论文部分内容阅读
目的通过调查暗娼(FSWs)、男男性接触者(MSM)、静脉吸毒者(IDUs)的行为干预模式,评价干预模式的有效性,为下一步制订有效干预模式提供依据。方法采取典型抽样方法抽取调查单位,对2012年安徽省FSWs、MSM、IDUs干预模式进行面对面定性、定量问卷调查。采用方差分析、秩和检验分析评价干预模式有效性,P<0.05为差异有统计学意义。结果在所有干预模式中,人均干预19人,月均计划完成率109.40%。七种干预模式效率分析:疾病预防控制中心(CDC)、社区服务中心和社区(草根)组织效率最高,其次为CDC及同伴教育员、同伴教育员,以及戒毒/监管场所人员和其他(P<0.05)。干预目标贡献率以CDC、社区服务中心和社区(草根)组织为主,分别占30.97%、30.55%和21.11%。86.96%调查对象认为社区卫生服务中心干预FSWs模式、社区(草根)组织干预MSM模式、美沙酮门诊/戒毒所干预IDUs模式可以推广;85.19%调查对象认为目标人群的隐匿性和不配合是干预的主要障碍。结论社区卫生服务中心、社区(草根)组织和美沙酮门诊/戒毒所分别对FSWs、MSM、IDUs的干预模式可行,进一步加大多部门合作和目标人群间的交流是有效策略,全球基金项目的管理模式和资金的持续、足额支持是后续工作的有力保障。
Objective To investigate the effectiveness of intervention models by investigating behavioral intervention models of FSWs, MSM and IDUs, and provide the basis for further effective intervention models. Methods We took the typical sampling method to extract the investigation units and conducted face-to-face qualitative and quantitative questionnaires on the intervention models of FSWs, MSMs and IDUs in Anhui Province in 2012. Analysis of variance and rank sum test were used to evaluate the effectiveness of the intervention model. P <0.05 was considered statistically significant. Results In all intervention modes, 19 persons were intervened per capita, with an average monthly completion rate of 109.40%. Efficiency Analysis of Seven Intervention Models: Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), community service centers and community (grassroots) organizations are the most efficient, followed by CDC and peer educators, peer educators, detoxification / regulatory staff and others (P < 0.05). The contribution rate of intervention target is mainly composed of CDC, community service center and community (grassroots) organizations, accounting for 30.97%, 30.55% and 21.11% respectively. 86.96% of the respondents believed that community health service center intervention FSWs model, community (grassroots) intervention MSM model, methadone clinics / drug addiction treatment intervention IDUs model can be promoted; 85.19% of the respondents believe that the target population of occult and non-cooperation is the main intervention obstacle. Conclusion Intervention modes of community health service centers, community (grassroots) organizations and methadone clinics / detoxification centers for FSWs, MSMs and IDUs are feasible respectively. It is an effective strategy to further increase the cooperation between multisectoral departments and target groups. The management mode of Global Fund projects And the continued funding, full support is a strong guarantee for follow-up work.