
Chinese General Practice ›› 2022, Vol. 25 ›› Issue (22): 2746-2752.DOI: 10.12114/j.issn.1007-9572.2022.0224
Special Issue: 肥胖/减重最新文章合辑 ; 女性健康最新文章合辑
• Original Research·Clinical Quality Improvement • Previous Articles Next Articles
Received:2022-03-16
Revised:2022-05-27
Published:2022-08-05
Online:2022-06-23
Contact:
Wenpei BAI
About author:
通讯作者:
白文佩
作者简介:基金资助:
Add to citation manager EndNote|Ris|BibTeX
URL: https://www.chinagp.net/EN/10.12114/j.issn.1007-9572.2022.0224
| 组别 | 例数 | 年龄( | 营养状况〔n(%)〕 | 受教育程度〔n(%)〕 | 个人月收入〔n(%)〕 | 婚姻情况〔n(%)〕 | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 超重 | 肥胖 | 专科及以下 | 本科及以上 | ≤5 000元 | >5 000元 | 未婚 | 已婚 | |||
| 对照组 | 36 | 35.7±2.1 | 16(44.4) | 20(55.6) | 18(50.0) | 18(50.0) | 8(22.2) | 28(77.8) | 8(22.2) | 28(77.8) |
| 试验组 | 35 | 35.2±1.2 | 13(37.1) | 22(62.9) | 14(40.0) | 21(60.0) | 10(28.6) | 25(71.4) | 7(20.0) | 28(80.0) |
| χ2(t)值 | 0.843a | 0.633 | 0.722 | 0.378 | 0.051 | |||||
| P值 | 0.401 | 0.819 | 0.403 | 0.536 | 0.821 | |||||
Table 1 Comparison of general information of overweight and obese female railway workers in two groups
| 组别 | 例数 | 年龄( | 营养状况〔n(%)〕 | 受教育程度〔n(%)〕 | 个人月收入〔n(%)〕 | 婚姻情况〔n(%)〕 | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 超重 | 肥胖 | 专科及以下 | 本科及以上 | ≤5 000元 | >5 000元 | 未婚 | 已婚 | |||
| 对照组 | 36 | 35.7±2.1 | 16(44.4) | 20(55.6) | 18(50.0) | 18(50.0) | 8(22.2) | 28(77.8) | 8(22.2) | 28(77.8) |
| 试验组 | 35 | 35.2±1.2 | 13(37.1) | 22(62.9) | 14(40.0) | 21(60.0) | 10(28.6) | 25(71.4) | 7(20.0) | 28(80.0) |
| χ2(t)值 | 0.843a | 0.633 | 0.722 | 0.378 | 0.051 | |||||
| P值 | 0.401 | 0.819 | 0.403 | 0.536 | 0.821 | |||||
| 组别 | 例数 | 体质量(kg) | BMI(kg/m2) | 体脂率(%) | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 干预前 | 干预后 | 干预前 | 干预后 | 干预前 | 干预后 | |||
| 对照组 | 36 | 73.3±1.7 | 73.0±1.9 | 28.1±1.1 | 28.0±1.0 | 42.2±1.0 | 42.2±1.2 | |
| 试验组 | 35 | 73.6±2.3 | 68.7±2.3a | 28.0±1.4 | 26.5±1.4a | 42.2±1.1 | 38.4±1.9a | |
| t值 | 0.761 | 0.171 | 0.192 | 0.030 | 0.801 | 0.190 | ||
| P值 | 0.439 | <0.001 | 0.837 | <0.001 | 0.421 | <0.001 | ||
| 组别 | 脂肪含量(kg) | 腰围(cm) | 臀围(cm) | 腰臀比 | ||||
| 干预前 | 干预后 | 干预前 | 干预后 | 干预前 | 干预后 | 干预前 | 干预后 | |
