生物反馈与运动干预对大学生手机成瘾的干预效果

Intervention effect of biofeedback and exercise intervention on college students’ mobile phone addiction

目的 评估比较生物反馈疗法和运动法对降低大学生手机成瘾的干预效果,为改善大学生手机成瘾行为提供参考依据。方法 2021年3—7月对从贵州医科大学招募到的54名手机成瘾者(控制组20人,生物反馈组17人,运动干预组17人)进行为期8周的干预,采用手机成瘾倾向量表(mobile phone addiction tendency scale,MPATS)、自评焦虑量表(selfrating anxiety scale,SAS)、自评抑郁量表(self-rating depression scale,SDS),分别在干预前、后对其进行测量,同时比较干预前后生物反馈组的生理指标得分。结果 大学生生物反馈组的皮温值、放松波(Alpha波)、感觉运动节律波(SMR波)干预后得分[(29.77±2.12)、(23.96±11.14)、(7.89±3.15)分]较干预前[(21.01±4.36)、(16.78±7.67)、(5.69±1.47)分]均升高(t=6.74、2.23、2.42,均P<0.05),MPATS、SAS和SDS干预后得分[(42.47±5.40)、(32.41±6.65)、(36.41±7.34)分]较干预前[(50.71±10.29)、(36.47±7.16)、(39.53±8.21)分]均下降(t=4.08、2.89、2.58,均P<0.05);运动干预组MPATS、SAS和SDS干预后得分[(38.24±7.51)、(29.59±2.76)、(30.29±4.71)分]较干预前[(53.35±8.41)、(38.59±6.23)、(38.18±5.94)分]均下降(t=6.37、5.76、4.48,均P<0.01),且运动干预组在MPATS、SAS和SDS的干预效果量[(15.12±9.79)、(9.00±6.44)、(7.88±7.26)分]高于生物反馈组[(8.24±8.33)、(4.06±5.78)、(3.12±4.99)分](t=2.21、2.35、2.23,均P<0.05)。结论 生物反馈干预和运动干预对手机成瘾行为均有显著效果,而运动干预的效果优于生物反馈干预。

Objective To evaluate and compare the intervention effect of biofeedback therapy and exercise method on mobile phone addiction in college students,provide a basis for improving mobile phone addiction behavior in college students.Methods From March to July 2021,54 students with mobile phone addiction were recruited from Guizhou Medical University(20 in the control group,17 in the biofeedback group,and 17 in the exercise intervention group) for an eight-week intervention.They were measured by the mobile phone addiction tendency scale(MPATS),self-rating anxiety scale(SAS) and self-rating depression scale(SDS) before and after the intervention,and the physiological index scores of the biological feedback group were compared before and after the intervention.Results In the biofeedback group,the cutaneous temperature value,relaxation wave(Alpha wave),and sensorimotor rhythm wave(SMR wave) after the intervention[(29.77±2.12),(23.96±11.14),(7.89±3.15)points] were higher than those before the intervention[(21.01±4.36),(16.78±7.67),(5.69±1.47)points](t=6.74,2.23,2.42,all P<0.05),while the scores of MPATS,SAS and SDS after the intervention[(42.47±5.40),(32.41±6.65),(36.41±7.34)points] were lower than those before the intervention[(50.71±10.29),(36.47±7.16),(39.53±8.21)points](t=4.08,2.89,2.58,all P<0.05).In the exercise intervention group,the scores of MPATS,SAS and SDS after the intervention[(38.24±7.51),(29.59±2.76),(30.29±4.71)points] were lower than those before the intervention [(53.35±8.41),(38.59±6.23),(38.18±5.94)points](t=6.37,5.76,4.48,all P<0.01),and the intervention effect amount of MPATS,SAS and SDS in the exercise intervention group[(15.12±9.79),(9.00±6.44),(7.88±7.26)points] were higher than those in the biofeedback group[(8.24±8.33),(4.06±5.78),(3.12±4.99)points](t=2.21,2.35,2.23,all P<0.05).Conclusion Both biofeedback and exercise interventions have significant effects on cell phone addiction behavior,and exercise intervention is more effective than biofeedback intervention.