论文部分内容阅读
目的探讨延续个性化护理干预对阿尔茨海默病患者运动功能和日常生活活动能力的影响。方法选择2013年1月—2015年6月收治的阿尔茨海默病患者80例作为研究对象,随机分为对照组和观察组各40例。对照组给予常规护理,观察组给予延续个性化护理干预,两组均干预3个月。采用健康状况调查问卷SF-36对两组患者进行干预前后的生存质量分析,FMA评分评估肢体运动功能,以日常生活能力量表评估患者的生活能力,使用简易智能状态检查量表对患者治疗前后的认知功能进行评测。计量资料组间比较采用t检验,组内比较采用配对t检验,等级资料采用秩和检验,P<0.05为差异有统计学意义。结果治疗后3个月,观察组与对照组心理健康、情绪角色、躯体功能、社会功能、生命力、总体健康得分分别为(90.2±10.2)、(93.2±10.5)、(92.0±14.6)、(94.3±15.6)、(92.4±10.5)、(96.1±12.0)、(34.6±12.6)、(25.2±12.3)、(22.3±13.4)、(45.1±14.6)、(33.2±12.6)、(24.6±12.3)分,与治疗前的(15.3±1.3)、(11.2±1.5)、(10.6±1.8)、(11.5±1.8)、(11.0±1.3)、(12.0±1.3)、(15.8±1.2)、(11.0±1.3)、(10.9±1.9)、(11.2±1.6)、(11.6±1.8)、(12.0±1.6)分比较差异均有统计学意义(均P<0.05)。治疗后6个月,观察组与对照组心理健康、情绪角色、躯体功能、社会功能、生命力、总体健康得分分别为(94.8±16.8)、(96.2±18.2)、(95.3±15.3)、(96.2±16.3)、(97.2±13.2)、(97.2±13.2)、(36.5±15.6)、(29.6±12.3)、(28.3±12.0)、(49.2±12.5)、(39.4±15.3)、(25.4±13.0)分,与治疗前比较差异均有统计学意义(均P<0.05)。治疗后3、6个月观察组各生存质量评分均优于对照组,差异均有统计学意义(均P<0.05)。治疗后,对照组认知功能与运动功能评估得分分别为(25.14±2.26)、(26.12±2.09)分,均低于观察组的(28.25±1.41)、(29.41±2.44)分,差异均有统计学意义(均P<0.05)。治疗后观察组完全依赖1例,重度依赖2例,中度依赖4例,轻度依赖16例,完全独立17例;对照组完全依赖5例,重度依赖9例,中度依赖10例,轻度依赖7例,完全独立9例;两组生活能力比较差异有统计学意义(P<0.05)。结论对阿尔茨海默病患者实施延续个性化护理干预,可更好地提高患者的日常生活能力、肢体运动功能、认知功能,对患者生存质量的改善具有重要的临床意义。
Objective To explore the effect of continuation of personalized nursing intervention on motor function and activities of daily living in patients with Alzheimer’s disease. Methods Eighty patients with Alzheimer’s disease who were admitted from January 2013 to June 2015 were randomly divided into control group and observation group of 40 cases. The control group was given routine care, and the observation group was given continuous personalized nursing intervention. Both groups intervened for 3 months. The health status questionnaire SF-36 was used to analyze the quality of life of the two groups before and after intervention. The FMA score was used to evaluate the motor function of the limbs. The daily living ability scale was used to assess the patients ’living ability. The patients’ The cognitive function of the evaluation. The t test was used to compare the measurement data, the paired t test was used to compare the data of the measurement group, and rank sum test was used to classify the data. P <0.05 was considered statistically significant. Results At 3 months after treatment, the scores of mental health, emotional function, physical function, social function, vitality and general health in observation group and control group were (90.2 ± 10.2), (93.2 ± 10.5), (92.0 ± 14.6), 94.3 ± 15.6, 92.4 ± 10.5, 96.1 ± 12.0, 34.6 ± 12.6, 25.2 ± 12.3, 22.3 ± 13.4, 45.1 ± 14.6, 33.2 ± 12.6, (11.3 ± 1.3), (12.0 ± 1.3), (15.8 ± 1.2), (12.3 ± 1.3), (11.2 ± 1.5) (11.0 ± 1.3), (10.9 ± 1.9), (11.2 ± 1.6), (11.6 ± 1.8) and (12.0 ± 1.6) points respectively (all P <0.05). Six months after treatment, the scores of mental health, emotional function, physical function, social function, vitality and overall health in observation group and control group were (94.8 ± 16.8), (96.2 ± 18.2), (95.3 ± 15.3) and ± 16.3, 97.2 ± 13.2, (36.5 ± 15.6), (29.6 ± 12.3), (28.3 ± 12.0), (49.2 ± 12.5), (39.4 ± 15.3), (25.4 ± 13.0 ) Points, compared with before treatment were statistically significant differences (all P <0.05). The quality of life of the observation group at 3 and 6 months after treatment was better than that of the control group (all P <0.05). After treatment, the scores of cognitive function and motor function in the control group were (25.14 ± 2.26) and (26.12 ± 2.09) points, respectively, which were lower than those in the observation group (28.25 ± 1.41 and 29.41 ± 2.44) Statistical significance (all P <0.05). After treatment, the observation group was completely dependent on 1 case, severe dependence on 2 cases, moderate dependence on 4 cases, mild dependence on 16 cases and completely independent on 17 cases. The control group completely dependent on 5 cases, severe dependence on 9 cases, moderate dependence on 10 cases The degree of dependence in 7 cases, completely independent of 9 cases; two groups of living ability difference was statistically significant (P <0.05). Conclusion Continuation of personalized nursing intervention on patients with Alzheimer’s disease can improve the daily living ability, limb motor function and cognitive function of patients, and has important clinical significance for the improvement of patients’ quality of life.