论文部分内容阅读
目的探讨社区居民原发性骨质疏松症社区干预方式。方法整群随机抽取的4个社区人群中符合纳入标准的825名社区居民作为基线调查对象。各社区按居民小组分区以健康讲座、家庭访问、电话访谈、信函随访、定点咨询等方式开展干预,2a后进行效果调查,比较各种干预方式的即时效果、研究对象对干预信息的接受情况、社区医务人员对干预方式施行的可操作性评价及成本-效果分析。结果不同干预方式的人群接受率高低依次为电话访谈(94.0%)、家庭访问(89.2%)、健康讲座(70.6%)、信函随访(27.2%)、定点咨询(19.5%)。医务人员对干预方式施行的认可率高低依次为电话访谈(78.9%)、健康讲座(70.0%)、家庭访问(66.7%)、信函随访(22.2%)、定点咨询(15.0%)。电话访谈的成本-效果比最小(1.79),定点咨询的成本-效果比最大(13.79)。结论健康讲座、家庭访问、电话访谈适用于原发性骨质疏松症的社区干预工作。
Objective To explore community intervention for community-based primary osteoporosis. Methods A total of 825 community residents who met the inclusion criteria among the 4 community groups randomly selected from the entire population were selected as the baseline survey subjects. Community interventions were conducted according to health group, family visits, telephone interviews, correspondence follow-up and designated consultation according to the sub-districts of residents groups. After that, the effect survey was conducted to compare the immediate effects of various interventions, the acceptance of intervention information by the research subjects, The Community Medical Workers’ Opinions on the Operability of the Intervention and Cost - effectiveness Analysis. Results There were 94.0% of telephone interviews, 89.2% of family visits, 70.6% of health talks, 27.2% of follow-up letters and 19.5% of fixed-point consultation. The approval rate of medical staff on the way of intervention was telephone interviews (78.9%), health talks (70.0%), family visits (66.7%), follow-up letters (22.2%) and designated consultation (15.0%). The cost-effectiveness ratio of telephone interviews was the lowest (1.79), and the cost-effectiveness ratio of fixed point consultation was the highest (13.79). Conclusions Health talks, family visits and telephone interviews are suitable for community intervention in patients with primary osteoporosis.