Investigation on the epidemiologic features of patients who have injuries caused by dogs and cats in a hospital
-
摘要:
目的 调查和分析在某医院就诊的犬猫类动物致伤患者的流行病学特征, 为开展预防犬猫类动物致伤工作提供科学依据。 方法 自行编制调查问卷, 运用方便抽样法对在某医院犬伤诊室进行伤口处置的动物致伤患者进行问卷调查。 结果 共调查1 009例动物致伤患者, 男性占46.68%, 20~岁年龄组占19.72%。在家中受伤者占61.05%, 致伤动物为自家者占50.94%。经χ2检验, 患者职业、是否养宠物、受伤地点和致伤动物来源在性别间差异存在统计学意义(均有P < 0.05), 受伤原因、受伤方式和受伤地点在致伤动物种类间差异存在统计学意义(均有P < 0.001)。 结论 犬猫类动物致伤发生在患者性别和年龄间无差异。居家养宠物安全很重要, 加强健康教育, 提高自我防护意识对预防动物致伤的发生具有重要意义。 Abstract:Objective To investigate and analyze the epidemiologic features of patients who were hurt by animals such as dog or cat in a hospital, and to provide scientific basis for preventing injuries caused by these animals. Methods A questionnaire was designed and then applied to the target population.A sample was selected from the patients in the dog-hurt-clinic in a hospital with the convenience sampling method, and then they were required to complete the questionnaire. Results 1 009 injured patients were ruled in analysis. Men accounted for 46.68%. The patients aged 20 to 29 were 19.72% of the total studied population. Patients who were hurt at home accounted for 61.05% and by their own pets 50.94%, respectively. Chi-square test results showed that there were statistically significant differences between the sexes in patients' occupation, pet ownership, injury location and animal source(all P < 0.05). The causes, the way and the place of injury were statistically different among animal species(allP < 0.05). Conclusions There are no difference in gender and age among animals injuries.The safety of keeping pets at home is very important. Enhancing health education and improving self-protection consciousness are of great importance on the prevention of hurts by animals. -
表 1 不同性别研究对象基本情况[n(%)]
Table 1. Basic status of study participants stratified by sex[n(%)]
变量 男性 女性 合计 χ2值 P值 年龄(岁) 4.907 0.556 < 10 56(11.89) 45(8.36) 101(10.01) 10~ 56(11.89) 61(11.34) 117(11.60) 20~ 92(19.53) 107(19.89) 199(19.72) 30~ 72(15.29) 77(14.31) 149(14.77) 40~ 70(14.86) 83(15.43) 153(15.16) 50~ 64(13.59) 85(15.80) 149(14.77) ≥60 61(12.95) 80(14.87) 141(13.97) 职业 18.452 < 0.001 散居、幼托儿童、学生 112(23.78) 117(21.75) 229(22.70) 企事业职工 238(50.53) 216(40.15) 454(45.00) 离退、家务或待业者 121(25.69) 205(38.10) 326(32.31) 文化程度 4.168 0.244 中学以下 125(26.54) 163(30.30) 288(28.54) 中学 210(44.59) 210(39.03) 420(41.63) 大学及以上 136(28.87) 165(30.67) 301(29.83) 是否养宠物 16.303 < 0.001 正在养 279(59.24) 383(71.19) 662(65.61) 曾经养过 24(5.10) 23(4.28) 47(4.66) 没有养 168(35.67) 132(24.54) 300(29.73) 受伤地点 30.056 < 0.001 家中 262(55.63) 354(65.80) 616(61.05) 小区 68(14.44) 99(18.40) 167(16.55) 超市等室内 78(16.56) 41(7.62) 119(11.79) 马路等室外 63(13.38) 44(8.18) 107(10.60) 受伤方式 7.645 0.054 直接咬伤 283(60.08) 316(58.74) 599(59.37) 隔衣裤咬伤 94(19.96) 84(15.61) 178(17.64) 直接抓伤 78(16.56) 122(22.68) 200(19.82) 其它 16(3.40) 16(2.97) 32(3.17) 暴露分级 1.701 0.427 Ⅰ级 30(6.37) 44(8.18) 74(7.33) Ⅱ级 416(88.32) 471(87.55) 887(87.91) Ⅲ级 25(5.31) 23(4.28) 48(4.76) 动物来源 11.260 0.004 自家 216(45.86) 298(55.39) 514(50.94) 他家 155(32.91) 161(29.93) 316(31.32) 无主或不详 100(21.23) 79(14.68) 179(17.74) 
