摘要
目的:观察社区干预-治未病模式预防脑卒中的效果。方法:从广州市越秀区大东街社区(A区)和白云区新市街社区(B区)筛选出脑卒中高危人群各200例,对A区中研究人群采取治未病+常规干预措施,对B区中研究人群采取常规干预措施,观察不同干预模式对脑卒中防治效果的影响。结果:①A区高危人群脑卒中KAP比B区脑卒中高危人群增高,而偏颇体质积分、危险因素控制水平则分别下降,两者统计学比较具有显著差异(P<0.05);②A区高危人群脑卒中发病率、致残率、死亡率较B区明显下降,两组比较具有显著差异;③治未病+常规干预组预防脑卒中效益成本比为3.77。结论:脑卒中社区干预治未病模式的运作能明显降低脑卒中的发病率,致残率和死亡率,发挥社区卫生服务中心服务功能,减轻家庭和社会的经济负担,促进社会和谐。其运作简便,居民容易接受,可复制性强,易于推广。
Objective: To observe the preventive effect of community intervention and preventive treatment pattern on stroke.Methods: 200 cases of high risk population with stroke were screened from Yuexiu District Street Community(A) and Baiyun District Xinshi Street Community(B).The study population in District A were given the preventive treatment and conventional interventions,while those in District B were only given the conventional interventions,the effect of different intervention models on stroke were observed.Results: The stroke KAP of the study population in District A was higher than that in District B,while the biased physique integral and control level of risk factors decreased,both had a statistically significant difference(P&lt;0.05);② The stroke incidence,disability rate and death rate of the study population in District A obviously decreased compared with those in District B,two groups had significant difference;the benefit cost ratio of the preventive treatment and conventional intervention group for stroke prevention was 3.77.Conclusion: The community intervention and preventive treatment pattern for stroke can significantly reduce the stroke incidence,disability rate and death rate,exert the service function of community health service center,reduce the economic burden of family and society,promote the social harmony.It is simple,easy for the residents to accept the operation,and it can be copied and it′s easy to promote.
出处
《河南中医》
2013年第7期1051-1054,共4页
Henan Traditional Chinese Medicine
基金
广州市越秀区科技计划项目(编号:2010-WS-003)
关键词
脑卒中
社区干预-治未病模式
KAP
偏颇体质积分
危险因素控制水平
stroke
community intervention and preventive treatment pattern
KAP
biased physique integral
control level of the risk factors