机构地区:[1]山东省青州市人民医院公共卫生科,山东青州262500 [2]山东省青州市人民医院检验科,山东青州262500 [3]山东省寿光市人民医院感染性疾病科,山东寿光262700
出 处:《系统医学》2019年第19期122-124,共3页Systems Medicine
摘 要:目的探讨自拟中药方联合认知行为干预在黄疸型肝炎患者中的临床治疗效果及对情绪状态、依从性的影响。方法选择2017年1月-2019年1月治疗的黄疸型肝炎患者80例作为对象,随机数字表分为对照组(n=40)和观察组(n=40)。对照组给予常规保肝治疗,观察组在对照组基础上联合自拟中药方、认知行为干预,1个月治疗后对患者效果进行评估,比较两组肝功能水平、情绪状态及治疗依从性。结果观察组治疗后1个月的ALT为(54.35±4.27)U/L,对照组为(143.69±16.72)U/L (t=32.743,P=0.000);AST为(46.56±4.61)U/L,对照组为(188.49±13.26)U/L(t=81.926,P=0.000);TBIL为(17.23±4.37)mmol/L,对照组为(34.39±4.98)mmol/L(t=16.381,P=0.000);观察组治疗后1个月后的强迫评分为(0.68±0.11)分,对照组为(1.63±0.34)分(t=16.814,P=0.000);抑郁评分为(0.83±0.13)分,对照组为(1.51±0.29)分(t=13.533,P=0.000);敌对评分为(0.74±0.12)分,对照组为(1.60±0.32)分(t=15.915,P=0.000);焦虑评分为(0.91±0.16)分,对照组为(1.56±0.25)分(t=13.850,P=0.000)。观察组干预后按时用药依从性(95.00%)高于对照组(80.00%)(χ^2=5.989,P=0.041);遵医治疗依从性(92.50%)高于对照组(82.50%)(χ^2=7.461,P=0.038);定期复查依从性(97.50%)高于对照组(77.50%)(χ^2=4.504,P=0.025);康复锻炼依从性(90.00%)高于对照组(80.00%)(χ^2=5.635,P=0.046);遵医饮食依从性(92.50%)高于对照组(77.50%)(χ^2=5.612,P=0.028)。结论将自拟中药方联合认知行为干预用于黄疸型肝炎患者中有助于改善患者肝功能水平,减轻患者情绪状态,能提高患者治疗依从性,值得推广应用。Objective To investigate the clinical therapeutic effect of self-made Chinese herbal medicine combined with cognitive behavioral intervention in patients with jaundice hepatitis and its influence on emotional state and compliance. Methods Eighty patients with jaundice hepatitis treated from January 2017 to January 2019 were enrolled. The random number table was divided into control group(n=40) and observation group(n=40). The control group was given conventional liver protection treatment. The observation group was combined with self-made Chinese medicine prescription and cognitive behavior intervention on the basis of the control group. The effect of the patient was evaluated after one month of treatment. The liver function level, emotional state and treatment compliance were compared between the two groups. Results The ALT of the observation group was(54.35±4.27)U/L at 1 month after treatment, and the control group was(143.69±16.72) U/L(t=32.743, P=0.000);AST was(46.56±4.61)U/L, the control group was(188.49±13.26) U/L(t=81.926, P=0.000);the TBIL was(17.23±4.37) mmol/L, and the control group was(34.39±4.98)mmol/L(t=16.381, P=0.000);the obsessive score of the observation group after 1 month of treatment was(0.68± 0.11) points, the control group was(1.63 ± 0.34)points(t=16.814, P=0.000);the depression score was(0.83±0.13)points, the control group was(1.51±0.29) points(t=13.533, P=0.000);the hostile score was(0.74±0.12)points, and the control group was(1.60±0.32) points(t=15.915, P=0.000). The anxiety score was(0.91±0.16) points and the control group was(1.56±0.25)points(t=13.850, P=0.000). The compliance of the observation group after the interven tion(95.00%) was higher than that of the control group(80.00%)(χ^2=5.989, P=0.041);compliance with the treatment(92.50%) was higher than that of the control group(82.50%)(χ^2=7.461, P=0.038);regular follow-up(97.50%) was higher than the control group(77.50%)(χ^2=4.504, P =0.025);rehabilitation exercise compliance(90.00%) was higher than the control group
正在载入数据...
正在载入数据...
正在载入数据...
正在载入数据...
正在载入数据...
正在载入数据...
正在载入数据...