| 对照组 | 26.96±0.68 | 27.17±0.15 | 81.60±1.06 | 81.59±0.99 | 101.66±1.26 | 104.09±1.83 | 0.80±0.01 | 0.79±0.06 |
| 试验组 | 27.04±0.60 | 24.34±1.06a | 81.57±1.22 | 77.01±8.45a | 102.20±2.20 | 98.86±2.29a | 0.79±0.02 | 0.77±0.08 |
| t值 | 0.562 | 0.190 | 0.112 | 0.105 | 1.263 | 0.183 | 0.953 | 0.569 |
| P值 | 0.573 | <0.001 | 0.901 | 0.002 | 0.211 | 0.039 | 0.342 | 0.399 |
Table 2 Comparison of body composition between two groups of overweight and obese female railway workers before and after intervention
| 组别 | 例数 | 体质量(kg) | BMI(kg/m2) | 体脂率(%) | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 干预前 | 干预后 | 干预前 | 干预后 | 干预前 | 干预后 | |||
| 对照组 | 36 | 73.3±1.7 | 73.0±1.9 | 28.1±1.1 | 28.0±1.0 | 42.2±1.0 | 42.2±1.2 | |
| 试验组 | 35 | 73.6±2.3 | 68.7±2.3a | 28.0±1.4 | 26.5±1.4a | 42.2±1.1 | 38.4±1.9a | |
| t值 | 0.761 | 0.171 | 0.192 | 0.030 | 0.801 | 0.190 | ||
| P值 | 0.439 | <0.001 | 0.837 | <0.001 | 0.421 | <0.001 | ||
| 组别 | 脂肪含量(kg) | 腰围(cm) | 臀围(cm) | 腰臀比 | ||||
| 干预前 | 干预后 | 干预前 | 干预后 | 干预前 | 干预后 | 干预前 | 干预后 | |
| 对照组 | 26.96±0.68 | 27.17±0.15 | 81.60±1.06 | 81.59±0.99 | 101.66±1.26 | 104.09±1.83 | 0.80±0.01 | 0.79±0.06 |
| 试验组 | 27.04±0.60 | 24.34±1.06a | 81.57±1.22 | 77.01±8.45a | 102.20±2.20 | 98.86±2.29a | 0.79±0.02 | 0.77±0.08 |
| t值 | 0.562 | 0.190 | 0.112 | 0.105 | 1.263 | 0.183 | 0.953 | 0.569 |
| P值 | 0.573 | <0.001 | 0.901 | 0.002 | 0.211 | 0.039 | 0.342 | 0.399 |
| 组别 | 例数 | TC | TG | LDL-C | HDL-C | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 干预前 | 干预后 | 干预前 | 干预后 | 干预前 | 干预后 | 干预前 | 干预后 | ||
| 对照组 | 36 | 4.3±0.8 | 4.3±0.7 | 1.2±1.0 | 1.2±0.6 | 2.5±0.8 | 2.5±0.5 | 1.2±0.3 | 1.3±0.2 |
| 试验组 | 35 | 4.4±0.8 | 4.1±0.3a | 1.2±1.0 | 1.0±0.6a | 2.6±0.5 | 2.4±0.1a | 1.3±0.2 | 1.4±0.2 |
| t值 | 1.266 | 1.232 | 0.098 | 0.134 | 0.300 | 0.321 | 0.955 | 1.291 | |
| P值 | 0.210 | 0.032 | 0.922 | 0.039 | 0.765 | 0.027 | 0.343 | 0.192 | |
Table 3 Comparison of blood lipid indices between two groups overweight and obese female railway workers before and after intervention
| 组别 | 例数 | TC | TG | LDL-C | HDL-C | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 干预前 | 干预后 | 干预前 | 干预后 | 干预前 | 干预后 | 干预前 | 干预后 | ||
| 对照组 | 36 | 4.3±0.8 | 4.3±0.7 | 1.2±1.0 | 1.2±0.6 | 2.5±0.8 | 2.5±0.5 | 1.2±0.3 | 1.3±0.2 |
