大学生健康生活方式评价量表研制及初步应用研究
|
摘要
背景:
生活方式影响个人健康已成为全球瞩目的焦点,WHO指出:“每个人的健康与寿命60%取决于行为与生活方式”。良好的健康生活方式有赖于早年生活习惯的养成,成年人很难去改变年轻时养成的不健康生活习惯,要提高人们的健康生活方式水平,重点应放在年轻人。
大学阶段是个人逐渐独立和健康行为发展定型的关键阶段,又是接受知识和塑造行为的黄金时期,此时期的生活方式会延续到成年,影响一生的健康。目前国内大陆对大学生生活方式的研究重理性思辨,轻实证研究,多集中于健康危险行为,尚停留在行为与健康的关系上,针对大学生健康生活方式测量的研究工具未见报道,也很少对影响大学生健康生活方式的因素进行实证研究。因此基于量化我国大学生健康生活方式,探索影响其健康生活方式养成的因素,而开展本课题研究。
目的:
1.充分考虑我国大陆文化背景、社会结构和价值观,借鉴国外和台湾地区生活方式评价工具,采用系统量表开发技术,编制大学生健康生活方式评价量表,为标准化评估大学生健康生活方式提供客观有效的工具。
2.通过评价量表的应用,了解大学生健康生活方式的现状,初步探索影响大学生健康生活方式的因素,从学校角度提出促使大学生养成健康生活方式的建议对策,为高校倡导大学生养成健康生活方式提供参考。
方法:
1.采用文献研究法、头脑风暴法、焦点小组(大学生)评价法、专家咨询与访谈法编制大学生健康生活方式评价量表条目池。
2.根据专业声誉及研究方向,选取相关领域39名专家,采用Delphi法对备选条目池进行3轮初筛,形成大学生健康生活方式评价量表的初稿。
3.按照地理位置,在东西南北中五个区域各取一所高校,每所高校取样100人进行预调查,采用变异系数法、评价指标的应答率、因子分析法、主成分分析法、评价条目间以及评价条目与其维度的相关性分析等方法筛选条目,形成大学生健康生活方式评价量表测试版。
4.按照高校类别抽取4所院校在校大学生2000人进行现场调查,从信度、效度、反应度等方面对大学生健康生活方式评价量表测试版进行考评。
5.采用专家咨询法,进一步修订测试版,完成大学生健康生活方式评价量表的编制。
6.运用自编大学生健康生活方式调查问卷对两阶段分层抽样抽取的9所院校大学生进行现场调查,采用单因素与多因素分析初步探索影响大学生健康生活方式的因素。
结果:
1.大学生健康生活方式评价量表条目池
综合专家和学生对大学生健康生活方式条目重要性评价结果,按预想结构归类成由外显性和内隐性健康生活方式2个方面,13个维度,117个条目构成的大学生健康生活方式评价量表条目池。
2.大学生健康生活方式评价量表初稿
(1)第一轮征询结果:
专家的积极系数为84.6%;33位专家对各条目评价的权威系数的均数在0.577～0.818之间,平均为0.737;专家对各条目重要性判断的总协调系数为0.212,各维度协调系数在0.083～0.360;按照重要性转换值均数大小排秩,结合专家对条目修改、合并及删除意见,得出8个维度,70个条目。
(2)第二轮征询结果:
专家的积极系数为93.94%;31位专家对各条目评价的权威系数的均数在0.73d～0.945之间,平均为0.834;外显性和内隐性健康生活方式相对重要性评价为0.580:0.420;专家对各条目重要性判断的总协调系数为0.317,各维度协调系数在0.217～0.402;得出外显性和内隐性健康生活方式2个方面,8个维度,44个条目。
(3)第三轮征询结果:
专家的积极系数为96.77%;30位专家对各条目评价的权威系数的均数在0.778～0.903之间,平均为0.850。外显性和内隐性健康生活方式相对重要性评价为0.583:0.417;专家对各条目重要性判断的总协调系数为0.401,各维度协调系数在0.298～0.526;得出外显性和内隐性健康生活方式2个方面,7个维度,42个条目。
3.大学生健康生活方式评价量表测试版
问卷回收有效率94.4%,经过六种方法对42个初选条目进行了再筛选,筛选出由外显与内隐性健康生活方式2个方面,7个维度,40个条目构成的大学生健康生活方式评价量表测试版。
4.大学生健康生活方式评价量表测试版考评
(1)信度考评结果
大学生健康生活方式评价量表7个维度及外显性、内隐性和总的健康生活方式首次测试得分与间隔二周测试得分相关系数在0.501～0.842之间(p＜0.001);总的分半信度相关系数0.865(p=0.000),各维度分半信度在0.422～0.746之间;总的Cronbach'α系数为0.898,除健康危害行为维度的Cronbach'α系数为0.417外,其它维度的Cronbach'α系数在0.607至0.910之间。
(2)效度考评结果
量表构成能够反映大学生健康生活方式的真实情况,支持内容效度;大学生健康生活方式评价量表测试版总分与WHO生活质量测定量表简表得分总分的相关系数0.571:采用因子分析评价结构效度,KMO统计量为0.932,Bartlett's球形检验结果χ~2=20883.975(p=0.000),适合于因子分析,经因子分析,得到9个公因子,其累计贡献率为54.37%。各因素与量表的设计构想不同,结构效度较不理想,表明本量表需要进一步对条目结构进行修订。
在40个集合效度试验中,成功率为97.5%,在240个区分效度定标试验中,成功率为100%,同时各维度与其它维度间的Spearman相关系数均小于该维度的Cronbach'α系数;各维度得分与总得分间的相关系数均大于各维度得分间的相关系数。各维度分与其分量表分的相关系数均较大,而与其它分量表分相关系数较小,这些均强有力地支持量表的集合和区分效度。
(3)反应度考评结果
大学生健康生活方式评价量表测试版各维度首次测试得分与间隔二周测试得分相关系数在0.582～0.843之间(p＜0.05);经配对t检验,两次测试结果间除饮食营养行为维度外,其余均无显著性差异(p＞0.05);大学生健康生活方式评价量表测试版各维度首次测试得分与间隔四周测试得分相关系数在0.526～0.853之间(p＜0.05);经配对t检验,两次测试结果间除运动锻炼行为维度外,其余均无显著性差异(p＞0.05),显示量表的反应度较好。
(4)人口统计因素考评结果:
大学生健康生活方式评价量表测试版的总分在院校类别、家庭月收入、父母亲文化程度、入学前居住地和是否独生子女等人口统计因素方面存在差异,在性别和年级方面不存在差异。
5.大学生健康生活方式评价量表
大学生健康生活方式评价量表由8个维度,38个条目组成,涉及到外显和内隐两个方面生活方式,其中1至22条目组成大学生外显性健康生活方式评定分量表,23至38条目组成大学生内隐性健康生活方式评定分量表。
5.大学生健康生活方式评价量表初步应用
(1)大学生健康生活方式评价量表的考核
①信度
按Spearman-Brown校正,得全量表的分半相关系数为0.840,二个方面的分半相关系数分别为0.710,0.808,8个维度的分半相关系数在0.487～0.737之间;全量表的Cronbach'α系数为0.892,二个方面系数α分别为0.770和0.891,8个维度的α系数在0.518～0.830之间。
②效度
KMO统计量为0.929,Bartlett's球形检验结果χ~2=54913.124(p=0.000),适合于因子分析。经因子分析,得到9个公因子,累计贡献率为55.02%。除健康危害行为分为两个因子外,其余各条目在因素上的负荷与量表结构吻合,支持结构效度。
在38个集合效度试验中,成功率为97.37%;在259个区分效度定标试验中,成功率为97.30%;各维度与其它维度间的Spearman相关系数均小于该维度的Cronbach'a系数;各维度得分与总得分间的相关系数均大于各维度得分间的相关系数。各维度分与其分量表分的相关系数均较大,而与其它分量表分相关系数较小,这些均支持集合和区分效度。
③大学生健康生活方式评价量表的反应度
大学生健康生活方式得分能够区分出健康大学生与患慢性病大学生,经常、一般和很少生病/身体不舒服的大学生。
(2)大学生健康生活方式及影响因素初步分析
①大学生健康生活方式总得分标准分为67,接近中等程度,在各维度上,大学生健康责任行为得分最高,生命欣赏行为次之,其余依序是人际支持行为、生活规律行为、压力管理行为、健康危害行为、饮食营养行为,而运动锻炼行为最低。
②性别、气质、自感健康、自感成绩、院校所在地经济水平、院校类别、年级、和谁一起居住、是否学过健康教育与健康促进课程、出生地经济水平、家庭月收入和父母亲文化程度等影响大学生健康生活方式。
结论:
1.本研究研制的大学生健康生活方式评价量表包含运动锻炼行为、生活规律行为、饮食营养行为、健康危害行为、健康责任行为、人际支持行为、压力管理行为、生命欣赏行为等8个维度,38个条目。
2.本量表有较高的信度和效度,可以作为测量大学生健康生活方式的工具。
3.大学生健康生活方式接近中等程度,大学生虽然有较高的健康责任,但较少从事运动锻炼行为。
4.影响大学生健康生活方式的因素多且复杂,包括生理、心理及认知、学校因素和家庭等多方面的因素。学校应根据大学生的这些特点采取相应的对策激发不同学生采取健康生活方式的兴趣,促使大学生养成健康生活方式。
Background:
During recent decades, lifestyle is an important determinant of health status, which has become a focus that attracted increasing interests around the world. The World Health Organization pointed out that 60 percent of the quality of an individual's health and life depends on his behavior and lifestyles. A good health-promoting behavior depends on the living habits adopted in the early years of one's life. It is far more difficult for adults to change unhealthy habits adopted in their youth, so the young people are the major population whose healthy lifestyles should be attached great importance to.
College student life is an important stage when individual independence and healthy behavior are to be established, and also a golden period when knowledge is absorbed and personality is shaped. Meanwhile, during this stage, unhealthy practices and behaviors will also continue into adulthood and thus jeopardize their health status in later life. At present, In China Mainland, the research on the life styles of college students is mostly focused on the health risk behavior and remains at research phase on the relationship between behavior and health, namely, the research only addresses the life styles as factors that affect health. So far the relevant research approach aiming at the measurement of the college students' healthy lifestyles have not been reported; few studies on the factors that affect healthy lifestyles of college students have been carried out, and almost no empirical study thereof has been considered. Therefore, based on this, the present research attempts to focus mainly on the quantification regarding college students' healthy behaviors so as to explore the influential factors on their healthy life style-forming.
Objectives:
1. To provide the objective, effective and standard tools to evaluate the healthy lifestyles of college students, this research fully considers, by adopting the tools on evaluating life styles in Taiwan region and abroad, the cultural background, social structure and values of young people in China Mainland. Besides, the research used the systematic technology of developing scale to generate the healthy lifestyle questionnaire (HLQ) for the college students.
2. Through HLQ, the current situation of the college students' lifestyles will be understood, and the relevant influence factors from many aspects will be explored. Apart from this, the strategies to promote healthy lifestyles of college students will be proposed to serve as the reference for the departments of educational administration to promote the college students' lifestyles.
Methods:
1. An item pool of HLQ for College Students is to be complied based on literature reviews, brain storm, focus subject (undergraduates) interview, and expert consultation and interview.
2. Totally 33 experts based on their professional reputation and research domain were selected to form a panel and the 3 round Delphi method was adopted to form the first draft of HLQ.
