Hooper J, Cox C C, Cambre K, Wilburn D, Webster M, Wolf T
Department of Exercise Science, Health Promotion and Recreation, University of Southern Colorado, Pueblo 81001-4901, USA.
Am J Health Promot. 1999 Jan-Feb;13(3):171-9. doi: 10.4278/0890-1171-13.3.171.
To compare the number and scope of health promotion programs for students in allopathic and osteopathic medical schools in the U.S. and Canada.
A one-time cross-sectional survey design was applied in this study.
This study was conducted in 141 accredited allopathic and 17 accredited osteopathic medical schools.
A total of 158 representatives from the allopathic and osteopathic medical schools participated in this study. The response rate for the survey was 100%.
A structured telephone interview was conducted to survey representatives from the medical schools. The survey contained 85 multiple-choice questions organized into four sections: administrative characteristics, types of institutional and health promotion program policies, participation incentives and facilities, and type/scope of health promotion program activities. Chi-square analysis was used to analyze survey variables by type of medical education and level of intervention.
Of the 158 medical schools, only 20% (n = 32) provided a health promotion program for students. Although osteopathic institutions (29.4%) had a greater percentage of programs than allopathic schools (19.2%), there was no significant difference in scope of program offerings by type of medical education. Allopathic programs offered exercise and nutrition/weight management significantly more often and at a higher level of intervention. Lastly, allopathic programs had significantly more monetary resources available for programming. Following prudent research protocol, investigators should be mindful of the limitations of this study. In this study, some school representatives chose not to answer personnel- and finance-related questions. Additionally, because of the self-report nature of the survey, the responses given to the questions may not have been accurate.
Allopathic and osteopathic medical school health promotion programs for students were very similar in scope.
比较美国和加拿大的全科医学和整骨医学医学院针对学生的健康促进项目的数量和范围。
本研究采用一次性横断面调查设计。
本研究在141所经认可的全科医学医学院和17所经认可的整骨医学医学院中进行。
共有158名来自全科医学和整骨医学医学院的代表参与了本研究。调查的回复率为100%。
通过结构化电话访谈对医学院的代表进行调查。该调查包含85个多项选择题，分为四个部分：管理特征、机构和健康促进项目政策类型、参与激励措施和设施，以及健康促进项目活动的类型/范围。采用卡方分析按医学教育类型和干预水平分析调查变量。
在158所医学院中，只有20%（n = 32）为学生提供了健康促进项目。虽然整骨医学机构（29.4%）开展项目的比例高于全科医学学校（19.2%），但按医学教育类型划分的项目提供范围没有显著差异。全科医学项目更常提供锻炼以及营养/体重管理项目，且干预水平更高。最后，全科医学项目在项目开展方面拥有显著更多的资金资源。遵循审慎的研究方案，研究人员应注意本研究的局限性。在本研究中，一些学校代表选择不回答与人员和财务相关的问题。此外，由于调查的自我报告性质，对问题的回答可能并不准确。
全科医学和整骨医学医学院针对学生的健康促进项目在范围上非常相似。
