摘要
目的探讨理性情绪行为疗法合并生物反馈疗法对医学生社交焦虑的干预效果。方法58名社交焦虑的医学生，采用随机数字法分成4组，即对照组、行为组、反馈组、综合组。其中对照组未干预，行为组采用理性情绪行为疗法、反馈组采用肌电生物反馈、综合组采用理性情绪行为疗法与肌电生物反馈相结合的方法分别进行干预，于干预前后分别对各组学生社交焦虑水平进行评估。结果干预后行为组、反馈组和综合组社交回避及苦恼问卷（SAD）总分[（11．33±5．43）分、（10．75±3．57）分、（7．50±3．42）分]和因子分分别低于对照组[SAD总分（18．08±3．82）分]，差异具有显著性（F=13．81，7．80，10．22，P〈0．01）。干预后综合组SAD总分下降最为明显，与行为组和反馈组相比差异有显著性（F=10．74，P〈0．01）。综合组和行为组下降的社交回避因子分高于反馈组（F=7．46，P=0．01）。综合组和反馈组下降的社交苦恼因子分高于行为组（F=15．49，P〈0．01）。结论3种干预方法对于降低社交焦虑水平均有一定疗效；理性情绪行为疗法合并生物反馈疗法的效果最为显著。
Objective To analyze the comprehensive intervention on social anxiety of medical students. Methods 58 medical students of social anxiety were randomly divided into the control group, behavior group, feedback group ,and comprehensive intervention group. The control group did not intervene, the behavior therapy group used the emotive hehavior therapy,the feedback group used the EMG biofeedback therapy,the comprehensive intervention group used emotive behavior therapy and electromyography biofeedback. The level of social anxiety of the four groups were assessed before and after the intervention. Results After the intervention, the scores of SAD, social avoidance factor and social distress factor were significantly different in the four groups （ P 〈 0.01 ）. The score of SAD of comprehensive intervention group declined most obvious（F= 10. 743, P〈0.01 ）. The score of social avoidance factor declined more in the behavior group and the comprehensive intervention group than the feedback group（F= 7. 463, P = 0.01 ）. The score of social distress factor declined more in the feedback group and the comprehensive intervention group than the behavior group （F = 15.49, P 〈 0.01 ）. Conclusions All the three methods of intervention have a certain effect. The effect of comprehensive intervention is most significant.
出处
《中华行为医学与脑科学杂志》
CAS
CSCD
北大核心
2009年第10期874-875,共2页
Chinese Journal of Behavioral Medicine and Brain Science
基金
黑龙江省科学技术厅资助项目（GC06C420）