3. Totally 500 college students from 5 universities located separately in the eastern, western, southern, northern, and middle China were chosen as subjects to investigate via questionnaire, disperse trend, factor analysis, response rate, principal component analysis, correlation coefficient among and between item and domain were adopted to further screen the items for HLQ.
4. The validity, the reliability and the responsiveness of the test version of HLQ were worked out from the data of totally 2000 college students selected from four universities.
5. The method of expert consultation was adopted to update the test version of HLQ.
6. Totally 5400 students from nine universities were selected by a two-stage stratified cluster sampling method. These subjects were also surveyed with the HLQ and self-designed questionnaire containing demographic variables and the other factors by the method of univariate analysis and multivariate analysis.
Results:
1. The item pool of HLQ for College students
The item pool of HLQ consists of 117 items and was classified into 2 sub-scales concerning the extrinsic healthy lifestyles and implicit healthy lifestyles and 13 domains.
2. The first draft HLQ for College students
2.1 Result of the first round consultation
The positive coefficient of experts is 84.60%. The means concerning authority coefficient of each item evaluated by 33 experts range from 0.517 to 0.818, and the average is 0.737. The total coordination coefficient (Kendall'W coefficient) of each item evaluated by 33 experts is 0.212, and the coordination coefficient of each domain goes between 0.083 and 0.360, The 70 items falling into 8 domains were obtained according to the mean of transformed importance value and experts' updated suggestion on the items.
2.2 Result of the second round consultation
The positive coefficient of experts is 93.94%. The means of authority coefficient of each item evaluated by 31 experts go between 0.730 and 0.945, and the average is 0.834. The relative importance of the extrinsic healthy lifestyles and implicit healthy lifestyles is 0.58:0.42, and the Kendall's Wcoefficient is 0.742. The total coordination coefficient of each item evaluated by 31 experts is 0.317, and the coordination coefficient of each domain is found between 0.217 and 0.402. The 44 items are observed to belong to 8 domains. Two aspects were obtained according to the mean of transformed importance value and experts' updated suggestion on the items. 2.3 Result of the third round consultation
The positive coefficient of experts is 96.77%. The means of authority coefficient of each item evaluated by 30 experts are found between 0.778 and 0.903, and the average is 0.850. The relative importance of the extrinsic healthy lifestyles and implicit healthy lifestyles is 0.583:0.417. The total coordination coefficient of each item evaluated by 30 experts is 0.401, and the coordination coefficient of each domain is between 0.298 and 0.526. The 42 items are categorized into 7 domains. Two aspects were obtained according to the mean of transformed importance value and experts' updated suggestion on the items.
3. The test version of HLQ for College students
Totally 472, accounting for 94.4%, valid questionnaires were used for data analyses in this study, and the test version of HLQ is composed of 7 domains and 40 items obtained from further screen by six methods.
4. The HLQ for College students
4.1 The appraisal result of reliability
Cronbach a of total score was 0.898 and that of 7 domains were observed to range from 0.607 to 0.910 except for health risky behavior. Retest reliability of total score is 0.708 and that of 7 domains is 0.501～0.842 (p<0.001). The correlation coefficient of Spearman-brown split-half was 0.865 and hat of 7 domains goes from 0.422 to 0.746 (p<0.001).
4.2 The appraisal result of validity
The content validity was supported by prophase research, and the items of the HLQ can reflect the real present situation of healthy lifestyles of college students. The Pearson's correlation coefficient between the total score of the HLQ test version and the total score of WHOQOL—BREF is 0.571; therefore, the criterion validity was accepted. The construct validity in factor analysis did not go well with the structure of the HLQ. The KMO statistic of 0.932 and Bartlett's test of sphericity with x~2=20883.975 (p=0.000) suggested that the factor analysis could be performed appropriately. Both convergent validity and discriminating validity were strongly supported by the correlations within the factors which were stronger than that between the factors.
4.3 The appraisal result of responsiveness
The correlation coefficient of the total score of the HLQ test version obtained between the first test and the test two weeks later is 0.582～0.843(p<0.05), suggesting higher correlation, and two test results have no significant differences except for nutritional behavior. The correlation coefficient of the total score of the HLQ test version obtained between the first test and the test four weeks later is 0.526～0.853(p<0.05), suggesting higher correlation, and the two test results indicate no significant differences except for exercise behavior. This shows good responsiveness.
4.4 The appraisal result of Demographic variables
The total score of the HLQ test version show significant differences in type characteristic of the university, family's monthly earning, parental educational level, residence before being enrolled into university and family with one-child or not. The total score has no significant differences in terms of gender and grade.
4.5 The HLQ for College students
The HLQ for College students is composed of 8 domains and 38 items and involvesin the extrinsic healthy lifestyles and implicit healthy lifestyles.
5. The preliminary application study of HLQ for College students
5.1 Appraisal of the HLQ for College students
5.1.1 The appraisal result of reliability
Corrected in accordance with Spearman-Brown, the total split-half correlationcoefficient became 0.840; two aspects split-half correlation coefficients were0.710,0.808, and that of 8 domains were 0.372～0.737. Cronbach a coefficient oftotal score was 0.892; two aspects of coefficient were 0.770 and 0.891, that of 8domains were 0.418～0.830 (p<0.001).
5.1.2 The appraisal result of validity
Factor analysis used to evaluate construct validity, KMO statistic was 0.929; Bartlett's test results of spherical x~2=54913.124 (p=0.000), suggested that the factor analysis could be performed appropriately. Through factor analysis, the nine common factors were worked out, and the cumulative contribution rate was 55.02%. In addition, health risk behavior is divided into two factors, the remaining entries in the load factors found in line with the scale structure, supporting the structural validity. At the 38 convergent validity tests, the success rate was 97.37%. At the 259 discriminating validity calibration trials, the success rate was 97.30%. The Spearman correlation coefficient between the domains was smaller than that of the Cronbach'α. The scores between the domain scores and total scores were greater than those of the domains. Comparatively speaking, the correlation coefficients of every dimension and its sub- scale were large, and other sub-scale correlation coefficient smaller. All this supports convergent validity and discriminate validity.
5.1.3 The appraisal result of responsiveness
The HLQ is able to distinguish students who are healthy, students who sutler fromchronic diseases, students who are often ill and students who are physicallydiscomfort. Therefore, it demonstrates reliable responsiveness.
5.2 A preliminary explorative study of influential factors on college students' healthylifestyles
5.2.1 The standard total score of college students' healthy lifestyles is 67, near the middle level. In every domain, the maximal one is health responsibility behavior, the next one is life appreciation behavior. The rest goes in the order of significance: interpersonal supporting behavior, law of life behavior, stress management behavior, health risk behavior and nutrition behavior, the minimal one is exercise behavior.
5.2.2 Some factors affect the healthy lifestyles of college students, such as gender, temperament, self-rated health, self-rated achievement, place of colleges, type of college, grade, residential peer, birth region, educational levels of parents and family's monthly-earning.
Conclusions:
1. The HLQ for college students includes exercise behavior, law of life behavior, nutrition behavior, health risk behavior, health responsibility behavior, interpersonal support behavior, stress management behavior and life appreciation behavior.
2. The HLQ for college students has high reliability and validity by further statistical verification to indicate that it could serve as a measuring tool for evaluating college student' healthy lifestyles.
3. The college students healthy lifestyles is close to the middle level, and have a good health responsibility behavior, but they are less engaged in exercise.
4. The factors including physiological, psychological and cognitive, school and family affect the college student healthy lifestyles, and the factors are very complex, and all mutually affect the healthy lifestyles of college students. It is strongly suggested that the colleges should take different measures to stimulate student interest in taking health-promoting lifestyles based on their characteristics so as to develop healthy lifestyles during their college student life.
生活方式影响个人健康已成为全球瞩目的焦点,WHO指出:“每个人的健康与寿命60%取决于行为与生活方式”。良好的健康生活方式有赖于早年生活习惯的养成,成年人很难去改变年轻时养成的不健康生活习惯,要提高人们的健康生活方式水平,重点应放在年轻人。
大学阶段是个人逐渐独立和健康行为发展定型的关键阶段,又是接受知识和塑造行为的黄金时期,此时期的生活方式会延续到成年,影响一生的健康。目前国内大陆对大学生生活方式的研究重理性思辨,轻实证研究,多集中于健康危险行为,尚停留在行为与健康的关系上,针对大学生健康生活方式测量的研究工具未见报道,也很少对影响大学生健康生活方式的因素进行实证研究。因此基于量化我国大学生健康生活方式,探索影响其健康生活方式养成的因素,而开展本课题研究。
目的:
1.充分考虑我国大陆文化背景、社会结构和价值观,借鉴国外和台湾地区生活方式评价工具,采用系统量表开发技术,编制大学生健康生活方式评价量表,为标准化评估大学生健康生活方式提供客观有效的工具。
2.通过评价量表的应用,了解大学生健康生活方式的现状,初步探索影响大学生健康生活方式的因素,从学校角度提出促使大学生养成健康生活方式的建议对策,为高校倡导大学生养成健康生活方式提供参考。
方法:
1.采用文献研究法、头脑风暴法、焦点小组(大学生)评价法、专家咨询与访谈法编制大学生健康生活方式评价量表条目池。
2.根据专业声誉及研究方向,选取相关领域39名专家,采用Delphi法对备选条目池进行3轮初筛,形成大学生健康生活方式评价量表的初稿。
3.按照地理位置,在东西南北中五个区域各取一所高校,每所高校取样100人进行预调查,采用变异系数法、评价指标的应答率、因子分析法、主成分分析法、评价条目间以及评价条目与其维度的相关性分析等方法筛选条目,形成大学生健康生活方式评价量表测试版。
4.按照高校类别抽取4所院校在校大学生2000人进行现场调查,从信度、效度、反应度等方面对大学生健康生活方式评价量表测试版进行考评。
5.采用专家咨询法,进一步修订测试版,完成大学生健康生活方式评价量表的编制。
6.运用自编大学生健康生活方式调查问卷对两阶段分层抽样抽取的9所院校大学生进行现场调查,采用单因素与多因素分析初步探索影响大学生健康生活方式的因素。
结果:
1.大学生健康生活方式评价量表条目池
综合专家和学生对大学生健康生活方式条目重要性评价结果,按预想结构归类成由外显性和内隐性健康生活方式2个方面,13个维度,117个条目构成的大学生健康生活方式评价量表条目池。
2.大学生健康生活方式评价量表初稿
(1)第一轮征询结果:
专家的积极系数为84.6%;33位专家对各条目评价的权威系数的均数在0.577～0.818之间,平均为0.737;专家对各条目重要性判断的总协调系数为0.212,各维度协调系数在0.083～0.360;按照重要性转换值均数大小排秩,结合专家对条目修改、合并及删除意见,得出8个维度,70个条目。
(2)第二轮征询结果:
专家的积极系数为93.94%;31位专家对各条目评价的权威系数的均数在0.73d～0.945之间,平均为0.834;外显性和内隐性健康生活方式相对重要性评价为0.580:0.420;专家对各条目重要性判断的总协调系数为0.317,各维度协调系数在0.217～0.402;得出外显性和内隐性健康生活方式2个方面,8个维度,44个条目。
(3)第三轮征询结果:
专家的积极系数为96.77%;30位专家对各条目评价的权威系数的均数在0.778～0.903之间,平均为0.850。外显性和内隐性健康生活方式相对重要性评价为0.583:0.417;专家对各条目重要性判断的总协调系数为0.401,各维度协调系数在0.298～0.526;得出外显性和内隐性健康生活方式2个方面,7个维度,42个条目。
3.大学生健康生活方式评价量表测试版
问卷回收有效率94.4%,经过六种方法对42个初选条目进行了再筛选,筛选出由外显与内隐性健康生活方式2个方面,7个维度,40个条目构成的大学生健康生活方式评价量表测试版。
4.大学生健康生活方式评价量表测试版考评
(1)信度考评结果
大学生健康生活方式评价量表7个维度及外显性、内隐性和总的健康生活方式首次测试得分与间隔二周测试得分相关系数在0.501～0.842之间(p＜0.001);总的分半信度相关系数0.865(p=0.000),各维度分半信度在0.422～0.746之间;总的Cronbach'α系数为0.898,除健康危害行为维度的Cronbach'α系数为0.417外,其它维度的Cronbach'α系数在0.607至0.910之间。
(2)效度考评结果
量表构成能够反映大学生健康生活方式的真实情况,支持内容效度;大学生健康生活方式评价量表测试版总分与WHO生活质量测定量表简表得分总分的相关系数0.571:采用因子分析评价结构效度,KMO统计量为0.932,Bartlett's球形检验结果χ~2=20883.975(p=0.000),适合于因子分析,经因子分析,得到9个公因子,其累计贡献率为54.37%。各因素与量表的设计构想不同,结构效度较不理想,表明本量表需要进一步对条目结构进行修订。
在40个集合效度试验中,成功率为97.5%,在240个区分效度定标试验中,成功率为100%,同时各维度与其它维度间的Spearman相关系数均小于该维度的Cronbach'α系数;各维度得分与总得分间的相关系数均大于各维度得分间的相关系数。各维度分与其分量表分的相关系数均较大,而与其它分量表分相关系数较小,这些均强有力地支持量表的集合和区分效度。
(3)反应度考评结果
大学生健康生活方式评价量表测试版各维度首次测试得分与间隔二周测试得分相关系数在0.582～0.843之间(p＜0.05);经配对t检验,两次测试结果间除饮食营养行为维度外,其余均无显著性差异(p＞0.05);大学生健康生活方式评价量表测试版各维度首次测试得分与间隔四周测试得分相关系数在0.526～0.853之间(p＜0.05);经配对t检验,两次测试结果间除运动锻炼行为维度外,其余均无显著性差异(p＞0.05),显示量表的反应度较好。
(4)人口统计因素考评结果:
大学生健康生活方式评价量表测试版的总分在院校类别、家庭月收入、父母亲文化程度、入学前居住地和是否独生子女等人口统计因素方面存在差异,在性别和年级方面不存在差异。
5.大学生健康生活方式评价量表
大学生健康生活方式评价量表由8个维度,38个条目组成,涉及到外显和内隐两个方面生活方式,其中1至22条目组成大学生外显性健康生活方式评定分量表,23至38条目组成大学生内隐性健康生活方式评定分量表。
5.大学生健康生活方式评价量表初步应用
(1)大学生健康生活方式评价量表的考核
①信度
按Spearman-Brown校正,得全量表的分半相关系数为0.840,二个方面的分半相关系数分别为0.710,0.808,8个维度的分半相关系数在0.487～0.737之间;全量表的Cronbach'α系数为0.892,二个方面系数α分别为0.770和0.891,8个维度的α系数在0.518～0.830之间。
②效度
KMO统计量为0.929,Bartlett's球形检验结果χ~2=54913.124(p=0.000),适合于因子分析。经因子分析,得到9个公因子,累计贡献率为55.02%。除健康危害行为分为两个因子外,其余各条目在因素上的负荷与量表结构吻合,支持结构效度。
在38个集合效度试验中,成功率为97.37%;在259个区分效度定标试验中,成功率为97.30%;各维度与其它维度间的Spearman相关系数均小于该维度的Cronbach'a系数;各维度得分与总得分间的相关系数均大于各维度得分间的相关系数。各维度分与其分量表分的相关系数均较大,而与其它分量表分相关系数较小,这些均支持集合和区分效度。
③大学生健康生活方式评价量表的反应度
大学生健康生活方式得分能够区分出健康大学生与患慢性病大学生,经常、一般和很少生病/身体不舒服的大学生。
(2)大学生健康生活方式及影响因素初步分析
①大学生健康生活方式总得分标准分为67,接近中等程度,在各维度上,大学生健康责任行为得分最高,生命欣赏行为次之,其余依序是人际支持行为、生活规律行为、压力管理行为、健康危害行为、饮食营养行为,而运动锻炼行为最低。
②性别、气质、自感健康、自感成绩、院校所在地经济水平、院校类别、年级、和谁一起居住、是否学过健康教育与健康促进课程、出生地经济水平、家庭月收入和父母亲文化程度等影响大学生健康生活方式。
结论:
1.本研究研制的大学生健康生活方式评价量表包含运动锻炼行为、生活规律行为、饮食营养行为、健康危害行为、健康责任行为、人际支持行为、压力管理行为、生命欣赏行为等8个维度,38个条目。
2.本量表有较高的信度和效度,可以作为测量大学生健康生活方式的工具。
3.大学生健康生活方式接近中等程度,大学生虽然有较高的健康责任,但较少从事运动锻炼行为。
4.影响大学生健康生活方式的因素多且复杂,包括生理、心理及认知、学校因素和家庭等多方面的因素。学校应根据大学生的这些特点采取相应的对策激发不同学生采取健康生活方式的兴趣,促使大学生养成健康生活方式。
Background:
During recent decades, lifestyle is an important determinant of health status, which has become a focus that attracted increasing interests around the world. The World Health Organization pointed out that 60 percent of the quality of an individual's health and life depends on his behavior and lifestyles. A good health-promoting behavior depends on the living habits adopted in the early years of one's life. It is far more difficult for adults to change unhealthy habits adopted in their youth, so the young people are the major population whose healthy lifestyles should be attached great importance to.
College student life is an important stage when individual independence and healthy behavior are to be established, and also a golden period when knowledge is absorbed and personality is shaped. Meanwhile, during this stage, unhealthy practices and behaviors will also continue into adulthood and thus jeopardize their health status in later life. At present, In China Mainland, the research on the life styles of college students is mostly focused on the health risk behavior and remains at research phase on the relationship between behavior and health, namely, the research only addresses the life styles as factors that affect health. So far the relevant research approach aiming at the measurement of the college students' healthy lifestyles have not been reported; few studies on the factors that affect healthy lifestyles of college students have been carried out, and almost no empirical study thereof has been considered. Therefore, based on this, the present research attempts to focus mainly on the quantification regarding college students' healthy behaviors so as to explore the influential factors on their healthy life style-forming.
Objectives:
1. To provide the objective, effective and standard tools to evaluate the healthy lifestyles of college students, this research fully considers, by adopting the tools on evaluating life styles in Taiwan region and abroad, the cultural background, social structure and values of young people in China Mainland. Besides, the research used the systematic technology of developing scale to generate the healthy lifestyle questionnaire (HLQ) for the college students.
2. Through HLQ, the current situation of the college students' lifestyles will be understood, and the relevant influence factors from many aspects will be explored. Apart from this, the strategies to promote healthy lifestyles of college students will be proposed to serve as the reference for the departments of educational administration to promote the college students' lifestyles.
Methods:
1. An item pool of HLQ for College Students is to be complied based on literature reviews, brain storm, focus subject (undergraduates) interview, and expert consultation and interview.
2. Totally 33 experts based on their professional reputation and research domain were selected to form a panel and the 3 round Delphi method was adopted to form the first draft of HLQ.
3. Totally 500 college students from 5 universities located separately in the eastern, western, southern, northern, and middle China were chosen as subjects to investigate via questionnaire, disperse trend, factor analysis, response rate, principal component analysis, correlation coefficient among and between item and domain were adopted to further screen the items for HLQ.
4. The validity, the reliability and the responsiveness of the test version of HLQ were worked out from the data of totally 2000 college students selected from four universities.
5. The method of expert consultation was adopted to update the test version of HLQ.
6. Totally 5400 students from nine universities were selected by a two-stage stratified cluster sampling method. These subjects were also surveyed with the HLQ and self-designed questionnaire containing demographic variables and the other factors by the method of univariate analysis and multivariate analysis.
Results:
1. The item pool of HLQ for College students
The item pool of HLQ consists of 117 items and was classified into 2 sub-scales concerning the extrinsic healthy lifestyles and implicit healthy lifestyles and 13 domains.
2. The first draft HLQ for College students
2.1 Result of the first round consultation
The positive coefficient of experts is 84.60%. The means concerning authority coefficient of each item evaluated by 33 experts range from 0.517 to 0.818, and the average is 0.737. The total coordination coefficient (Kendall'W coefficient) of each item evaluated by 33 experts is 0.212, and the coordination coefficient of each domain goes between 0.083 and 0.360, The 70 items falling into 8 domains were obtained according to the mean of transformed importance value and experts' updated suggestion on the items.
2.2 Result of the second round consultation
The positive coefficient of experts is 93.94%. The means of authority coefficient of each item evaluated by 31 experts go between 0.730 and 0.945, and the average is 0.834. The relative importance of the extrinsic healthy lifestyles and implicit healthy lifestyles is 0.58:0.42, and the Kendall's Wcoefficient is 0.742. The total coordination coefficient of each item evaluated by 31 experts is 0.317, and the coordination coefficient of each domain is found between 0.217 and 0.402. The 44 items are observed to belong to 8 domains. Two aspects were obtained according to the mean of transformed importance value and experts' updated suggestion on the items. 2.3 Result of the third round consultation
The positive coefficient of experts is 96.77%. The means of authority coefficient of each item evaluated by 30 experts are found between 0.778 and 0.903, and the average is 0.850. The relative importance of the extrinsic healthy lifestyles and implicit healthy lifestyles is 0.583:0.417. The total coordination coefficient of each item evaluated by 30 experts is 0.401, and the coordination coefficient of each domain is between 0.298 and 0.526. The 42 items are categorized into 7 domains. Two aspects were obtained according to the mean of transformed importance value and experts' updated suggestion on the items.
3. The test version of HLQ for College students
Totally 472, accounting for 94.4%, valid questionnaires were used for data analyses in this study, and the test version of HLQ is composed of 7 domains and 40 items obtained from further screen by six methods.
4. The HLQ for College students
4.1 The appraisal result of reliability
Cronbach a of total score was 0.898 and that of 7 domains were observed to range from 0.607 to 0.910 except for health risky behavior. Retest reliability of total score is 0.708 and that of 7 domains is 0.501～0.842 (p<0.001). The correlation coefficient of Spearman-brown split-half was 0.865 and hat of 7 domains goes from 0.422 to 0.746 (p<0.001).
4.2 The appraisal result of validity
The content validity was supported by prophase research, and the items of the HLQ can reflect the real present situation of healthy lifestyles of college students. The Pearson's correlation coefficient between the total score of the HLQ test version and the total score of WHOQOL—BREF is 0.571; therefore, the criterion validity was accepted. The construct validity in factor analysis did not go well with the structure of the HLQ. The KMO statistic of 0.932 and Bartlett's test of sphericity with x~2=20883.975 (p=0.000) suggested that the factor analysis could be performed appropriately. Both convergent validity and discriminating validity were strongly supported by the correlations within the factors which were stronger than that between the factors.
4.3 The appraisal result of responsiveness
The correlation coefficient of the total score of the HLQ test version obtained between the first test and the test two weeks later is 0.582～0.843(p<0.05), suggesting higher correlation, and two test results have no significant differences except for nutritional behavior. The correlation coefficient of the total score of the HLQ test version obtained between the first test and the test four weeks later is 0.526～0.853(p<0.05), suggesting higher correlation, and the two test results indicate no significant differences except for exercise behavior. This shows good responsiveness.
