论文部分内容阅读
目的探讨综合干预的运用对慢性病患者自我效能、生活质量及家庭功能的影响。方法选择2013年5月—2015年10月在东营市第二人民医院就诊的140例慢性病患者为研究对象,采用随机数表法分为观察组和对照组,每组70例,观察组给予慢性病综合干预,对照组进行常规的用药、运动、饮食指导,比较两组慢性病患者自我效能及家庭功能。采用SPSS20.0统计软件进行统计分析,计量资料用均数±标准差(xˉ±s)表示,采用t检验,计数资料用率(%)表示,采用χ2检验,P<0.05为差异有统计学意义。结果干预前,两组患者自我效能感和家庭功能评分比较差异无统计学意义(P>0.05)。观察组自我效能感为(3.75±0.98)分、家庭功能为(8.56±2.17)分,对照组分别为(3.14±1.01)分、(6.32±1.84)分,观察组改善明显优于对照组,差异有统计学意义(P<0.05)。综合干预后观察组患者情绪角色、心理健康、疼痛、躯体角色、躯体功能、社会功能、活力、总健康评分分别为:(86.2±6.6)、(85.8±6.7)、(83.4±6.6)、(87.4±6.7)、(86.5±8.2)、(83.2±6.6)、(76.4±5.7)、(85.3±7.2)分,各项生活质量评分均明显优于对照组,对比差异有统计学意义(P<0.05)。结论综合干预在慢性病患者中运用有助于改善患者自我效能和家庭功能,提高患者生活质量。
Objective To explore the effect of comprehensive intervention on self-efficacy, quality of life and family function in patients with chronic diseases. Methods A total of 140 patients with chronic diseases who were treated in the Second People’s Hospital of Dongying from May 2013 to October 2015 were selected as the observation group and the control group by random number table. Each group was given 70 cases of chronic diseases Comprehensive intervention, the control group for conventional medication, exercise, diet guidance, self-efficacy and family function in patients with chronic diseases were compared. SPSS20.0 statistical software was used for statistical analysis. The measurement data were expressed as mean ± standard deviation (xˉ ± s), t test was used and count data (%) was used. Chi-square test was used. P <0.05 was considered statistically significant significance. Results Before intervention, there was no significant difference in self-efficacy and family function scores between the two groups (P> 0.05). The self-efficacy was (3.75 ± 0.98) in the observation group and (8.56 ± 2.17) in the family, and (3.14 ± 1.01) and (6.32 ± 1.84) in the control group respectively. The improvement in the observation group was significantly better than that in the control group, The difference was statistically significant (P <0.05). The scores of emotional role, mental health, pain, body function, body function, social function, vitality and total health score in the observation group were (86.2 ± 6.6), (85.8 ± 6.7), (83.4 ± 6.6) and 87.4 ± 6.7), (86.5 ± 8.2), (83.2 ± 6.6), (76.4 ± 5.7) and (85.3 ± 7.2) points respectively. All the quality of life scores were significantly better than those of the control group (P <0.05). Conclusion The use of comprehensive intervention in patients with chronic diseases can help to improve patients’ self-efficacy and family functions and improve their quality of life.