Please wait a minute...
文章检索
预防医学  2022, Vol. 34 Issue (1): 42-45    DOI: 10.19485/j.cnki.issn2096-5087.2022.01.009
  论著 本期目录 | 过刊浏览 | 高级检索 |
无偿献血者献血不良反应的影响因素分析
蒋巧香1, 刘黎燕1, 徐雪梅1, 潘凌凌2
1.衢州市中心血站献血管理科,浙江 衢州 324000;
2.浙江省血液中心献血服务一科,浙江 杭州 310000
Factors affecting donation-associated adverse reactions among volunteer blood donors
JIANG Qiaoxiang1, LIU Liyan1, XU Xuemei1, PAN Lingling2
1. Department of Blood Donation Management, Quzhou Blood Center, Quzhou, Zhejiang 324000, China;
2. The First Department of Blood Donation Service, Blood Center of Zhejiang Province, Hangzhou, Zhejiang 310000, China
全文: PDF(803 KB)  
输出: BibTeX | EndNote (RIS)      
摘要 目的 分析无偿献血者发生献血不良反应的影响因素,为改进献血服务质量提供依据。方法 选择2019年衢州市中心血站无偿献血者为调查对象,采血前用焦虑自评量表(SAS)、社会支持评定量表(SSRS)和匹兹堡睡眠质量指数量表(PSQI)等收集资料;采血现场观察和1周内短信随访献血者是否发生不良反应。采用多因素logistic回归模型分析献血不良反应的影响因素。结果 共纳入无偿献血者8 240人,发生不良反应236例,发生率为2.86%。发生献血不良反应者的SSRS评分为(37.68±7.14)分,PSQI评分为(5.97±1.25)分,SAS评分为(52.82±3.25)分。多因素logistic回归分析结果显示,文化程度(高中,OR=0.508,95%CI:0.289~0.891;大专及以上,OR=0.306,95%CI:0.253~0.734)、SSRS评分(OR=0.399,95%CI:0.175~0.913)、PSQI评分(OR=1.962,95%CI:1.116~3.450)和SAS评分(OR=2.013,95%CI:1.279~3.903)是献血不良反应的影响因素。结论 无偿献血者发生献血不良反应与文化程度、社会支持水平、睡眠质量、焦虑程度有关。
服务
把本文推荐给朋友
加入引用管理器
E-mail Alert
RSS
作者相关文章
蒋巧香
刘黎燕
徐雪梅
潘凌凌
关键词 无偿献血者不良反应社会支持睡眠质量焦虑    
AbstractObjective To identify the factors affecting donation-associated adverse reactions among volunteer blood donors, so as to provide the evidence for improving the quality of blood donation services. Methods The volunteer blood donors in Quzhou Blood Center in 2019 were recruited. The Self-rating Anxiety Scale ( SAS ), Social Support Rating Scale ( SSRS ) and Pittsburgh Sleep Quality Index ( PSQI ) scores were measured prior to blood donation, and the presence of donation-associated adverse reactions was observed in the field of blood donation and within one week through short-message-service follow-up. The factors affecting donation-associated adverse reactions were identified using multivariable logistic regression analysis. Results A total of 8 240 volunteer blood donors were enrolled, and adverse reactions occurred in 236 subjects, with an incidence rate of 2.86%. The SSRS, PSQI and SAS scores were 37.68±7.14, 5.97±1.25 and 52.82±3.25 among the donors with adverse reactions, respectively. Multivariable logistic regression analysis identified the educational level ( high school, OR=0.508, 95%CI: 0.289-0.891; diploma and above, OR=0.306, 95%CI: 0.253-0.734 ), SSRS score ( OR=0.399, 95%CI: 0.175-0.913 ), PSQI score ( OR=1.962, 95%CI: 1.116-3.450 ) and SAS score ( OR=2.013, 95%CI: 1.279-3.903 ) as factors affecting donation-associated adverse reactions. Conclusion The development of donation-associated adverse reactions correlates with educational level, social support, sleep quality and anxiety among volunteer blood donors.
Key wordsvolunteer blood donors    adverse reactions    social support    sleep quality    anxiety
收稿日期: 2021-07-23      修回日期: 2021-10-26     
中图分类号:  R194.3  
基金资助:浙江省基础公益研究计划项目(LGF19H080005)
通信作者: 蒋巧香,E-mail:jqx7757@163.com   
作者简介: 蒋巧香,本科,副主任护师,主要从事采供血管理工作
引用本文:   
蒋巧香, 刘黎燕, 徐雪梅, 潘凌凌. 无偿献血者献血不良反应的影响因素分析[J]. 预防医学, 2022, 34(1): 42-45.