4.4 The appraisal result of Demographic variables
The total score of the HLQ test version show significant differences in type characteristic of the university, family's monthly earning, parental educational level, residence before being enrolled into university and family with one-child or not. The total score has no significant differences in terms of gender and grade.
4.5 The HLQ for College students
The HLQ for College students is composed of 8 domains and 38 items and involvesin the extrinsic healthy lifestyles and implicit healthy lifestyles.
5. The preliminary application study of HLQ for College students
5.1 Appraisal of the HLQ for College students
5.1.1 The appraisal result of reliability
Corrected in accordance with Spearman-Brown, the total split-half correlationcoefficient became 0.840; two aspects split-half correlation coefficients were0.710,0.808, and that of 8 domains were 0.372～0.737. Cronbach a coefficient oftotal score was 0.892; two aspects of coefficient were 0.770 and 0.891, that of 8domains were 0.418～0.830 (p<0.001).
5.1.2 The appraisal result of validity
Factor analysis used to evaluate construct validity, KMO statistic was 0.929; Bartlett's test results of spherical x~2=54913.124 (p=0.000), suggested that the factor analysis could be performed appropriately. Through factor analysis, the nine common factors were worked out, and the cumulative contribution rate was 55.02%. In addition, health risk behavior is divided into two factors, the remaining entries in the load factors found in line with the scale structure, supporting the structural validity. At the 38 convergent validity tests, the success rate was 97.37%. At the 259 discriminating validity calibration trials, the success rate was 97.30%. The Spearman correlation coefficient between the domains was smaller than that of the Cronbach'α. The scores between the domain scores and total scores were greater than those of the domains. Comparatively speaking, the correlation coefficients of every dimension and its sub- scale were large, and other sub-scale correlation coefficient smaller. All this supports convergent validity and discriminate validity.
5.1.3 The appraisal result of responsiveness
The HLQ is able to distinguish students who are healthy, students who sutler fromchronic diseases, students who are often ill and students who are physicallydiscomfort. Therefore, it demonstrates reliable responsiveness.
5.2 A preliminary explorative study of influential factors on college students' healthylifestyles
5.2.1 The standard total score of college students' healthy lifestyles is 67, near the middle level. In every domain, the maximal one is health responsibility behavior, the next one is life appreciation behavior. The rest goes in the order of significance: interpersonal supporting behavior, law of life behavior, stress management behavior, health risk behavior and nutrition behavior, the minimal one is exercise behavior.
5.2.2 Some factors affect the healthy lifestyles of college students, such as gender, temperament, self-rated health, self-rated achievement, place of colleges, type of college, grade, residential peer, birth region, educational levels of parents and family's monthly-earning.
Conclusions:
1. The HLQ for college students includes exercise behavior, law of life behavior, nutrition behavior, health risk behavior, health responsibility behavior, interpersonal support behavior, stress management behavior and life appreciation behavior.
2. The HLQ for college students has high reliability and validity by further statistical verification to indicate that it could serve as a measuring tool for evaluating college student' healthy lifestyles.
3. The college students healthy lifestyles is close to the middle level, and have a good health responsibility behavior, but they are less engaged in exercise.
4. The factors including physiological, psychological and cognitive, school and family affect the college student healthy lifestyles, and the factors are very complex, and all mutually affect the healthy lifestyles of college students. It is strongly suggested that the colleges should take different measures to stimulate student interest in taking health-promoting lifestyles based on their characteristics so as to develop healthy lifestyles during their college student life.
引文
[1]黄敬亨.健康教育学.第4版.上海:复旦大学出版社,2006,33-34.
[2]周晓荣,朱云霞,李金娜.健康生活方式研究进展.护理研究.2006,20(12):3201-3202.
[3]国家统计局.中国统计年鉴.1996.北京:中国统计出版社,1996.32.
[4]季成叶,主编.中国城市青少年健康危险行为调查报告(2005年).北京:北京大学医学出版社,2007,8-9.
[5]陶芳标,张洪波,许韶君,等.大学生危害健康行为的流行病学研究.中国学校卫生,1999,20(4):249-250.
[6]唐弘.大学生健康危险行为的现况调查.江苏预防医学,2006,17(3):76-78.
[7]张会来,李广宇,张宝荣,等.华北2所高校大学生健康危险行为的描述性研究.中国学校卫生,2004,25(2):192-193.
[8]Laura Kann,Charles W,et al.Youth Risk Behavior,Journal of Adolescent Health,From Data to Action.CDC's public health surveillance for women,infants and children,2004,359-366.
[9]JoAnne Grunbaum,Laura Kann,et al.Youth risk behavior surveillance,United States,2003.MMWR,2004,53(2):1-98.
[10]US Department of Health an Human Service,Centers for Disease Control and Prevention(CDC).Trends in cigarette smoking among high students-United States,1991-2001.MMWR,2002,51(19):409-412.
[11]Suhasini Ramisettv- Mikler,Raul Caetano,Deborah Goebert,et al.Ethnic:Variation in Drinking,Drug Use,and Sexual Behavior Among Adolescents in Hawaii.J Sch Heal,2004,74(1):16-21.
[12]宗占红,周建芳,夏媛媛.大学生健康相关行为现状调查分析.中国健康教育,2007,23(9):683-685.
[13]翟水保.陕西省部分大学生健康行为调查.中国健康教育,2005,21(4):297-298.
[14]翟蕾,孙冰洁,王晓智,等.北京市1138名大学生健康危险行为状况.中国学校卫生,2007,28(3):264-266.
[15]柯遵渝.570名大学生健康行为方式量表调查分析.中国行为医学科学,2003,12(1):94-95.
[16]王平,李海燕,阮丽萍,等.医科大学生健康行为调查.中国公共卫生,2005,21(4):398.
[17]王冬,段俊杰,陈清.某高校学生健康促进行为水平的调查研究.第四军医大学 学报.2008,29(17):1548-1550.
[18]王冬,陈美燕,周创.青少年健康促进量表在大陆某高校学生中的适用性研究.中国卫生统计.2009,26(1):80-82.
[19]Vanantwerp,C.The Lifestyle Questionnaire for school-aged children:A tool for primary care.Journal of Pediatric Health Care.1995,9:251-255.
[20]Vanantwerp,C.& Spaniolo,A.Checking out children's lifestyles.Maternal Child Nursing.1991,16:144-147.
[21]Gillis AJ.The Adolescent Lifestyle Questionnaire:development and psychometric testing.Can J Nurs Res.1997,29(1):29-46.
[22]Hendricks C,Murdaugh C,Pender N.The Adolescent Lifestyle Profile:development and psychometric characteristics.J Natl Black Nurses Assoc.2006,17(2):1-5.
[23]Walker,S.Sechrist,K.&Pender,N.The Health-Promoting Lifestyle Profile:Development and psychometric characteristics.Nursing Research.1987,36(2):76-81.
[24]Walker,S.Sechrist,K.&Pender,N.The Health-Promoting Lifestyle Profile Ⅱ:Omaha:University of Nebraska Medical Center,College Of Nursing.1995.
[25]Chen MY,Wang EK,Yang RJ,Liou YM.Adolescent health promotion scale:development and psychometric testing.Public Health Nurs.2003,20(2):102-110.
[26]王飞加.大学生健康生活方式养成教育的研究.北京体育大学学报.2008,31(4):518-520.
[27]黄希斌,方孺钦.对大学生生活习惯与保健行为的探讨.闽江学院学报.2004,25(5):109-111.
[28]吴秀峰,许红峰,陈华.大学生健康知识和行为的调查分析.体育科学研究,2003,7(12):90-92.
[29]徐伯彤,谢佩娜.浙江省大学生不健康行为的原因分析及干预对策.浙江体育科学.2003,25(2):41-43.
[30]程玲玲.620名大学生健康行为和心理素质分析.中国健康教育.2000,16(9):521-523.
[31]罗伯特·F·德威利斯著.魏勇刚,龙长权,宋武.译.量表编制理论与应用.重庆大学出版社,2004.
[32]Pender,N.J.Health promotion in nursing practice(2nd ed.).Norwalk,CT:AppletonLange.1987,9-11.
[33]科学名词:第一次和第二次卫生革命http://www.sina.com.cn 2004年07月07 日 10:19 中国公众科技网.
[34]王文志,刘红梅.“维多利亚宣言”内容介绍.中国慢性病预防与控制.1995,3(4):186-188.
[35]王志谨.介绍美国的“新起点”生活方式.中国健康教育杂志.2000,16(2):69-70.
[36]慧康.按FUN的标准生活.安全与健康.2003,(23):48.
[37]中华人民共和国卫生部编.健康66条——中国公民健康素养读本.北京:人民卫生出版社,2008.
[38]卫生部.全民健康生活方式行动倡议书.关于开展全民健康生活方式行动的通知,卫办疾控发(2007)189号.
[39]Munhlenkamp,A.,Brown,N.The development of an instrument to measurement to measure health pratices.Paper presented at the American Nurses'Association Council of Nurse Researchers Conference,Minneapolis,MN.1983,9.
[40]Munhlenkamp,Sayles.Self-esteem,social support,and positive health practices.Nursing Research,1986,35(6):334-338.
[41]Robert L.Williams,Sandra P.Thomas,Damaris O.Young,John J.Jozwiak,and Mark A.Hector.Development of a Health Habits Scale.Research in Nursing &Health.1991,14:145-153.
[42]黄毓华,丘启润.健康促进生活型态量表信效度之评估.高雄医学科学杂志,1996,12:529-537.
[43]陈美燕,周传姜,黄秀华,等.健康促进的生活方式量表中文版之修订与测试.长庚护理.1997,8(1):14-23.
[44]Belloc,N.B.,& Breslow,L.Relationships on health status and health practices.Preventive Medicine.1972,1:407-421.
[45]Harles B.Corbin,Gregory J.Welk,William R.Corbin,et al.Concepts of Fitness and Wellness-a comprehensive lifestyle approach.6~(th)editon.Published by McGraw-Hill Companies.2004,10.
[46]胡俊峰,侯培森.当代健康教育与健康促进.人民卫生出版社.2005.235-249.
[47]李小妹.护理学导论.长沙:湖南科学技术出版社,2002:26.
[48]陈海春.亚健康、生活方式与运动健身关系的探讨.福建体育科技,2003,2(2):4-5
[49]谭红专.现代流行病学.人民卫生出版社.2001.
[50]曾光.现代流行病学方法与应用.第一版.北京:北京医科大学中国协和医科大学联合出版社,1994.250-251.
[51]Brown B.Dephi Process:a Method by Used for the Elicitation of Opinions of Experts.The Rand Corporation.1987,9:3925.
[52]徐蔼婷.Delphi法的应用及其难点.中国统计.2006,9:57-59.
[53]杨忠全,吴颖,袁德美.Delphi法的定量探讨.情报理论与实践.1995,11-13.
[54]Andrew J.Buck,Meir Gross,Simon Hakim,et al.Using the Delphi process to analyze social policy implementation:A post hoc case from vocational rehabilitation.Policy Sciences.1993,26:271-288.
[55]Jae Ho Lee,Yong-Jun Choi,Robert J.Volk,et al.Defining the Concept of Primary Care in South Korea Using a Delphi Method.International Family Medicine.2007,39(6):428-431.
[56]陈平雁.SPSS13.0统计软件应用教程.人民卫生出版社.2005.
[57]胡志,周达生.软科学直观预测技术--特尔菲方法.医学与哲学.1989,10:2.
