4.4 Article

Gender differences in irritable bowel syndrome among medical students at Inner Mongolia Medical University, China: a cross-sectional study

期刊

PSYCHOLOGY HEALTH & MEDICINE
卷 21, 期 8, 页码 964-974

出版社

ROUTLEDGE JOURNALS, TAYLOR & FRANCIS LTD
DOI: 10.1080/13548506.2016.1144890

关键词

Irritable bowel syndrome; lifestyle; psychological; prevalence

资金

  1. Natural Science Foundation of Inner Mongolia in China [2013MS1193]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

There is little epidemiological research on Irritable bowel syndrome (IBS) in Inner Mongolia, China. Here we investigated the prevalence of IBS and factors associated with IBS in both males and females in Inner Mongolia Medical University by a cross-sectional study. We recruited Inner Mongolia Medical University students residing in campus and asked them to complete a self-administered questionnaire. The prevalence of IBS in each factor we chose in all, male, and female students was determined. We assessed IBS subtypes in male and female students. Multivariate logistic regression models were used to assess the factors associated with IBS in male and female students. The overall prevalence of IBS was 29.5%. The prevalence of IBS in female students was significantly higher than that in male students (31.3% vs. 24.8%, p<.001). Logistic regression results showed that attempting to lose weight and anxiety were both associated with increasing odds of IBS, while exercise was not associated with IBS in either male or female students. In female students, snack consumption and depression were also both associated with increasing odds of IBS. The predominant IBS subtype was the diarrhea-predominant type in both male and female students. Considering the high prevalence of IBS in students and the fact that the factors associated with IBS can be improved by individuals, students should be given adequate education and counseling to improve their mental health and lifestyle, especially female students in higher grades.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.4
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据