Analysis of public knowledge, attitude and practice on tuberculosis prevention and control based on Structural Equation Modeling

doi:10.19982/j.issn.1000-6621.20250040

Abstract

Abstract:

Objective: To understand the knowledge-attitude-practice of tuberculosis prevention and control among public, analyze their correlations based on Structural Equation Modeling, to provide a basis for exploring suitable tuberculosis prevention and control measures and health education for the public. Methods: From October 2022 to April 2023, a stratified cluster random sampling method was used to select public personnel from a university in Shandong Province, a municipal hospital, and a municipal railway bureau for a questionnaire survey. A total of 854 pieces of questionnaire were collected, with 833 valid questionnaire, resulting in a valid response rate of 97.54%.The survey content included basic information, knowledge of tuberculosis prevention and control core knowledge, tuberculosis prevention and control attitude and practice. AMOS 24.0 software was used to construct a structural equation model and analyze the relationship and correlation strength among knowledge, attitude and practice. Results: The average score of tuberculosis control knowledge, attitude and practice were 2.82±1.90 (Full scale was 6), 9.78±1.61 (Full scale was 12), and 8.04±1.47 (Full scale was 10), respectively. There were significant differences in the awareness rates of tuberculosis prevention and control core knowledge among different age (P=0.003), occupation (P<0.001), and income (P=0.003) groups. There were no significant differences in tuberculosis prevention and control beliefs among different groups of the study population. Age (P=0.022), occupation (P<0.001), educational background (P=0.004), and income (P<0.001) all exerted a significant influence on tuberculosis prevention practice. Structural equation fitting result showed that tuberculosis prevention and control knowledge had a positive effect on practice, its total effect was 0.488, of which the direct effect was 0.460, the indirect effect was 0.028. Conclusion: The public had a relatively low awareness of tuberculosis prevention and control core knowledge. Good cognition of tuberculosis and correct attitude towards tuberculosis prevention and control will have a positive effect on practice.

Key words: Tuberculosis, Health knowledge, attitudes, practice, Questionnaire, Models, structural

CLC Number:

R52
R193

Zhong Yi, Yu Shengnan, Zhang Yuqi, Jing Rui, Li Xiujun. Analysis of public knowledge, attitude and practice on tuberculosis prevention and control based on Structural Equation Modeling[J]. Chinese Journal of Antituberculosis, 2025, 47(7): 855-862. doi: 10.19982/j.issn.1000-6621.20250040