JIANG Qiaoxiang, LIU Liyan, XU Xuemei, PAN Lingling. Factors affecting donation-associated adverse reactions among volunteer blood donors. Preventive Medicine, 2022, 34(1): 42-45.
链接本文:  
http://www.zjyfyxzz.com/CN/10.19485/j.cnki.issn2096-5087.2022.01.009      或      http://www.zjyfyxzz.com/CN/Y2022/V34/I1/42
[1] 于晶. 人文关怀对献血护理质量的影响[J].中国医药指南,2021,19(9):4-6.
YU J.Influence of humanistic care on nursing quality of blood donation[J].Guide China Med,2021,19(9):4-6.
[2] 王翠娥,潘凌凌,郑茵红,等. 浙江省无偿献血人群人口学特征分析[J].预防医学,2018,30(3):244-247.
WANG C E,PAN L L,ZHENG Y H,et al.Demographic characteristics of voluntary blood donors in Zhejiang Province[J].Prev Med,2018,30(3):244-247.
[3] 杨俊鸿,陈敏,何涛,等.我国全血献血者献血不良反应发生率Meta分析[J].中国输血杂志,2021,34(4):376-381.
YANG J H,CHEN M,HE T,et al.Incidence of adverse reactions to whole blood donation in China: a meta-analysis[J].Chin J Blood Transfus,2021,34(4):376-381.
[4] 周思莹,孙彦妮,隋融融.无偿献血者发生献血不良反应的原因分析[J].当代医学,2021,27(4):147-149.
ZHOU S Y,SUN Y N,SUI R R.Analysis of the causes of adverse blood donation reactions in unpaid blood donors[J].Contemp Med,2021,27(4):147-149.
[5] 徐燕娜,吴丹,纪勇平.浙江省丽水市2014—2016年献血不良反应分析[J].国际流行病学传染病学杂志,2017,44(6):400-402.
XU Y N,WU D,JI Y P.Adverse reactions of blood donation in Lishui of Zhejiang from 2014 to 2016[J].Int J Epidemiol Infect Dis,2017,44(6):400-402.
[6] 高波,周源,李永铭,等.我国献血不良反应检测管理现状[J].中国输血杂志,2018,31(9):974-977.
GAO B,ZHOU Y,LI Y M,et al.Status investigation on the current monitoring and management of adverse reactions in blood donation in China[J].Chin J Blood Transfus,2018,31(9):974-977.
[7] 中华人民共和国卫生部.献血者健康检查要求:GB 18467-2011[S].2011.
Ministry of Health of the People's Republic of China.Whole blood and component donor selection requirements:GB 18467-2011[S].2011.
[8] 陶明,高静芳.修订焦虑自评量表(SAS-CR)的信度及效度[J].中国神经精神疾病杂志,1994,20(5):301-303.
TAO M,GAO J F.Reliability and validity of revised Self-rating Anxiety Scale (SAS-CR)[J].Chin J Nervous Mental Dis,1994,20(5):301-303.
[9] 刘继文,李富业,连玉龙.社会支持评定量表的信度效度研究[J].新疆医科大学学报,2008,31(1):1-3.
LIU J W,LI F Y,LIAN Y L.Investigation of reliability and validity of the social support scale[J].J Xinjiang Med Univ,2008,31(1):1-3.
[10] 路桃影,李艳,夏萍,等.匹兹堡睡眠质量指数的信度及效度分析[J].重庆医学,2014,43(3):260-263.
LU T Y,LI Y,XIA P,et al.Analysis on reliability and validity of the Pittsburgh Sleep Quality Index[J].Chongqing Med,2014,43(3):260-263.
[11] 中华人民共和国国家卫生和计划生育委员会.献血不良反应分类指南:WS/T 551—2017[S].2017.
National Health and Family Planning Commission of the People's Republic of China.Guidelines on the classification of blood donation adverse reaction:WS/T 551-2017[S].2017.
[12] 许冬霞,朱旭丹,王微.不同类型无偿献血者发生不良反应的情况分析[J].中国校医,2020,34(3):191-192,229.
XU D X,ZHU X D,WANG W.Blood donation reactions among different types of voluntary blood donors[J].Chin J Sch Doc,2020,34(3):191-192,229.
[13] 刘伟,程雪,张萃萃,等.无偿献血者献血不良反应发生的主要原因研究[J].首都食品与医药,2021,28(5):124-125.
LIU W,CHENG X,ZHANG C C,et al.Study on the main causes of adverse reactions of blood donors[J].Cap Food Med,2021,28(5):124-125.