| 试验组 | 35 | 4.4±0.8 | 4.1±0.3a | 1.2±1.0 | 1.0±0.6a | 2.6±0.5 | 2.4±0.1a | 1.3±0.2 | 1.4±0.2 |
| t值 | 1.266 | 1.232 | 0.098 | 0.134 | 0.300 | 0.321 | 0.955 | 1.291 | |
| P值 | 0.210 | 0.032 | 0.922 | 0.039 | 0.765 | 0.027 | 0.343 | 0.192 | |
| 组别 | 例数 | 健康责任 | 营养饮食 | 压力管理 | 体育活动 | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 干预前 | 干预后 | 干预前 | 干预后 | 干预前 | 干预后 | 干预前 | 干预后 | ||
| 对照组 | 36 | 16.3±2.7 | 17.0±3.9 | 16.1±1.0 | 17.1±2.0 | 15.1±3.0 | 16.2±1.3 | 14.5±1.7 | 15.2±2.2 |
| 试验组 | 35 | 17.8±3.3 | 20.7±2.1a | 15.0±1.5 | 23.5±1.8a | 16.4±2.6 | 20.4±2.2a | 15.4±1.3 | 24.3±2.0a |
| t值 | 0.803 | 1.301 | 0.866 | 1.132 | 1.323 | 1.283 | 1.011 | 0.224 | |
| P值 | 0.224 | <0.001 | 0.295 | 0.012 | 0.172 | 0.003 | 0.132 | 0.001 | |
| 组别 | 人际关系 | 自我实现 | 总分 | ||||||
| 干预前 | 干预后 | 干预前 | 干预后 | 干预前 | 干预后 | ||||
| 对照组 | 15.4±1.3 | 16.4±1.9 | 14.4±2.2 | 16.0±1.2 | 90.8±3.0 | 98.4±2.1 | |||
| 试验组 | 14.4±1.5 | 19.3±3.4a | 13.1±2.2 | 19.3±2.2a | 91.8±2.3 | 124.4±2.0a | |||
| t值 | 0.104 | 0.253 | 1.065 | 0.412 | 18.277 | 19.778 | |||
| P值 | 0.132 | 0.011 | 0.297 | 0.003 | 0.021 | 0.022 | |||
Table 4 Comparison of the total score and scores of dimensions of the HPLP-Ⅱbetween two groups of overweight and obese female railway workers before and after intervention
| 组别 | 例数 | 健康责任 | 营养饮食 | 压力管理 | 体育活动 | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 干预前 | 干预后 | 干预前 | 干预后 | 干预前 | 干预后 | 干预前 | 干预后 | ||
| 对照组 | 36 | 16.3±2.7 | 17.0±3.9 | 16.1±1.0 | 17.1±2.0 | 15.1±3.0 | 16.2±1.3 | 14.5±1.7 | 15.2±2.2 |
| 试验组 | 35 | 17.8±3.3 | 20.7±2.1a | 15.0±1.5 | 23.5±1.8a | 16.4±2.6 | 20.4±2.2a | 15.4±1.3 | 24.3±2.0a |
| t值 | 0.803 | 1.301 | 0.866 | 1.132 | 1.323 | 1.283 | 1.011 | 0.224 | |
| P值 | 0.224 | <0.001 | 0.295 | 0.012 | 0.172 | 0.003 | 0.132 | 0.001 | |
| 组别 | 人际关系 | 自我实现 | 总分 | ||||||
| 干预前 | 干预后 | 干预前 | 干预后 | 干预前 | 干预后 | ||||
| 对照组 | 15.4±1.3 | 16.4±1.9 | 14.4±2.2 | 16.0±1.2 | 90.8±3.0 | 98.4±2.1 | |||
| 试验组 | 14.4±1.5 | 19.3±3.4a | 13.1±2.2 | 19.3±2.2a | 91.8±2.3 | 124.4±2.0a | |||
| t值 | 0.104 | 0.253 | 1.065 | 0.412 | 18.277 | 19.778 | |||
| P值 | 0.132 | 0.011 | 0.297 | 0.003 | 0.021 | 0.022 | |||