下载: 导出CSV
表 2 致伤特征在致伤动物种类间的比较[n(%)]
Table 2. Characteristics of injury stratified by animal species[n(%)]
变量 犬 猫 其他 合计 χ2值 P值 受伤原因 55.845 < 0.001 嬉戏玩耍 203(28.35) 87(34.80) 13(30.23) 303(30.03) 无故致伤 317(44.27) 54(21.60) 17(39.53) 388(38.45) 喂洗救助 101(14.11) 49(19.60) 4(9.30) 154(15.26) 驱赶或抓 46(6.42) 42(16.80) 7(16.28) 95(9.42) 其它 49(6.84) 18(7.20) 2(4.65) 69(6.84) 受伤方式 244.931 < 0.001 直接咬伤 455(63.55) 105(42.00) 39(90.70) 599(59.37) 隔衣裤咬伤 170(23.74) 8(3.20) 0(0.00) 178(17.64) 直接抓伤 67(9.36) 129(51.60) 4(9.30) 200(19.82) 其它 24(3.35) 8(3.20) 0(0.00) 32(3.17) 受伤地点 34.049 < 0.001 家中 422(58.94) 157(62.80) 37(86.05) 616(61.05) 小区 136(18.99) 29(11.60) 2(4.65) 167(16.55) 超市等室内 71(9.92) 46(18.40) 2(4.65) 119(11.79) 马路等室外 87(12.15) 18(7.20) 2(4.65) 107(10.60)
下载: 导出CSV
-
[1] Bula-Rudas FJ, Olcott JL. Human and animal bites[J]. Pediatr Rev, 2018, 39(10): 490-500.DOI: 10.1542/pir.2017-0212. [2] 马剑平, 刘盛元, 赵丹, 等.犬类动物伤害研究现状[J].伤害医学(电子版), 2016, 5(2): 55-59.DOI: 10.3868/j.issn.2095-1566.2016.02.012.Ma JP, Liu SY, Zhao D, et al. Research status of human injuries by canoidea[J]. Injury Medicine(Electronic Edition), 2016, 5(2): 55-59. DOI: 10.3868/j.issn.2095-1566.2016.02.012. [3] Yin C, Zhou H, Wu H, et al. Analysis on factors related to rabies epidemic in China from 2007-2011[J]. Virologica Sinica, 2012, 27(2): 132-143.DOI: 10.1007/s12250-012-3244-y. [4] Essig GF Jr, Sheehan C, Rikhi S, et al. Dog bite injuries to the face: is there risk with breed ownership?a systematic review with meta-analysis[J]. Int J Pediatr Otorhinolaryngol, 2019, 117: 182-188.DOI: 10.1016/j.ijporl.2018.11.028. [5] Park JW, Kim DK, Jung JY, et al. Dog-bite injuries in Korea and risk factors for significant dog-bite injuries: a 6-year cross-sectional study[J]. PLoS One, 2019, 14(2): e210541.DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0210541. [6] World Health Organization, World report on child injury prevention[M].Geneva: World Health Organization, 2008. [7] 中国医学救援协会动物伤害救治分会专家组.动物致伤专家共识[J].中国急救复苏与灾害医学杂志, 2018, 13(11): 1056-1061.DOI: 10.3969/j.issn.1673-6966.2018.11.006.Expert Group of Animal Injury Treatment Branch of China Medical Rescue Association. Expert consensus on animal injury[J]. Chin J Emerg Resusc Disaster Med, 2018, 13(11): 1056-1061. DOI: 10.3969/j.issn.1673-6966.2018.11.006. [8] Dixon CA, Pomerantz WJ, Hart KW, et al. An evaluation of a dog bite prevention intervention in the pediatric emergency department[J]. J Trauma Acute Care Surg, 2013, 75(4 Suppl 3): S308-S312.DOI: 10.1097/TA.0b013e31829be2bc. -
