检索规则说明:AND代表“并且”;OR代表“或者”;NOT代表“不包含”;(注意必须大写,运算符两边需空一格)
检 索 范 例 :范例一: (K=图书馆学 OR K=情报学) AND A=范并思 范例二:J=计算机应用与软件 AND (U=C++ OR U=Basic) NOT M=Visual
作 者:张印法[1] 马中亮[2] 杨月欣[1] 韩军花[1] 王竹[1]
机构地区:[1]中国预防医学科学院营养与食品卫生研究所,北京100050 [2]北京市第六医院
出 处:《卫生研究》2002年第6期445-448,共4页Journal of Hygiene Research
摘 要:为了考察糖尿病患者对食物血糖生成指数 (GI)知识的接受性 ,选择了 72例糖尿病病例作为研究对象 ,随机分为 2组。试验组以不同食物的血糖生成指数为主要教育材料 (GI组 ) ;对照组以北京市某医院公开出版的食物交换份 (FEL)为主要教育材料 (FEL组 )。采用课堂讲座、个别辅导、电话咨询等方式教育 5个月。观察教育前后研究对象对所授知识的知晓率、食物选择和血糖变化等。教育 5个月后 ,GI组对GI问题平均正确回答率由 0 %提高到 92 2 % (P <0 0 1) ,FEL组对FEL问题的平均正确回答率由 6 5 %提高到79 4% (P <0 0 1) ;在谷类食物的种类及制作方法、水果类、豆类及其制品的选择上 ,GI组均优于FEL组 (P <0 0 1) ;GI组空腹血糖 (FBG)、餐后 2h血糖 (2hPBG)平均各下降了 (15 1± 2 1 2 ) %、(16 2± 2 4 4) % (P均 <0 0 1) ,FEL组FBG、2hPBG平均各下降了 (10 6± 2 1 4) %、(15 1± 30 1) % (P均 <0 0 1)。结果提示 ,在糖尿病营养教育中 ,患者对GI知识的接受性较好 。Glycemic index (GI) is an important conception for the diabetic dietary education in the West. To examine the acceptation of GI for diabetic patients, seventy-two subjects with diabetes were recruited and randomly assigned into two groups. The test group (group GI) mainly learned the knowledge about GI of food. The control group (group FEL) mainly learned the knowledge about Food Exchange List(FEL) of food. Outcomes were assessed by the change of dietary knowledge, attitude and practice of subjects and blood glucose including fasting blood glucose(FBG)and 2-h postprandial blood glucose (2hPBG). The study period lasted for five months. The percentages of correct answer for GI questions increased significantly from 0 % before education to 92.2% after education(P<0.01) in group GI. The percentages of correct answer for FE questions increased from 6.5% to 79.4% (P<0.01) in group ES. The quality and quantity of food for almost all subjects become more rational than before. Compared with the FEL group, subjects of the group GI selected more often low-GI cereal, fruit, bean and its products which are beneficial to glycemic control. FBG and 2hPBG in the group GI were lower (15.1±21.2)% and (16.2±24.4)% (P<0.01)respectively than before education. FBG and 2hPBG in the group FEL were lower (10.6±21.4)% and (15.1±30.1)% (P<0.01)respectively than before. The results indicated that the knowledge of food GI might be more easily understood and accepted by diabetic subjects. They are more beneficial to improve dietary practice and easier to be used widely for the education in hospitals and communities.
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...
正在链接到云南高校图书馆文献保障联盟下载...
云南高校图书馆联盟文献共享服务平台 版权所有©
您的IP:216.73.216.28