[14] 郑素英,薛丽静,傅琍琍.单采血小板献血者发生不良反应的危险因素分析[J].中国民康医学,2021,33(10):107-108,113.
ZHENG S Y,XUE L J,FU L L.Risk factors for adverse reactions in platelet donors[J].Med J Chin People Health,2021,33(10):107-108,113.
[15] 姚海珍,闫文菊,宋任浩.石家庄市在校大学生无偿献血不良反应影响因素分析[J]. 医学与社会,2013,26(6):5-6.
YAO H Z,YAN W J,SONG R H.Investigation of the incidence and causes of adverse reaction in blood donors among college students in Shijiazhuang[J].Med Soc,2013,26(6):5-6.
[16] 杨永杰. 献血不良反应的影响因素分析及预防措施探究[J].临床研究,2021,29(5):118-119.
YANG Y J.Analysis of influencing factors and preventive measures of adverse reactions of blood donation[J].Clin Res,2021,29(5):118-119.
[17] 庞倩. 优质护理在降低机采血小板献血者不良反应中的作用分析[J].中国保健营养,2021,31(11):7.
PANG Q.Effect of high quality nursing on reducing adverse reactions of mechanically collected platelet donors[J].China Health Care Nutri,2021,31(11):7.
[1] 陈蓉, 林静静, 秦家胜, 陆凤. 中老年人群睡眠质量与体力活动、静坐时间的关联研究[J]. 预防医学, 2023, 35(6): 533-537.
[2] 王衡, 李鹏, 贺贤龙, 包君萍, 宋晶, 李浩孺, 王海红. 舟山市固定无偿献血者营养健康知识调查[J]. 预防医学, 2023, 35(5): 440-443.
[3] 曾龙武, 唐晓鸿, 张素霞, 刘强, 梁朝聪, 唐漫漫. 结直肠癌化疗患者照护人疾病不确定感影响因素分析[J]. 预防医学, 2023, 35(5): 444-447.
[4] 王占强, 董瀚文, 邸晓兰, 杨可冰, 牛雅娟. 跨性别群体抑郁、焦虑与防御机制研究[J]. 预防医学, 2023, 35(5): 392-395.
[5] 庄群飞, 王锦毓, 李鸽伶, 江舜杰, 沈祝苹, 李倩. 某三级肿瘤专科医院医务人员焦虑与压力知觉水平的相关性研究[J]. 预防医学, 2023, 35(5): 388-391.
[6] 徐云辉, 应丹丹, 杨静. 中青年脑卒中患者功能锻炼依从性研究[J]. 预防医学, 2023, 35(2): 171-175.
[7] 谢睿, 胡菊莲, 喻喆. 妊娠糖尿病患者生活质量的影响因素研究[J]. 预防医学, 2023, 35(2): 162-165.
[8] 沈强, 张月琴, 江圣洁, 甘露, 尉莹莹. 新冠肺炎疫情期间医务人员焦虑状况的Meta分析[J]. 预防医学, 2022, 34(7): 720-726.
[9] 潘松涛, 陈艳, 张永利, 张森, 王安芬, 严剑波. 舟山市中小学生睡眠情况调查[J]. 预防医学, 2022, 34(6): 626-630.
[10] 刘惟蜻, 王承敏, 曾环思, 张星, 王训强, 熊瑛. 成年人群肥胖与失眠的关联研究[J]. 预防医学, 2022, 34(4): 366-370.
[11] 罗平平, 诸伟红, 邹菁, 丁洁霞. 非酒精性脂肪性肝病患者疾病感知及影响因素分析[J]. 预防医学, 2022, 34(3): 222-226.
[12] 何丁玲, 冯世平, 赵霞, 郭利华, 吕春容, 李虹霞, 郭慧, 黄蕾. 艾滋病住院患者焦虑和抑郁情况调查[J]. 预防医学, 2022, 34(2): 166-170,175.
[13] 凌洁, 张敬敏, 赵玲慧. 嘉兴市中小学生网络成瘾现况调查[J]. 预防医学, 2022, 34(12): 1207-1211.
[14] 祝宏, 董杰, 凌霞, 励晓涛, 吴丹霄, 朱发明. 杭州市无偿献血者乙型肝炎病毒感染及其传播残余风险分析[J]. 预防医学, 2022, 34(1): 63-65,69.
[15] 刘莎, 杜铭诗, 潘国卷. 在校大学生睡眠质量对手机依赖与孤独感的中介效应研究[J]. 预防医学, 2021, 33(9): 865-868.
Viewed
Full text


Abstract

Cited

  Shared   
  Discussed