[58]汤磊,唐国瑶,苏炳华等.医学硕士生课程教学质量评价指标权重咨询专家的选择与评价.见:崔雪桥,中国高等医学教育研究进展.杭州:群言出版社,2004.121-125.
[59]李银河编译.社会研究方法.四川人民出版社,1987:20.
[60]Spitzer WO.State of science 1986:quality of life and funtional status as target Variables for research.J-Chron-Dis,1987,40(6):465-471.
[61]孙振球主编,王乐夫副主编.医学综合评价方法及其应用.化工出版社.2006.2
[62]郭秀花.实用医学调查分析技术.人民军医出版社.2005.1.
[63]张罗漫,胡琳.医院评价指标的筛选方法.中国卫生统计.1989,6(3):34-36.
[64]万崇华,史明丽.生存质量量表制定中的指标筛选方法.数理医药学杂志.1996,8(增刊s1):5-7.
[65]陈和年.生存质量测量的方法学研究及其应用.中国学术期刊文摘.1996,2(7):14.
[66]郝元涛,孙希凤,方积乾,等.量表条目筛选的统计学方法研究.中国卫生统计.2004,21(4):209-211.
[67]秦浩,陈景武.医学量表条目的筛选考评方法及其应用.中国行为医学科学杂志.2006,15(4):375-376.
[68]杨树勤.卫生统计学.第三版.北京:人民卫生出版社,1998.16.
[69]Donovank,Sanson-Fisher RN,Redman S.Measuring quality of life in cancer patient.Journalof ClinicalOncology,1989,7(7):959.
[70]郝元涛,方积乾.世界卫生组织生存质量测定量表中文版介绍及其使用说明.现代康复,2000,4(8):1127-1130.
[71]李鲁,王红妹,沈毅.SF-36健康调查量表中文版的研制及其性能测试.中华预防医学杂志,2002,36(2):109-113.
[72]王冬,许军,姚卫光.SF-36量表应用于高校外来勤杂人员的信度和效度研究.职业与健康杂志.2008,24(9):863-864.
[73]David L,Streiner and Geoffrey R,Norman.Health measurement scales:apractical guide their development and use,Second Edition,Oxford.New York.Tokyo.Oxford Universiy Press,1995.
[74]Friedenberg,Lisa.Psychological testing:design,analysis,and use.Copyright 1995by Allyn and Bacon,printed in the United States of America.
[75]李灿,辛玲.调查问卷的信度与效度的评价方法研究.中国卫生统计.2008,25(5):541-544.
[76]Froberg DG:Methodology for measuring health-state preferences-Ⅱ:Scaling methods.J Clinical Epidemiology,1989,(5):459.
[77]巫秀美,倪宗瓒.因子分析在问卷调查中的信度效度评价的应用,中国慢性病预防与控制.1998,6(1):28.
[78]方积乾,陆盈.现代医学统计学.北京:人民卫生出版社.2002:247-251.
[79]Mohide EA and Torrance GW Measuring the wellbeing of family caregivers using the time trade-off technique.J Clinical Epidemiology,1988,5:475.
[80]洪静芳,李峥.健康促进生活方式影响因素的研究进展.护理学报.2007,14(7):28-30.
[81]Kuster A E,Fong C M.Further Psychometric Evaluation of the Spanish Language Health- Promoting Lifestyle Profile.Nursing Research,1993,42(5):266-269.
[82]Pender N J,Walker S N,Sechrist K R,et al.Predicting Health- Promoting Lifestyles in the Workplace.Nursing Research,1990,39:326-332.
[83]Weitzel M H.A Test of the Health Promotion Model with Blue Collar Workers.Nursing Research,1990,38:99-104.
[84]Walker S N,Volkan K,Sechrist K R,et al.Health- Promoting Lifestyles of Older Adults:Comparisons with Young and Middle- aged Adults,Correlates and Patterns.Advances in Nursing Science,1988,11(1):76-90.
[85]Bagwell M M,Bush H A.Improving Health Promotion for Blue- collar workers.Journal of Nursing Care Quality,2000,14(4):65-71.
[86]Sung Suh- jen,Huang Jui- mei,Lin Lih- ying.Health- Promoting Lifestyles and Its Related Factors among Clinical Nurses and Students Nursers.Rong Zong Nursing,2001,18(2):147-158.
[87]Sohng K Y,Sohng S,Yeom H A.Health- Promoting Behaviors of Elderly Korean Immigrants in the United States.Public Health Nurs,2002,19(4):294-300.
[88]Riffle K L,Yoho J,Sams J.Health- Promoting Behaviors,Perceived Social Support,and Self- reported Health of Appalachian Elderly.Public Health Nurs,1989,6(4):204-211.
[89]Duffy M E,Rossow R,Herandez M.Correlates of Health-Promotion Activities in Employed Mexican American Women.Nursing Research,1996,45(1):18-24.
[90]Hong Jing-fang.Health- promoting Lifestyles of Undergraduate Nursing Students in Mahidol University.[Master' s thesis of Asean Institute for Health Development]Bangkok:Faculty of Graduates Studies,Mahidol University:2005.
[91]郑淑芬.桃园地区高中职学生个人因素及健康促进生活型态的相关性研究.国立台北护理学院.硕士学位论文.2004.
[92]仇方娟.探讨南区五专学生的健康促进生活型态.私立高雄医学院护理研究所硕士学位论文.1997.
[93]李秀珍.国中生健康促进生活型态及其影响因素之探讨-以台南县四所国中生为例.2007.
[94]Guyat G,Walter S,Norman G.Measruing change overtime:assessing the usefulness of evaluative instruments,J Chron Dis,1987.40(2):171.
[95]许军.自测健康评价量表的研究.第一军医大学硕士学位论文.1999.
[96]万崇华.生命质量研究中一些重要问题的商讨(二).中国行为医学科学,1999,8(2):155-157.
[97]方积乾.生存质量测定方法及应用.北京医科大学出版社,2000.
[98]汪向东,王希林,马弘.心理卫生评价量表手册(增订版).北京:中国心理卫生杂志,1999.
[99]Hays RD,Anderson R,etal.Psychometric considerations in evaluating health-related quality of life measures.Quality of life research,1993,2(2):441-449.
[100]金瑜.心理测量.华东师范大学出版社,2001.
[101]黄毓华.大学生健康促进生活型态的预测因子。高雄医学院护理研究所 硕士学位论文,1995.
[102]黄毓华,邱启润.高雄地区大学生健康促进生活型态的预测因子.中华卫志.1997,6(1):24-35.
[103]罗沁芳.台北市某国中学生同侪支持与健康促进型态的相关研究.国立台湾师范大学卫生教育研究所硕士学位论文,2003.
[104]Hong Kong Federation of Youth Groups.Youth's views of healthy living.Hong Kong:Youth Poll Series;1999,68:19-38.
[105]Johnson,J.L.,Rather,P.A.,Bottorff,J.,e tal.An exploration of Pender's Health Ptomotion Model using LISREL.Nursing Research.1993,42(3):132-138.
[106]台湾行政院卫生署.国民健康生活促进研讨会资料汇编.台北市:行政院卫生署,1989.
[107]洪静芳.临床实习护生健康促进生活方式及相关因素的研究.中国协和医科大学硕士学位论文.2006.
[108]Regina L.T.Lee,Alice J.T.Yuen Loke:Health-Promoting Behaviors and Psychosocial Well-Being of University Students in HongKong.Public Health Nursing 2005,22:209-220.
[1]于浩.社会阶层与健康生活方式关系研究的回顾与前瞻.南京社会科学,2003.(5):68-72.
[2]Cockerham,W.C.,Kunz,G.,Lueschen,G..Social stratification and health lifestyles in two systems of health care delivery:a comparison of the Unite States and West Germany.journal of Health social Behaviour,1988,29(2):113-126.
[3]柳泽泉主编.现代流行病学.人民卫生出版社.2001.
[4]Palank,C.L.Determinants of Health-Promotive Behaviors.Nursing Clinics of North America.1991a,26(1),233-239.
[5]Walker SN,Sechrist SN,Pender NJ.The health-promotion lifestyle profile:development and psychometric characteristics.Nurse Research.1987,36:76-81.
[6]Flynn,J.B.,Grifin,P.A..Health Promotion in acute care seting.Nursing Clinics of North America,1984,19:239-250.
[7]WHO Health education unit Lifestyle and health.Social science and medicine,1986,22:117-124.
[8]Singer,J.E.The need to measure lifestyle。International Review of Applied Psychology.1982,31:303-315.
[9]Ardell,D.B.The Nature and implication of high level wellness,or why "normal health" is a rather sorry state of existence.Health Value.1979,3(1):17-24.
[10]Wiley,J.A.& Camacho,T.C.Life-style and future health:Evidence from alameda county study.Preventive Medicine.1980,9:1-21.
[11]李兰.健康行为的概念与研究.中华民国公共卫生学会杂志,1991,10(5):199-211.
[12]尹祚芊.学校卫生护理.台湾医学,2000,4(2):215-222.
[13]陈静敏,萧伶,苗道芳,等.社区卫生护理学.北京:科学技术文献出版社.1999,103-124.
[14]Berkman LF,Syme SL.Social networks,host resistance,and mortality:a nine-year follow-up study of Alameda County residents.Am J Epidemiol.1979,109:186-204.
[15]Belloc,N.B.,& Breslow,L.Relationships on health status and health practices.Preventive Medicine.1972,1:407-421.
[16]Wingard DL,Berkman LF,Brand RJ.A multivariate analysis of health related practices:nine year mortality follow up of the Alameda County Study.Am J Epidemiol 1982,116:765-75.
[17]Kaplan BH,Cassel JC,Gore S.Social support and health.Medical Care.1977,15:47-58.
[18]Ballweg,J.A.,& Li,L.Comparison of health habits of military personnel with civilian populations.Public Health Reports.1989,1(4):498-509.
[19]Brock,B.M.,Haefner,D.P.,&Noble,D.S.Alameda County redux:Replication in Michigan.Preventive Medicine.1988,17:483-495.
[20]Macera,C.A.,Pate,R.R.,& Davis,D.R.Runners' health habits,1985-"the Alameda 7" revisited.Public Health Reports.1989,104:341-349.
[21]Segovia,J.,Bartlett.R.F.,& Edwards,A.C.The association between self-assessed health status and individual health practices.Canadian Journal of Public Health.1989,80:32-37.
[22]宋黎胜.20岁男青年突发心肌梗死--不健康生活方式是重要原因.家庭医 学.2005,2:61.
[23]肖柳红,钟华荪,王育珊.从老年人生活方式与健康的相关因素谈社区卫生服务对策.天津护理.1998,6(5):211-213.
[24]施齐芳,李小妹.糖尿病病人健康价值与生活方式的相关性研究.中华护理杂志.2003.38(11):833-834.
[25]王玉梅.生活方式对人体健康的影响.徐州医学院学报.2002,22(1):89-90.
[26]J.Butler.Principles of Health Education and Health Promotion.Wadsworth/ThomasonLearning,Inc 2001.
[27]WHO.The WHO cross-national study of health behavior in school-aged children from 35 countries:Findings from 2001-2002.J Sch Health,2004,74(6):204-206.
[28]US.Department of Health,Education and Welfare.Bethesda,MD:Public Health Servic,National institutes of Health.NIH Publication,1979
[29]李山山.生活方式病 中国人健康头号“杀手”.中国健康月刊,2005,(8):18-21
[30]国家统计局.中国统计年鉴.1996.北京:中国统计出版社,1996.32.
[31]周晓荣,朱云霞,李金娜.健康生活方式研究进展.护理研究.2006,20(12):3201-3202.