| 自变量 | b | SE | Wald χ2值 | P值 | OR(95%CI) | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 干预组别(以对照组为参照) | ||||||
| 试验组 | 3.353 | 0.709 | 22.397 | 0.002 | 28.612(7.132,114.688) | |
| 年龄(岁,以<35为参照) | ||||||
| ≥35 | 0.488 | 0.485 | 1.011 | 0.315 | 1.619(0.629,4.218) | |
| 基线营养状况(以超重为参照) | ||||||
| 肥胖 | 1.079 | 0.499 | 4.677 | 0.031 | 2.941(1.106,7.818) | |
| 受教育程度(以专科及以下为参照) | ||||||
| 本科及以上 | 0.209 | 0.485 | 0.185 | 0.667 | 1.232(0.476,3.190) | |
| 个人月收入(元,以≤5 000为参照) | ||||||
| >5 000 | 0.309 | 0.546 | 0.320 | 0.572 | 1.362(0.467,3.974) | |
| 婚姻情况(以未婚为参照) | ||||||
| 已婚 | 0.077 | 0.557 | 0.019 | 0.890 | 1.080(0.362,3.220) | |
Table 5 Univariate Logistic regression of the influencing factors of a 5% or more weight loss from baseline in overweight and obese female railway workers
| 自变量 | b | SE | Wald χ2值 | P值 | OR(95%CI) | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 干预组别(以对照组为参照) | ||||||
| 试验组 | 3.353 | 0.709 | 22.397 | 0.002 | 28.612(7.132,114.688) | |
| 年龄(岁,以<35为参照) | ||||||
| ≥35 | 0.488 | 0.485 | 1.011 | 0.315 | 1.619(0.629,4.218) | |
| 基线营养状况(以超重为参照) | ||||||
| 肥胖 | 1.079 | 0.499 | 4.677 | 0.031 | 2.941(1.106,7.818) | |
| 受教育程度(以专科及以下为参照) | ||||||
| 本科及以上 | 0.209 | 0.485 | 0.185 | 0.667 | 1.232(0.476,3.190) | |
| 个人月收入(元,以≤5 000为参照) | ||||||
| >5 000 | 0.309 | 0.546 | 0.320 | 0.572 | 1.362(0.467,3.974) | |
| 婚姻情况(以未婚为参照) | ||||||
| 已婚 | 0.077 | 0.557 | 0.019 | 0.890 | 1.080(0.362,3.220) | |
| 自变量 | b | SE | Wald χ2值 | P值 | OR(95%CI) | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 干预组别(以对照组为参照) | ||||||
| 试验组 | 1.421 | 0.613 | 5.378 | 0.020 | 4.142(1.246,13.756) | |
| 基线营养状况(以超重为参照) | ||||||
| 肥胖 | 2.513 | 0.625 | 16.176 | <0.001 | 12.337(3.626,41.972) | |
Table 6 Multivariate Logistic regression of the influencing factors of a 5% or more weight loss from baseline in overweight and obese female railway workers
| 自变量 | b | SE | Wald χ2值 | P值 | OR(95%CI) | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 干预组别(以对照组为参照) | ||||||
| 试验组 | 1.421 | 0.613 | 5.378 | 0.020 | 4.142(1.246,13.756) | |
| 基线营养状况(以超重为参照) | ||||||
| 肥胖 | 2.513 | 0.625 | 16.176 | <0.001 | 12.337(3.626,41.972) | |
| [1] |
姜勇. 我国成人超重肥胖流行现状、变化趋势及健康危害研究[D]. 北京:中国疾病预防控制中心,2013.