Figures/Tables 7

References 31

[1]	Jiang H, Zhang S, Ding Y, et al. Development and validation of college students’ tuberculosis knowledge, attitudes and practices questionnaire. BMC Public Health, 2017, 17(1):949. doi:10.1186/s12889-017-4960-x.
[2]	World Health Organization. Global tuberculosis report 2024. Geneva: World Health Organization, 2024.
[3]	舒薇, 刘宇红. 世界卫生组织《2023年全球结核病报告》解读. 结核与肺部疾病杂志, 2024, 5(1):15-19. doi:10.19983/j.issn.2069-8493.2024006.
[4]	卢春容, 谭卫国, 陆普选,等. 2023年WHO全球结核病报告:全球与中国关键数据分析. 新发传染病电子杂志, 2023, 8(6):73-78. doi:10.19871/j.cnki.xfcrbzz.2023.06.014.
[5]	杨圣元, 孙兰, 唐利红,等. 上海市城乡结合部居民结核病防治知识信念行为调查分析. 中国健康教育, 2016, 32(8):697-700. doi:10.16168/j.cnki.issn.1002-9982.2016.08.006.
[6]	Fennelly KP, Jones-López EC, Ayakaka I,et al. Variability of infectious aerosols produced during coughing by patients with pulmonary tuberculosis. Am J Respir Crit Care Med, 2012, 186(5):450-457. doi:10.1164/rccm.201203-0444OC.
[7]	Hou J, Pang Y, Yang X,et al. Outbreak of Mycobacterium tuberculosis Beijing strain in a high school in Yunnan, China. Am J Trop Med Hyg, 2020, 102(4):728-730. doi:10.4269/ajtmh.19-0533.
[8]	成君, 赵雁林. 创建无结核社区终止结核病流行. 中国防痨杂志, 2021, 43(11):1120-1124. doi:10.3969/j.issn.1000-6621.2021.11.004.
[9]	Hoyle RH. Handbook of Structural Equation Modeling. Structural Equation Modeling, 2012, 20(2):354-360. doi:10.1080/10705511.2013.769397.
[10]	吴明隆. 结构方程模型:AMOS的操作与应用. 2版. 重庆: 重庆大学出版社, 2010.
[11]	Bashorun AO, Linda C, Omoleke S, et al. Knowledge, attitude and practice towards tuberculosis in Gambia: a nation-wide cross-sectional survey. BMC Public Health, 2020, 20(1):1566. doi:10.1186/s12889-020-09685-3. pmid: 33069220
[12]	魏倩, 王仕昌, 曹传兵. 2020年山东省公众结核病防治核心信息知晓率调查结果分析. 中国防痨杂志, 2021, 43(7):741-746. doi:10.3969/j.issn.1000-6621.2021.07.017.
[13]	国家卫生健康委员会, 国家发展和改革委员会, 教育部,等. 关于印发遏制结核病行动计划(2019—2022)的通知. 国卫疾控发〔2019〕41号. 2019-05-31.
[14]	Ma N, Zhang L, Chen L, et al. Demographic and socioeconomic disparity in knowledge, attitude, and practice towards tuberculosis in Northwest, China: Evidence from multilevel model study. BMC Health Serv Res, 2024, 24(1):948. doi:10.1186/s12913-024-11336-x. pmid: 39164685
[15]	冯苗, 霍俊锋, 邓俊平,等. 山西省公众结核病防治核心知识知晓率调查分析. 中国防痨杂志, 2023, 45(8):786-793. doi:10.19982/j.issn.1000-6621.20230154.
[16]	Ni S, Wang J, Li X, et al. Assessment of health promotion action for tuberculosis of end tuberculosis action plan (2019—2022) in China. BMC Public Health, 2024, 24(1):2051. doi:10.1186/s12889-024-19413-w.
[17]	国家卫生健康委员会办公厅.国家卫生健康委办公厅关于印发中国结核病预防控制工作技术规范(2020 年版) 的通知. 国卫办疾控函〔2020〕279号. 2020-04-02.
[18]	Didi L, Abakar MF, Bongo Naré Richard N, et al.et al. Assessment of the knowledge, attitudes, and practices toward human tuberculosis amongst rural communities in Chad. Front Vet Sci, 2024, 11:1334303. doi:10.3389/fvets.2024.1334303.
[19]	Kaaffah S, Kusuma IY, Renaldi FS, et al. Knowledge, attitudes, and perceptions of tuberculosis in Indonesia: A multi-center cross-sectional study. Infect Drug Resist, 2023, 16: 1787-1800. doi:10.2147/IDR.S404171. pmid: 37013169
[20]	张曼晖, 张梦迪, 卢征,等. 2005—2020年中国老年人群结核病疾病负担趋势分析. 中国防痨杂志, 2025, 47(6):753-759. doi:10.3969/j.issn.1000-6621.20250055.
[21]	Harstad I, Raen AR, Selseng S, et al. Knowledge, attitudes and practices on tuberculosis among screened immigrants in Norway: A cross-sectional study. J Clin Tuberc Other Mycobact Dis, 2022, 28:100326. doi:10.1016/j.jctube.2022.100326.
[22]	Mahara G, Yang K, Chen S, et al. Socio-Economic Predictors and Distribution of Tuberculosis Incidence in Beijing, China: A Study Using a Combination of Spatial Statistics and GIS Technology. Med Sci (Basel), 2018, 6(2):26. doi:10.3390/medsci6020026.
[23]	杨圣元, 孙兰, 唐利红,等. 上海市城乡结合部居民结核病防治知识信念行为调查分析. 中国健康教育, 2016, 32(8):697-700. doi:10.16168/j.cnki.issn.1002-9982.2016.08.006.
[24]	曹梅娜, 巩浩然, 高研,等. 某矿业集团医院糖尿病患者结核病防治核心知识知晓情况调查. 医学动物防制, 2022, 38(1):70-73,78. doi:10.7629/yxdwfz202201020.
[25]	刘永桃, 李修宏, 吴有芳. 西宁市结核病密切接触人群结核病预防相关知识、态度及行为调查. 实用预防医学, 2021, 28(12):1516-1520. doi:10.3969/j.issn.1006-3110.2021.12.028.
[26]	张娟娟, 王云霞, 刘振扬,等. 影响肺结核病病人防治效果的社会因素分析. 中国社会医学杂志, 2018, 35(3):256-259. doi:10.3969/j.issn.1673-5625.2018.03.012.
[27]	Wu T, He H, Wei S, et al. How to optimize tuberculosis health education in college under the new situation? Based on a cross-sectional study among freshmen of a medical college in Guangxi, China. Front Public Health, 2022, 10:845822. doi:10.3389/fpubh.2022.845822.
[28]	Ma N, Chen L, Ding F, et al. Identification of the health education targeted susceptible population of tuberculosis in Ningxia, Northwest China. Sci Rep, 2024, 14(1):13071. doi:10.1038/s41598-024-63961-5. pmid: 38844544
[29]	曹怡, 张少茹, 张天华,等. 西安市大学生结核病防治“知信行”现状及结构方程模型分析. 中国防痨杂志, 2018, 40(11):1201-1207. doi:10.3969/j.issn.1000-6621.2018.11.011.
[30]	李佳琛. 甘肃省高校低年级学生结核病防治知信行现状及影响因素研究. 兰州:甘肃中医药大学, 2024. doi:10.27026/d.cnki.ggszc.2024.000498.
[31]	李金, 袁全, 周佳妮,等. 基于知信行模型肺结核患者治疗依从行为影响因素及应对方式的中介调节作用研究. 陆军军医大学学报, 2022, 44(12):1292-1298. doi:10.16016/j.2097-0927.202112240.