[32]威廉·科克汉如.医学社会学.第9版.北京:北京大学出版社,2005:94- 115
[33]丁志音,江東亮.以健康行为方式分类台湾地区的成年人口群--群聚分析的应用.中华卫志,1996,15(3):175-186
[34]许言午.小学生健康生活方式干预实验研究.山西医科大学硕士学位论文,2001,7-8.
[35]于浩.城市社会各阶层的健康生活方式--以南京市为例的分析.学术界,2003(2):217-222
[36]Harris,D.,& Guten,S.Health-protective behavior:An exploratory study.Journal of Health and Social Behavior.1979,20:17-29.
[37]Kasl,S.V.,& Cobb,S.Health behavior,illness behavior,and sick role behavior.I.Health and illness behavior.Archives of Environmental Health.1966,12:246-266.
[38]Antonovsky A.The salutogenic model as a theory to guide health promotion.Health Promotion Int.1996,11:11-18.
[39]Abel T.Measuring health lifestyles in a comparative analysis:theoretical issues and empirical findings.Social science and medicine.1991,32(8):899-908.
[40]陈静敏,萧伶,苗遒芳,等.社区卫生护理学.北京:科学技术文献出版社.1999,103-124.
[41]科学名词:第一次和第二次卫生革命http://www.sina.com.cn 2004年07月07日 10:19 中国公众科技网.
[42]Harles B.Corbin,Gregory J.Welk,William R.Corbin,et al.Concepts of Fitness and Wellness-a comprehensive lifestyle approach.6thediton.Published by McGraw-Hill Companies.2004,10.
[43]王文志,刘红梅.“维多利亚宣言”内容介绍.中国慢性病预防与控制.1995,3(4):186-188.
[44]王志谨.介绍美国的“新起点”生活方式.中国健康教育杂志.2000,16(2):69-70.
[45]慧康.按FUN的标准生活.安全与健康.2003,(23):48.
[46]胡俊峰,侯培森.当代健康教育与健康促进.人民卫生出版社.2005.235-249
[47]李小妹.护理学导论.长沙:湖南科学技术出版社,2002:26.
[48]陈海春.亚健康、生活方式与运动健身关系的探讨.福建体育科技,2003,2(2):4-5
[49]Pender,N.J.Health promotion in nursing practice(2nd ed.).Norwalk,CT:AppletonLange.1987.
[50]谭红专.现代流行病学.人民卫生出版社.2001
[51]Marilyn FS,Sharon JO.Instrument for clinical health-care research.2nd edition.Massachusetts:Jones and Bartlett Publishers,1997:363-376.
[52]House,D.M.& Guten S.Health protective behavior:Examination of the conception.Nursing Outlook.1980,28:104-108.
[53]Tapp,J.T.,& Goldenthal,P.A factor analytic study of health habits.Preventive Medicine.1982,11:724-728.
[54]Munhlenkamp,A.,&Brown,N.The development of an instrument to measurement to measure health pratices.Paper presented at the American Nurses'Association Council of Nurse Researchers Conference,Minneapolis,MN.1983,9
[55]Munhlenkamp,Sayles.Self-esteem,social support,and positive health practices.Nursing Research,1986,35(6):334-338.
[56]S.M.Weiss,J.A.Herd,& N.E.Miller(Eds.),Behavioral health:A handbook of health enhancement and disease prevention(pp.69-90).New York:Wiley.
[57]Walker,S.N.,Sechrist,K.Pender,N.J.The form of permission of use Health-Promoting lifestyle 11,university of Nebraska Medical Cententre.
[58]Walker,S.N.Kerr,M.J.Pender,N.J.&Sechrist,K.R.A Spanish Language Version of the Health Promotion Lifestyle Profile.Nursing Research.1990;39:268-273.
[59]Linda,G.Rowaida,M.Sheila,J.et al.An Arabic Language Version of the Health Promotion Lifestyle Profile.Public Health Nursing.1998;15(2):74-81.
[60]Wei CN,Yonemitsu H,Harada K,et al.A Japanese language version of the health-promoting lifestyle profile.Nippon Eiseigaku Zasshi.2000;4(4):597-606.
[61]Robert L.Williams,Sandra P.Thomas,Damaris 0.Young,John J.Jozwiak,and Mark A.Hector.Development of a Health Habits Scale.Research in Nursing &Health.1991,14:145-153.
[62]黄毓华,丘启润.健康促进生活型态量表信效度之评估.高雄医学科学杂志.1996,12:529-537.
[63]Chen,M.l.,Liau-Chang,C.L.,et al.The health-promoting lifestyles among public health nurses.Nursing Research,1991,2:45-51.
[64]Huang,Y.H.,Chiou,C.J.Predictors contributing to health-promoting lifestyles among college students in Kaohsiung area.Chinese Journal of public Health(Taiwan).1997,16:24-36.
[65]Wang,R.H.,Hsu,H.Y.Health promotion behaviors and related factors among the elderly in the San-min district of Kaohsiung city.Nursing Research(Taiwan),1997,5:321-330.
[66]陈美燕,周传姜,黄秀华,等.健康促进的生活方式量表中文版之修订与测试.长庚护理.1997,8(1):14-23.
[67]#12
[68]Vanantwerp,C.The Lifestyle Questionnaire for school-aged children:A tool for primary care.Journal of Pediatric Health Care.1995;9:251-255
[69]Vanantwerp,C.& Spaniolo,A.Checking out children's lifestyles.Maternal Child Nursing.1991;16:144-147.
[70]Gillis AJ.The Adolescent Lifestyle Questionnaire:development and psychometric testing.Can J Nurs Res.1997;29(1):29-46.
[71]Hendricks C,Murdaugh C,Pender N.The Adolescent Lifestyle Profile:development and psychometric characteristics.J Natl Black Nurses Assoc.2006;17(2):1-5.
[72]Chen M.Y.,Wang E.K.,Yang R.J.,et al.Adolescent health promotion scale:Development and psychometric testing.Public Health Nursing,2003,20:102-110.
[73]Yang,R.J.,Wang,E.K.,Hsieh,Y.S.,et al.Irregular breakfast eating and health status among adolescents in Taiwan.BMC Public Health,2006,6:295.
[74]Chen,M.Y.,Wang,E.K.,Cheng,Y.J..Adequate sleep is positively associated with health status and health-related behaviors of Taiwanese adolescents.BMC Public Health,2006,6:59.
[75]李秀珍.国中生健康促进生活型态及其影响因素的探讨--以台南县四所国中生为例.台湾:长荣大学健康科学学院,2007/6.
[76]陈昭伶.基隆地区高中(职)学生健康促进生活型态及相关因素探讨.台湾:国立台湾师范大学,2004.
[77]郑淑芬.桃园地区高中职学生个人因素及健康促进生活型态之相关性研究.台湾:国立台北护理学院,2004.
[78]施齐芳,李小妹.糖尿病人健康价值与生活方式的相关性研究.中华护理杂志,2003,38(11):833-835.
[79]杨玉兰.临床医护人员健康促进生活形态及其相关因素分析.中国临床康复,2002,6(18):2784-2785.
[80]王艳娟,武丽杰,夏薇,等.中学生健康促进生活方式问卷中文版信效度分析.中国学校卫生.2007,28(10):889-891.
[81]柯遵渝.570名大学生健康行为方式量表调查分析.中国行为医学科学,2003,12(1):94-95.
[82]王平,李海燕,阮丽萍,等.医科大学生健康行为调查.中国公共卫生,2005,21(4):398.
[83]王冬,陈美燕,周创.青少年健康促进量表在大陆某高校学生中的适用性研究.中国卫生统计.2009,26(1):80-82.
[2]周晓荣,朱云霞,李金娜.健康生活方式研究进展.护理研究.2006,20(12):3201-3202.
[3]国家统计局.中国统计年鉴.1996.北京:中国统计出版社,1996.32.
[4]季成叶,主编.中国城市青少年健康危险行为调查报告(2005年).北京:北京大学医学出版社,2007,8-9.
[5]陶芳标,张洪波,许韶君,等.大学生危害健康行为的流行病学研究.中国学校卫生,1999,20(4):249-250.
[6]唐弘.大学生健康危险行为的现况调查.江苏预防医学,2006,17(3):76-78.
[7]张会来,李广宇,张宝荣,等.华北2所高校大学生健康危险行为的描述性研究.中国学校卫生,2004,25(2):192-193.
[8]Laura Kann,Charles W,et al.Youth Risk Behavior,Journal of Adolescent Health,From Data to Action.CDC's public health surveillance for women,infants and children,2004,359-366.
[9]JoAnne Grunbaum,Laura Kann,et al.Youth risk behavior surveillance,United States,2003.MMWR,2004,53(2):1-98.
[10]US Department of Health an Human Service,Centers for Disease Control and Prevention(CDC).Trends in cigarette smoking among high students-United States,1991-2001.MMWR,2002,51(19):409-412.
[11]Suhasini Ramisettv- Mikler,Raul Caetano,Deborah Goebert,et al.Ethnic:Variation in Drinking,Drug Use,and Sexual Behavior Among Adolescents in Hawaii.J Sch Heal,2004,74(1):16-21.
[12]宗占红,周建芳,夏媛媛.大学生健康相关行为现状调查分析.中国健康教育,2007,23(9):683-685.
[13]翟水保.陕西省部分大学生健康行为调查.中国健康教育,2005,21(4):297-298.
[14]翟蕾,孙冰洁,王晓智,等.北京市1138名大学生健康危险行为状况.中国学校卫生,2007,28(3):264-266.
[15]柯遵渝.570名大学生健康行为方式量表调查分析.中国行为医学科学,2003,12(1):94-95.
[16]王平,李海燕,阮丽萍,等.医科大学生健康行为调查.中国公共卫生,2005,21(4):398.
[17]王冬,段俊杰,陈清.某高校学生健康促进行为水平的调查研究.第四军医大学 学报.2008,29(17):1548-1550.
[18]王冬,陈美燕,周创.青少年健康促进量表在大陆某高校学生中的适用性研究.中国卫生统计.2009,26(1):80-82.
[19]Vanantwerp,C.The Lifestyle Questionnaire for school-aged children:A tool for primary care.Journal of Pediatric Health Care.1995,9:251-255.
[20]Vanantwerp,C.& Spaniolo,A.Checking out children's lifestyles.Maternal Child Nursing.1991,16:144-147.
[21]Gillis AJ.The Adolescent Lifestyle Questionnaire:development and psychometric testing.Can J Nurs Res.1997,29(1):29-46.
[22]Hendricks C,Murdaugh C,Pender N.The Adolescent Lifestyle Profile:development and psychometric characteristics.J Natl Black Nurses Assoc.2006,17(2):1-5.
[23]Walker,S.Sechrist,K.&Pender,N.The Health-Promoting Lifestyle Profile:Development and psychometric characteristics.Nursing Research.1987,36(2):76-81.
[24]Walker,S.Sechrist,K.&Pender,N.The Health-Promoting Lifestyle Profile Ⅱ:Omaha:University of Nebraska Medical Center,College Of Nursing.1995.
[25]Chen MY,Wang EK,Yang RJ,Liou YM.Adolescent health promotion scale:development and psychometric testing.Public Health Nurs.2003,20(2):102-110.
[26]王飞加.大学生健康生活方式养成教育的研究.北京体育大学学报.2008,31(4):518-520.
[27]黄希斌,方孺钦.对大学生生活习惯与保健行为的探讨.闽江学院学报.2004,25(5):109-111.
[28]吴秀峰,许红峰,陈华.大学生健康知识和行为的调查分析.体育科学研究,2003,7(12):90-92.
