnostic Management Strategies for Individuals with Mild Cognitive Impairment [J]. Chinese General Practice, 2026, 29(08): 1037-1043. |
| [14] | PANG Ting, LI Wanxin, ZHANG Haoran, LIN Zhiying, XU Xin. Construction of the Evaluation System of Cognitive Impairment Screening Service in the Community Based on RE-AIM Framework [J]. Chinese General Practice, 2026, 29(08): 1044-1050. |
| [15] | Chinese Rehabilitation Medicine Association Community Rehabilitation Working Committee. Expert Consensus on Perioperative Nutritional Management for Liver Cancer Based on the Enhanced Recovery after Surgery Concept (2025) [J]. Chinese General Practice, 2026, 29(08): 953-964. |
| Viewed | ||||||
|
Full text |
|
|||||
|
Abstract |
|
|||||