|
| [2] |
国家卫生计生委疾病预防控制局. 中国居民营养与慢性病状况报告(2015年)[M]. 北京:人民卫生出版社,2015:1.
|
| [3] |
中共中央,国务院. "健康中国2030"规划纲要[EB/OL]. (2016-10-25)[2021-12-17].
|
| [4] |
|
| [5] |
|
| [6] |
|
| [7] |
|
| [8] |
|
| [9] |
|
| [10] | |
| [11] |
张啸,陈大方. 基于互联网线上生活方式干预对有减重意愿人群的减重效果观察[J]. 中国慢性病预防与控制,2019,27(4):257-260. DOI:10.16386/j.cjpccd.issn.1004-6194.2019.04.004.
|
| [12] |
张德春,施建明,熊英,等. 科学营养与运动健身对超重与肥胖的干预[J]. 中国食物与营养,2015,21(2):76-79.
|
| [13] |
|
| [14] |
|
| [15] |
|
| [16] |
|
| [17] |
|
| [18] |
王艳萍,邹东阳,贺修君,等. 多元化健康教育联合个性化有氧运动对高血压患者健康行为、心理压力状态的影响[J]. 中华保健医学杂志,2021,23(2):183-185.
|
| [19] |
李京蕾,杨保才. 大学生人际关系与自我效能感的相关探究:以沈阳大学为例[J]. 沈阳大学学报(社会科学版),2015,17(2):248-252. DOI:10.16103/j.cnki.21-1582/c.2015.02.061.
|
| [20] |
王子达. 高中生体育锻炼、一般自我效能感与人际交往能力的关系研究[D]. 扬州:扬州大学,2020.
|
| [21] |
宁艾伦. 幼儿教师人际关系与自我效能感和职业倦怠感的相关关系研究[D]. 哈尔滨:哈尔滨师范大学,2020.
|
| [22] |
李晓敏,彭保艳,孙王乐贤,等. 护理人员健康促进生活方式与自我效能感关系研究[J]. 中国职业医学,2016,43(3):337-340. DOI:10.11763/j.issn.2095-2619.2016.03.021.
|
| [23] |
|
| [24] |
|
| [1] | PANG Shu, LI Xingming, BAI Hongmei, JIANG Chunyan. Conceptualization of Pre-frailty and Perspectives on Its Screening and Management among Community-dwelling Older Adults with Pre-frailty: a Semi-Structured Interview Study [J]. Chinese General Practice, 2026, 29(31): 4600-4608. |
| [2] | LI Lan, LIU Lidi, ZHANG Peng, LI Dongze, YANG Ziyu, CHENG Yonglang, LIAO Xiaoyang, WAN Zhi. Lifestyle Intervention-based Weight Management: an Analysis of Key Highlights from the Partial Update of the 2025 NICE Guideline Overweight and Obesity Management (NG246) [J]. Chinese General Practice, 2026, 29(30): 4353-4359. |
| [3] | SUN Xiuqin, FENG Zhenlong, WEI Lanxuan, ZENG Yuxin, LIU Jinbo, MA Lin, AN Zhantian, WANG Hongyu. Analysis of the Current Status of Metabolic Syndrome among Middle-aged and Elderly People in Shijingshan District, Beijing, and Its Behavioral and Lifestyle Influencing Factors [J]. Chinese General Practice, 2026, 29(30): 4424-4430. |
| [4] | ZHANG Han, CAI Genshen, FENG Zhengwen, ZHANG Kaiyue, LIAN Dongbo, ZHANG Hua, ZHANG Jing. Evaluating the Availability of Health Services for Obesity Comorbidities under Hierarchical Diagnosis and Treatment in Beijing: a Healthcare Institution Survey Study [J]. Chinese General Practice, 2026, 29(28): 4117-4124. |
| [5] | FU Xiaoya, YANG Fei, GU Keyi, GU Handong, WANG Weiqiang. Correlation between Relative Fat Mass Index and Decreased Glomerular Filtration Rate in Patients with Cardiometabolic Comorbidities [J]. Chinese General Practice, 2026, 29(28): 4187-4192. |
| [6] | ZHANG Ying, TANG Yijun, LIU Lidi, JIANG Lihua, JIA Yu, YANG Rong, YANG Ziyu, LIAO Xiaoyang. Management of Cardiovascular Metabolic Risks in Obese Children and Adolescents in China: Based on the 2024 Italian Society of Pediatric Endocrinology and Diabetes Position Paper on Cardiometabolic Risk in Children and Adolescents with Obesity [J]. Chinese General Practice, 2026, 29(27): 3879-3887. |