[29]徐伯彤,谢佩娜.浙江省大学生不健康行为的原因分析及干预对策.浙江体育科学.2003,25(2):41-43.
[30]程玲玲.620名大学生健康行为和心理素质分析.中国健康教育.2000,16(9):521-523.
[31]罗伯特·F·德威利斯著.魏勇刚,龙长权,宋武.译.量表编制理论与应用.重庆大学出版社,2004.
[32]Pender,N.J.Health promotion in nursing practice(2nd ed.).Norwalk,CT:AppletonLange.1987,9-11.
[33]科学名词:第一次和第二次卫生革命http://www.sina.com.cn 2004年07月07 日 10:19 中国公众科技网.
[34]王文志,刘红梅.“维多利亚宣言”内容介绍.中国慢性病预防与控制.1995,3(4):186-188.
[35]王志谨.介绍美国的“新起点”生活方式.中国健康教育杂志.2000,16(2):69-70.
[36]慧康.按FUN的标准生活.安全与健康.2003,(23):48.
[37]中华人民共和国卫生部编.健康66条——中国公民健康素养读本.北京:人民卫生出版社,2008.
[38]卫生部.全民健康生活方式行动倡议书.关于开展全民健康生活方式行动的通知,卫办疾控发(2007)189号.
[39]Munhlenkamp,A.,Brown,N.The development of an instrument to measurement to measure health pratices.Paper presented at the American Nurses'Association Council of Nurse Researchers Conference,Minneapolis,MN.1983,9.
[40]Munhlenkamp,Sayles.Self-esteem,social support,and positive health practices.Nursing Research,1986,35(6):334-338.
[41]Robert L.Williams,Sandra P.Thomas,Damaris O.Young,John J.Jozwiak,and Mark A.Hector.Development of a Health Habits Scale.Research in Nursing &Health.1991,14:145-153.
[42]黄毓华,丘启润.健康促进生活型态量表信效度之评估.高雄医学科学杂志,1996,12:529-537.
[43]陈美燕,周传姜,黄秀华,等.健康促进的生活方式量表中文版之修订与测试.长庚护理.1997,8(1):14-23.
[44]Belloc,N.B.,& Breslow,L.Relationships on health status and health practices.Preventive Medicine.1972,1:407-421.
[45]Harles B.Corbin,Gregory J.Welk,William R.Corbin,et al.Concepts of Fitness and Wellness-a comprehensive lifestyle approach.6~(th)editon.Published by McGraw-Hill Companies.2004,10.
[46]胡俊峰,侯培森.当代健康教育与健康促进.人民卫生出版社.2005.235-249.
[47]李小妹.护理学导论.长沙:湖南科学技术出版社,2002:26.
[48]陈海春.亚健康、生活方式与运动健身关系的探讨.福建体育科技,2003,2(2):4-5
[49]谭红专.现代流行病学.人民卫生出版社.2001.
[50]曾光.现代流行病学方法与应用.第一版.北京:北京医科大学中国协和医科大学联合出版社,1994.250-251.
[51]Brown B.Dephi Process:a Method by Used for the Elicitation of Opinions of Experts.The Rand Corporation.1987,9:3925.
[52]徐蔼婷.Delphi法的应用及其难点.中国统计.2006,9:57-59.
[53]杨忠全,吴颖,袁德美.Delphi法的定量探讨.情报理论与实践.1995,11-13.
[54]Andrew J.Buck,Meir Gross,Simon Hakim,et al.Using the Delphi process to analyze social policy implementation:A post hoc case from vocational rehabilitation.Policy Sciences.1993,26:271-288.
[55]Jae Ho Lee,Yong-Jun Choi,Robert J.Volk,et al.Defining the Concept of Primary Care in South Korea Using a Delphi Method.International Family Medicine.2007,39(6):428-431.
[56]陈平雁.SPSS13.0统计软件应用教程.人民卫生出版社.2005.
[57]胡志,周达生.软科学直观预测技术--特尔菲方法.医学与哲学.1989,10:2.
[58]汤磊,唐国瑶,苏炳华等.医学硕士生课程教学质量评价指标权重咨询专家的选择与评价.见:崔雪桥,中国高等医学教育研究进展.杭州:群言出版社,2004.121-125.
[59]李银河编译.社会研究方法.四川人民出版社,1987:20.
[60]Spitzer WO.State of science 1986:quality of life and funtional status as target Variables for research.J-Chron-Dis,1987,40(6):465-471.
[61]孙振球主编,王乐夫副主编.医学综合评价方法及其应用.化工出版社.2006.2
[62]郭秀花.实用医学调查分析技术.人民军医出版社.2005.1.
[63]张罗漫,胡琳.医院评价指标的筛选方法.中国卫生统计.1989,6(3):34-36.
[64]万崇华,史明丽.生存质量量表制定中的指标筛选方法.数理医药学杂志.1996,8(增刊s1):5-7.
[65]陈和年.生存质量测量的方法学研究及其应用.中国学术期刊文摘.1996,2(7):14.
[66]郝元涛,孙希凤,方积乾,等.量表条目筛选的统计学方法研究.中国卫生统计.2004,21(4):209-211.
[67]秦浩,陈景武.医学量表条目的筛选考评方法及其应用.中国行为医学科学杂志.2006,15(4):375-376.
[68]杨树勤.卫生统计学.第三版.北京:人民卫生出版社,1998.16.
[69]Donovank,Sanson-Fisher RN,Redman S.Measuring quality of life in cancer patient.Journalof ClinicalOncology,1989,7(7):959.
[70]郝元涛,方积乾.世界卫生组织生存质量测定量表中文版介绍及其使用说明.现代康复,2000,4(8):1127-1130.
[71]李鲁,王红妹,沈毅.SF-36健康调查量表中文版的研制及其性能测试.中华预防医学杂志,2002,36(2):109-113.
[72]王冬,许军,姚卫光.SF-36量表应用于高校外来勤杂人员的信度和效度研究.职业与健康杂志.2008,24(9):863-864.
[73]David L,Streiner and Geoffrey R,Norman.Health measurement scales:apractical guide their development and use,Second Edition,Oxford.New York.Tokyo.Oxford Universiy Press,1995.
[74]Friedenberg,Lisa.Psychological testing:design,analysis,and use.Copyright 1995by Allyn and Bacon,printed in the United States of America.
[75]李灿,辛玲.调查问卷的信度与效度的评价方法研究.中国卫生统计.2008,25(5):541-544.
[76]Froberg DG:Methodology for measuring health-state preferences-Ⅱ:Scaling methods.J Clinical Epidemiology,1989,(5):459.
[77]巫秀美,倪宗瓒.因子分析在问卷调查中的信度效度评价的应用,中国慢性病预防与控制.1998,6(1):28.
[78]方积乾,陆盈.现代医学统计学.北京:人民卫生出版社.2002:247-251.
[79]Mohide EA and Torrance GW Measuring the wellbeing of family caregivers using the time trade-off technique.J Clinical Epidemiology,1988,5:475.
[80]洪静芳,李峥.健康促进生活方式影响因素的研究进展.护理学报.2007,14(7):28-30.
[81]Kuster A E,Fong C M.Further Psychometric Evaluation of the Spanish Language Health- Promoting Lifestyle Profile.Nursing Research,1993,42(5):266-269.
[82]Pender N J,Walker S N,Sechrist K R,et al.Predicting Health- Promoting Lifestyles in the Workplace.Nursing Research,1990,39:326-332.
[83]Weitzel M H.A Test of the Health Promotion Model with Blue Collar Workers.Nursing Research,1990,38:99-104.
[84]Walker S N,Volkan K,Sechrist K R,et al.Health- Promoting Lifestyles of Older Adults:Comparisons with Young and Middle- aged Adults,Correlates and Patterns.Advances in Nursing Science,1988,11(1):76-90.
[85]Bagwell M M,Bush H A.Improving Health Promotion for Blue- collar workers.Journal of Nursing Care Quality,2000,14(4):65-71.
[86]Sung Suh- jen,Huang Jui- mei,Lin Lih- ying.Health- Promoting Lifestyles and Its Related Factors among Clinical Nurses and Students Nursers.Rong Zong Nursing,2001,18(2):147-158.
[87]Sohng K Y,Sohng S,Yeom H A.Health- Promoting Behaviors of Elderly Korean Immigrants in the United States.Public Health Nurs,2002,19(4):294-300.
[88]Riffle K L,Yoho J,Sams J.Health- Promoting Behaviors,Perceived Social Support,and Self- reported Health of Appalachian Elderly.Public Health Nurs,1989,6(4):204-211.
[89]Duffy M E,Rossow R,Herandez M.Correlates of Health-Promotion Activities in Employed Mexican American Women.Nursing Research,1996,45(1):18-24.
[90]Hong Jing-fang.Health- promoting Lifestyles of Undergraduate Nursing Students in Mahidol University.[Master' s thesis of Asean Institute for Health Development]Bangkok:Faculty of Graduates Studies,Mahidol University:2005.
[91]郑淑芬.桃园地区高中职学生个人因素及健康促进生活型态的相关性研究.国立台北护理学院.硕士学位论文.2004.
[92]仇方娟.探讨南区五专学生的健康促进生活型态.私立高雄医学院护理研究所硕士学位论文.1997.
[93]李秀珍.国中生健康促进生活型态及其影响因素之探讨-以台南县四所国中生为例.2007.
[94]Guyat G,Walter S,Norman G.Measruing change overtime:assessing the usefulness of evaluative instruments,J Chron Dis,1987.40(2):171.
[95]许军.自测健康评价量表的研究.第一军医大学硕士学位论文.1999.
[96]万崇华.生命质量研究中一些重要问题的商讨(二).中国行为医学科学,1999,8(2):155-157.
[97]方积乾.生存质量测定方法及应用.北京医科大学出版社,2000.
[98]汪向东,王希林,马弘.心理卫生评价量表手册(增订版).北京:中国心理卫生杂志,1999.
[99]Hays RD,Anderson R,etal.Psychometric considerations in evaluating health-related quality of life measures.Quality of life research,1993,2(2):441-449.
[100]金瑜.心理测量.华东师范大学出版社,2001.
[101]黄毓华.大学生健康促进生活型态的预测因子。高雄医学院护理研究所 硕士学位论文,1995.
[102]黄毓华,邱启润.高雄地区大学生健康促进生活型态的预测因子.中华卫志.1997,6(1):24-35.
[103]罗沁芳.台北市某国中学生同侪支持与健康促进型态的相关研究.国立台湾师范大学卫生教育研究所硕士学位论文,2003.
[104]Hong Kong Federation of Youth Groups.Youth's views of healthy living.Hong Kong:Youth Poll Series;1999,68:19-38.
[105]Johnson,J.L.,Rather,P.A.,Bottorff,J.,e tal.An exploration of Pender's Health Ptomotion Model using LISREL.Nursing Research.1993,42(3):132-138.
[106]台湾行政院卫生署.国民健康生活促进研讨会资料汇编.台北市:行政院卫生署,1989.
[107]洪静芳.临床实习护生健康促进生活方式及相关因素的研究.中国协和医科大学硕士学位论文.2006.
[108]Regina L.T.Lee,Alice J.T.Yuen Loke:Health-Promoting Behaviors and Psychosocial Well-Being of University Students in HongKong.Public Health Nursing 2005,22:209-220.
[1]于浩.社会阶层与健康生活方式关系研究的回顾与前瞻.南京社会科学,2003.(5):68-72.
[2]Cockerham,W.C.,Kunz,G.,Lueschen,G..Social stratification and health lifestyles in two systems of health care delivery:a comparison of the Unite States and West Germany.journal of Health social Behaviour,1988,29(2):113-126.
