通过问卷调查分析视力健康教育干预前后小学生的视力变化及对近视眼认知的情况，为寻求高效节能、具有长期推广价值的校园健康教育模式提供科学依据。

以班级为单位，按照数字表法随机抽取564名柳州市小学三年级学生为研究对象，并分为三组。一组为学生家长干预组，组织学生分批进行健康教育培训，并给家长发放健康教育材料；一组为学生干预组，仅组织学生分批进行健康教育培训；一组为对照组，未做任何干预。其中，男生283人，女生281人，年龄区间为8～9岁，平均年龄为8.6岁。采用现场调查法进行视力检查及视力保护相关知识的问卷调查。干预6个月后，再次进行视力检查及保护视力相关知识的测验。干预后三组的测验成绩采用均数±标准差(±s)进行描述，干预前和干预后各组视力的比较采用秩和检验，干预后三组测验成绩的比较采用单因素方差分析，当差异有统计学意义时，进一步采用LSD－t法两两比较。

干预前三组被试者之间视力状况的程度比较，经秩和检验，差异无统计学意义(u＝1.69，P>0.05)，说明三组之间具有可比性。三组干预后视力的比较均有统计学意义(u＝1.69，P<0.05)。干预后三组被试者视力低下的百分比均发生不同程度的变化。两个干预组学生视力>4.8的百分比较干预前增加，视力<4.6的百分比较干预前减少。而对照组学生视力>4.8的百分比较干预前减少，视力<4.6的百分比较干预前增加。从视力改变百分比的趋势可以得出，对照组学生的视力明显弱于两组干预组，即学生家长干预组视力>学生干预组视力>对照组视力。进一步两两比较，学生家长干预组、学生干预组与对照组的比较，差异均有统计学意义(u＝－4.41，－3.15；P<0.05)。但学生家长干预组与学生干预组比较，差异无统计学意义(u＝－1.48，P>0.05)。干预后学生家长干预组及学生干预组被试者的学生认知成绩、用眼卫生成绩及家长认知成绩均高于对照组，差异均有统计学意义[认知成绩为(t＝－3.55，－6.54；P<0.05)，用眼卫生成绩为(t＝－2.33，－8.03；P<0.05)，家长认知成绩为(t＝－3.38，－7.99；P<0.05)]。而在认知和生活习惯方面，学生家长干预组与学生干预组之间的差异无统计学意义(t＝5.22，3.96；P>0.05)。在家长认知方面，学生家长干预组成绩>学生干预组成绩>对照组成绩，学生家长干预组与学生干预组的差异有统计学意义(t＝4.94，P<0.05)。

校园视力健康教育对控制近视眼的发病率有意义，应予以推广。

To provide scientific basis for seeking an effective and long-term practical value of children′s Health Promotion School model by investigating and analyzing vision and myopia cognition status before and after the intervention.

Taking class as the unit, 564 primary school students in grade three in Liuzhou city were randomly selected as the research object and divided into three groups. A group of parents of students in the intervention group, organize the students in health education and training, health education materials distributed to parents; a group for students, students in health education and training; one was control group, without any intervention. Among them, 283 boys and 281 girls, the age range of 8~9 years old, the average age of 8.6 years old. Field survey was used to measure visual acuity and to investigate the related visual acuity questionnaire. After 6 months of intervention, visual acuity test and vision related knowledge test were performed again. After the intervention, three groups of test results by the mean and standard deviation (±s), before and after the intervention group vision than using rank sum test, compared with the three groups after the intervention of the test results of single factor analysis of variance, the difference was statistically significant when compared with each other, further using LSD-t method.

Before intervention, the visual acuity of the three groups was compared, and there was no significant difference between the three groups by rank sum test (u=1.69, P>0.05), indicating that there was comparability between the two groups. The visual acuity of the intervention group after intervention was statistically significant (u=1.69, P<0.05). After intervention, the percentage of poor eyesight of the three groups changed in different degrees. The percentage of vision >4.8 in the two intervention groups increased before intervention, and the percentage of visual <4.6 decreased before intervention. The percentage of vision >4.8 in control group was decreased before intervention, and the percentage of visual <4.6 was increased before intervention. From the trend of the percentage of visual changes, the visual acuity of the students in the control group was significantly weaker than that of the two intervention groups, that is, the parents intervention group visual acuity > the students intervention group visual acuity > the control group vision. Compared with each other, there were significant differences between the intervention group and the student intervention group (u=-4.41, -3.15; P<0.05). However, there was no significant difference between the intervention group and the student intervention group (u=-1.48, P>0.05). The intervention of parents of students in intervention group and intervention group students in subjects with cognitive scores, students and parents eye health scores cognition scores were higher than the control group, there were statistically significant differences in cognitive performance for [(t=-3.55, -6.54; P<0.05), eye health score (t=-2.33, -8.03; P<0.05), cognitive performance for parents (t=-3.38, -7.99; P<0.05)]. In cognitive and living habits, there was no significant difference between the intervention group and the student intervention group (t=5.22, 3.96; P>0.05). In the aspect of parents′ cognition, the scores of parents′ group > students′ group > control group′s scores, the difference between parents′ intervention group and students′ intervention group was statistically significant (t=4.94, P<0.05).

Children′s Health Vision Promotion School model is meaningful to control myopia rate and worthy of spreading.