| [7] | ZHAO Zezhou, WANG Jieping, DU Xueping, YAN Wei, WU Wei, LI Qian, ZHAO Yawen, LI Haodong. Analysis of Disease Characteristics of Inpatients in the Department of General Practice at a Tertiary General Hospital in Beijing [J]. Chinese General Practice, 2026, 29(26): 3739-3744. |
| [8] | ZHAO Yawen, WANG Jieping, DU Xueping, WU Wei, YAN Wei, ZHOU Xiaoxia, GUAN Yajie, LI Qian, LI Haodong. Analysis of Disease Characteristics of Outpatients in the Department of General Practice at a Tertiary General Hospital in Beijing [J]. Chinese General Practice, 2026, 29(26): 3733-3738. |
| [9] | LI Haijin, ZHU Chenli, LI Hui, GAO Jingxuan, CHANG Bingjie, DU Juan, ZHANG Juan. The Development of a Community-based Post-diagnostic Co-management Program for People with Dementia and Their Caregivers in Beijing [J]. Chinese General Practice, 2026, 29(25): 3577-3583. |
| [10] | Expert Group on Guidelines for the Assessment, Treatment, and Prevention of Childhood Obesity in China, Professional Committee on Obesity Control in Women and Children, China Maternal and Child Health Research Association. Guidelines for the Assessment, Treatment, and Prevention of Childhood Obesity in China (Second Edition) [J]. Chinese General Practice, 2026, 29(23): 3233-3252. |
| [11] | HAN Congcong, QIU Xinyu, SHAN Chunfang, SONG Ning, CHEN Qingjie, MULADILI· Abudureheman, LI Xiaomei, YANG Yining, ZHAO Qian. Impact of Metabolic Obesity Phenotype on Long-term Prognosis after Percutaneous Coronary Intervention in Patients with Acute Coronary Syndrome [J]. Chinese General Practice, 2026, 29(21): 2950-2958. |
| [12] | ZHANG Ke, ZENG Xianchang, ZOLZAYA Enkhzaya, ZHU Yelin, HUANG Yiwen, LIU Zhenxiu, TAO Feng. Effect of Xiere Xingpi Yin on Eating Behaviors and Weight-related Outcomes in Patients with Obesity: a Randomized Controlled Trial [J]. Chinese General Practice, 2026, 29(20): 2759-2765. |
| [13] | CHEN Xiangyang, HUANG Hongmei, LI Sheyu. Prevention and Management of Adult Obesity: Progress and Trends from Six Keywords in 2025 [J]. Chinese General Practice, 2026, 29(20): 2753-2758. |
| [14] | REYILAI· Maimaiti, ZHOU Yiran, WU Yun, LIU Zhencheng, LU Yaoqin, WU Haiyan. Association between Novel Obesity Indicators and Cardiovascular Disease Risk in Hypertensive Patients [J]. Chinese General Practice, 2026, 29(20): 2836-2845. |
| [15] | WU Zhen, XI Yaqi, HU Linlin. Characteristics of Policy Instrument Selection and Combination for Weight Management in China: a Content Analysis of National Policy Documents (2016-2025) [J]. Chinese General Practice, 2026, 29(20): 2766-2774. |
| Viewed | ||||||
|
Full text |
|
|||||
|
Abstract |
|
|||||