[3]柳泽泉主编.现代流行病学.人民卫生出版社.2001.
[4]Palank,C.L.Determinants of Health-Promotive Behaviors.Nursing Clinics of North America.1991a,26(1),233-239.
[5]Walker SN,Sechrist SN,Pender NJ.The health-promotion lifestyle profile:development and psychometric characteristics.Nurse Research.1987,36:76-81.
[6]Flynn,J.B.,Grifin,P.A..Health Promotion in acute care seting.Nursing Clinics of North America,1984,19:239-250.
[7]WHO Health education unit Lifestyle and health.Social science and medicine,1986,22:117-124.
[8]Singer,J.E.The need to measure lifestyle。International Review of Applied Psychology.1982,31:303-315.
[9]Ardell,D.B.The Nature and implication of high level wellness,or why "normal health" is a rather sorry state of existence.Health Value.1979,3(1):17-24.
[10]Wiley,J.A.& Camacho,T.C.Life-style and future health:Evidence from alameda county study.Preventive Medicine.1980,9:1-21.
[11]李兰.健康行为的概念与研究.中华民国公共卫生学会杂志,1991,10(5):199-211.
[12]尹祚芊.学校卫生护理.台湾医学,2000,4(2):215-222.
[13]陈静敏,萧伶,苗道芳,等.社区卫生护理学.北京:科学技术文献出版社.1999,103-124.
[14]Berkman LF,Syme SL.Social networks,host resistance,and mortality:a nine-year follow-up study of Alameda County residents.Am J Epidemiol.1979,109:186-204.
[15]Belloc,N.B.,& Breslow,L.Relationships on health status and health practices.Preventive Medicine.1972,1:407-421.
[16]Wingard DL,Berkman LF,Brand RJ.A multivariate analysis of health related practices:nine year mortality follow up of the Alameda County Study.Am J Epidemiol 1982,116:765-75.
[17]Kaplan BH,Cassel JC,Gore S.Social support and health.Medical Care.1977,15:47-58.
[18]Ballweg,J.A.,& Li,L.Comparison of health habits of military personnel with civilian populations.Public Health Reports.1989,1(4):498-509.
[19]Brock,B.M.,Haefner,D.P.,&Noble,D.S.Alameda County redux:Replication in Michigan.Preventive Medicine.1988,17:483-495.
[20]Macera,C.A.,Pate,R.R.,& Davis,D.R.Runners' health habits,1985-"the Alameda 7" revisited.Public Health Reports.1989,104:341-349.
[21]Segovia,J.,Bartlett.R.F.,& Edwards,A.C.The association between self-assessed health status and individual health practices.Canadian Journal of Public Health.1989,80:32-37.
[22]宋黎胜.20岁男青年突发心肌梗死--不健康生活方式是重要原因.家庭医 学.2005,2:61.
[23]肖柳红,钟华荪,王育珊.从老年人生活方式与健康的相关因素谈社区卫生服务对策.天津护理.1998,6(5):211-213.
[24]施齐芳,李小妹.糖尿病病人健康价值与生活方式的相关性研究.中华护理杂志.2003.38(11):833-834.
[25]王玉梅.生活方式对人体健康的影响.徐州医学院学报.2002,22(1):89-90.
[26]J.Butler.Principles of Health Education and Health Promotion.Wadsworth/ThomasonLearning,Inc 2001.
[27]WHO.The WHO cross-national study of health behavior in school-aged children from 35 countries:Findings from 2001-2002.J Sch Health,2004,74(6):204-206.
[28]US.Department of Health,Education and Welfare.Bethesda,MD:Public Health Servic,National institutes of Health.NIH Publication,1979
[29]李山山.生活方式病 中国人健康头号“杀手”.中国健康月刊,2005,(8):18-21
[30]国家统计局.中国统计年鉴.1996.北京:中国统计出版社,1996.32.
[31]周晓荣,朱云霞,李金娜.健康生活方式研究进展.护理研究.2006,20(12):3201-3202.
[32]威廉·科克汉如.医学社会学.第9版.北京:北京大学出版社,2005:94- 115
[33]丁志音,江東亮.以健康行为方式分类台湾地区的成年人口群--群聚分析的应用.中华卫志,1996,15(3):175-186
[34]许言午.小学生健康生活方式干预实验研究.山西医科大学硕士学位论文,2001,7-8.
[35]于浩.城市社会各阶层的健康生活方式--以南京市为例的分析.学术界,2003(2):217-222
[36]Harris,D.,& Guten,S.Health-protective behavior:An exploratory study.Journal of Health and Social Behavior.1979,20:17-29.
[37]Kasl,S.V.,& Cobb,S.Health behavior,illness behavior,and sick role behavior.I.Health and illness behavior.Archives of Environmental Health.1966,12:246-266.
[38]Antonovsky A.The salutogenic model as a theory to guide health promotion.Health Promotion Int.1996,11:11-18.
[39]Abel T.Measuring health lifestyles in a comparative analysis:theoretical issues and empirical findings.Social science and medicine.1991,32(8):899-908.
[40]陈静敏,萧伶,苗遒芳,等.社区卫生护理学.北京:科学技术文献出版社.1999,103-124.
[41]科学名词:第一次和第二次卫生革命http://www.sina.com.cn 2004年07月07日 10:19 中国公众科技网.
[42]Harles B.Corbin,Gregory J.Welk,William R.Corbin,et al.Concepts of Fitness and Wellness-a comprehensive lifestyle approach.6thediton.Published by McGraw-Hill Companies.2004,10.
[43]王文志,刘红梅.“维多利亚宣言”内容介绍.中国慢性病预防与控制.1995,3(4):186-188.
[44]王志谨.介绍美国的“新起点”生活方式.中国健康教育杂志.2000,16(2):69-70.
[45]慧康.按FUN的标准生活.安全与健康.2003,(23):48.
[46]胡俊峰,侯培森.当代健康教育与健康促进.人民卫生出版社.2005.235-249
[47]李小妹.护理学导论.长沙:湖南科学技术出版社,2002:26.
[48]陈海春.亚健康、生活方式与运动健身关系的探讨.福建体育科技,2003,2(2):4-5
[49]Pender,N.J.Health promotion in nursing practice(2nd ed.).Norwalk,CT:AppletonLange.1987.
[50]谭红专.现代流行病学.人民卫生出版社.2001
[51]Marilyn FS,Sharon JO.Instrument for clinical health-care research.2nd edition.Massachusetts:Jones and Bartlett Publishers,1997:363-376.
[52]House,D.M.& Guten S.Health protective behavior:Examination of the conception.Nursing Outlook.1980,28:104-108.
[53]Tapp,J.T.,& Goldenthal,P.A factor analytic study of health habits.Preventive Medicine.1982,11:724-728.
[54]Munhlenkamp,A.,&Brown,N.The development of an instrument to measurement to measure health pratices.Paper presented at the American Nurses'Association Council of Nurse Researchers Conference,Minneapolis,MN.1983,9
[55]Munhlenkamp,Sayles.Self-esteem,social support,and positive health practices.Nursing Research,1986,35(6):334-338.
[56]S.M.Weiss,J.A.Herd,& N.E.Miller(Eds.),Behavioral health:A handbook of health enhancement and disease prevention(pp.69-90).New York:Wiley.
[57]Walker,S.N.,Sechrist,K.Pender,N.J.The form of permission of use Health-Promoting lifestyle 11,university of Nebraska Medical Cententre.
[58]Walker,S.N.Kerr,M.J.Pender,N.J.&Sechrist,K.R.A Spanish Language Version of the Health Promotion Lifestyle Profile.Nursing Research.1990;39:268-273.
[59]Linda,G.Rowaida,M.Sheila,J.et al.An Arabic Language Version of the Health Promotion Lifestyle Profile.Public Health Nursing.1998;15(2):74-81.
[60]Wei CN,Yonemitsu H,Harada K,et al.A Japanese language version of the health-promoting lifestyle profile.Nippon Eiseigaku Zasshi.2000;4(4):597-606.
[61]Robert L.Williams,Sandra P.Thomas,Damaris 0.Young,John J.Jozwiak,and Mark A.Hector.Development of a Health Habits Scale.Research in Nursing &Health.1991,14:145-153.
[62]黄毓华,丘启润.健康促进生活型态量表信效度之评估.高雄医学科学杂志.1996,12:529-537.
[63]Chen,M.l.,Liau-Chang,C.L.,et al.The health-promoting lifestyles among public health nurses.Nursing Research,1991,2:45-51.
[64]Huang,Y.H.,Chiou,C.J.Predictors contributing to health-promoting lifestyles among college students in Kaohsiung area.Chinese Journal of public Health(Taiwan).1997,16:24-36.
[65]Wang,R.H.,Hsu,H.Y.Health promotion behaviors and related factors among the elderly in the San-min district of Kaohsiung city.Nursing Research(Taiwan),1997,5:321-330.
[66]陈美燕,周传姜,黄秀华,等.健康促进的生活方式量表中文版之修订与测试.长庚护理.1997,8(1):14-23.
[67]#12
[68]Vanantwerp,C.The Lifestyle Questionnaire for school-aged children:A tool for primary care.Journal of Pediatric Health Care.1995;9:251-255
[69]Vanantwerp,C.& Spaniolo,A.Checking out children's lifestyles.Maternal Child Nursing.1991;16:144-147.
[70]Gillis AJ.The Adolescent Lifestyle Questionnaire:development and psychometric testing.Can J Nurs Res.1997;29(1):29-46.
[71]Hendricks C,Murdaugh C,Pender N.The Adolescent Lifestyle Profile:development and psychometric characteristics.J Natl Black Nurses Assoc.2006;17(2):1-5.
[72]Chen M.Y.,Wang E.K.,Yang R.J.,et al.Adolescent health promotion scale:Development and psychometric testing.Public Health Nursing,2003,20:102-110.
[73]Yang,R.J.,Wang,E.K.,Hsieh,Y.S.,et al.Irregular breakfast eating and health status among adolescents in Taiwan.BMC Public Health,2006,6:295.
[74]Chen,M.Y.,Wang,E.K.,Cheng,Y.J..Adequate sleep is positively associated with health status and health-related behaviors of Taiwanese adolescents.BMC Public Health,2006,6:59.
[75]李秀珍.国中生健康促进生活型态及其影响因素的探讨--以台南县四所国中生为例.台湾:长荣大学健康科学学院,2007/6.
[76]陈昭伶.基隆地区高中(职)学生健康促进生活型态及相关因素探讨.台湾:国立台湾师范大学,2004.
[77]郑淑芬.桃园地区高中职学生个人因素及健康促进生活型态之相关性研究.台湾:国立台北护理学院,2004.
[78]施齐芳,李小妹.糖尿病人健康价值与生活方式的相关性研究.中华护理杂志,2003,38(11):833-835.
[79]杨玉兰.临床医护人员健康促进生活形态及其相关因素分析.中国临床康复,2002,6(18):2784-2785.
[80]王艳娟,武丽杰,夏薇,等.中学生健康促进生活方式问卷中文版信效度分析.中国学校卫生.2007,28(10):889-891.
[81]柯遵渝.570名大学生健康行为方式量表调查分析.中国行为医学科学,2003,12(1):94-95.
[82]王平,李海燕,阮丽萍,等.医科大学生健康行为调查.中国公共卫生,2005,21(4):398.
[83]王冬,陈美燕,周创.青少年健康促进量表在大陆某高校学生中的适用性研究.中国卫生统计.2009,26(1):80-82.