特征	≥3分[名 (构成比,%)]	<3分[名 (构成比,%)]	χ²值	P值
性别			3.197	0.074
男性	299(51.7)	279(48.3)
女性	149(58.4)	106(41.6)
年龄组(岁)			11.808	0.003
<30	99(49.0)	103(51.0)
30~55	261(52.2)	239(47.8)
≥56	88(67.2)	43(32.8)
婚姻状况			0.342	0.559
已婚	327(54.4)	274(45.6)
未婚及其他	121(52.2)	111(47.8)
职业			66.474	<0.001
医学相关专业工作者	52(91.2)	5(8.8)
专业技术人员(如律师、建筑工程师等)	29(52.7)	26(47.3)
国企单位、国家机关、公务员等公职人员	210(47.5)	232(52.5)
服务业人员	91(47.4)	101(52.6)
农、林、牧、渔、水利业生产人员	6(60.0)	4(40.0)
私营企业工作人员、个体工商户	16(80.0)	4(20.0)
自由职业者	41(83.7)	8(16.3)
其他从业人员	3(37.5)	5(62.5)
学历			8.948	0.062
小学及以下	18(75.0)	6(25.0)
初中	74(58.7)	52(41.3)
高中/职高/中专	94(47.5)	104(52.5)
大专	156(53.2)	137(46.8)
本科及以上	106(55.2)	86(44.8)
月收入(元)			14.047	0.003
<3000	36(50.0)	36(50.0)
3000~5000	107(65.2)	57(34.8)
5001~10000	182(54.3)	153(45.7)
>10000	123(46.9)	139(53.1)

