方法：本研究采用病例对照研究的方法，按照年龄、性别1：1匹配，选取100例干眼新发患者为干眼组，100例健康志愿者为对照组。使用“A型性格问卷调查表”统一调查获取临床资料，先用χ²检验对干眼组与健康对照组的性格类型分布进行比较，再运用单因素和多因素条件Logistic回归分析统计数据。

结果：干眼组与对照组性格类型分布情况比较，差异有统计学意义(χ²=6.494，P=0.011)，单因素Logistic回归分析中A型性格者患干眼的OR值为2.296(95%CI：1.202～4.384，P=0.012)； 每天面对视频终端时间≥6h患干眼的OR值为2.992(95%CI：1.668～5.369，P<0.01)； 长期处于空调环境中患干眼的OR值为2.631(95%CI：1.472～4.702，P=0.001)。多因素条件Logistic回归分析中A型性格者患干眼的OR值为2.659(95%CI：1.335～5.295，P=0.005)； 每天面对视频终端时间≥6h患干眼的OR值为2.264(95%CI：1.166～4.396，P=0.016)； 长期处于空调环境中患干眼的OR值为2.053(95%CI：1.048～4.020，P=0.036)。

结论：A型性格、每天面对视频终端时间≥6h、长期处于空调环境中可能是干眼发生的独立危险因素。

METHODS: Here we used case-control study,100 dry eye patients and 100 healthy persons all completed the questionnaire of type A behavior and unified questionnaire. The results were analyzed by univariate and multivariate conditional logistic regression analysis.

RESULTS: There was significant difference on distribution of behavior pattern between dry eye group and normal group(χ²=6.494,P=0.011). After one factor logistic regression analysis, the risk of dry eye for people with type A behavior was higher(OR=2.296, 95%CI:1.202-4.384, P=0.012); that for people using visual display terminal more than 6h was 2.992(95%CI:1.668-5.369, P<0.01); that for people staying in air condition room was 2.631(95%CI: 1.472-4.702, P=0.001). After multivariate conditional logistic regression analysis, compared with type B behavior, type A behavior pattern(OR=2.659,95%CI:1.335-5.295,P=0.005), people using visual display terminal more than 6h(OR=2.264, 95%CI: 1.166-4.396, P=0.016), people staying in air condition room(OR=2.053, 95%CI: 1.048～4.020, P=0.036)were more significantly associated with dry eye.

CONCLUSION: Type A behavior pattern, using visual display terminal more than 6h and staying in air condition room may be independent risk factors for dry eye.