特征	≥10分[名 (构成比,%)]	<10分[名 (构成比,%)]	χ²值	P值
性别			0.203	0.652
男性	360(62.3)	218(37.7)
女性	163(63.9)	92(36.1)
年龄组(岁)			5.147	0.076
<30	119(58.9)	83(41.1)
30~55	311(62.2)	189(37.8)
≥56	93(71.0)	38(29.0)
婚姻状况			3.477	0.062
已婚	389(57.8)	212(42.2)
未婚及其他	134(64.7)	98(35.3)
职业			3.429	0.064
医学相关专业工作者	41(71.9)	16(28.1)
专业技术人员(如律师、建筑工程师等)	27(49.1)	28(50.9)
国企单位、国家机关、公务员等公职人员	272(61.5)	170(38.5)
服务业人员	118(61.5)	74(38.5)
农、林、牧、渔、水利业生产人员	6(60.0)	4(40.0)
私营企业工作人员、个体工商户	18(90.0)	2(10.0)
自由职业者	38(77.6)	11(22.4)
其他从业人员	5(62.5)	3(37.5)
学历			0.760	0.383
小学及以下	17(70.8)	7(29.2)
初中	78(61.9)	48(38.1)
高中/职高/中专	114(57.6)	84(42.4)
大专	187(63.8)	106(36.2)
本科及以上	127(66.1)	65(33.9)
月收入(元)			1.639	0.651
<3000	49(68.1)	23(31.9)
3000~5000	99(60.4)	65(39.6)
5001~10000	214(63.9)	121(36.1)
>10000	161(61.5)	101(38.5)

特征	≥8分[名 (构成比,%)]	<8分[名 (构成比,%)]	χ²值	P值
性别			0.169	0.681
男性	369(63.8)	209(36.2)
女性	159(62.4)	96(37.6)
年龄组(岁)			7.621	0.022
<30	141(69.8)	61(30.2)
30~55	315(63.0)	185(37.0)
≥56	72(55.0)	59(45.0)
婚姻状况			3.084	0.079
已婚	370(61.6)	231(38.4)
未婚及其他	158(68.1)	74(31.9)
职业			36.104	<0.001
医学相关专业工作者	47(82.5)	10(17.5)
专业技术人员(如律师、建筑工程师等)	32(58.2)	23(41.8)
国企单位、国家机关、公务员等公职人员	305(69.0)	137(31.0)
服务业人员	95(49.5)	97(50.5)
农、林、牧、渔、水利业生产人员	4(40.0)	6(60.0)
私营企业工作人员、个体工商户	10(50.0)	10(50.0)
自由职业者	31(63.3)	18(36.7)
其他从业人员	4(50.0)	4(50.0)
学历			15.608	0.004
小学及以下	15(62.5)	9(37.5)
初中	69(54.8)	57(45.2)
高中/职高/中专	110(55.6)	88(44.4)
大专	203(69.3)	90(30.7)
本科及以上	131(68.2)	61(31.8)
月收入(元)			22.302	<0.001
<3000	29(40.3)	43(59.7)
3000~5000	101(61.6)	63(38.4)
5001~10000	233(69.6)	102(30.4)
>10000	165(63.0)	97(37.0)

拟合指标	CMIN/DF	RMSEA	GFI	AGFI
模型指标	4.372	0.064	0.940	0.914
参考范围	<5	<0.08	>0.9	>0.9

知识—>行为	估计值	标准误	B-95%CI值	P值	P-95%CI值	P值
总效应	0.488	0.033	0.421~0.551	<0.001	0.421~0.551	<0.001
直接效应(94.26%)	0.460	0.035	0.391~0.528	<0.001	0.391~0.528	<0.001
间接效应(5.74%)	0.028	0.010	0.012~0.051	0.001	0.011~0.049	0.002