期刊文献+

Orem 自理理论在颈动脉血管成形支架置入术后患者康复中的应用 被引量:1

原文传递
导出
摘要 目的:探讨应用Orem自理理论进行护理干预对颈动脉血管成形支架置入( CAS )术后患者康复的影响。方法将80例行CAS术的患者按照住院先后顺序分为观察组40例和对照组40例。观察组应用Orem自理理论进行护理,对照组按照常规护理程序进行护理。应用自我护理能力测定量表( ESCA )和简明健康测量量表( SF-36)对患者手术前后的自理能力和生活质量进行评估。结果两组患者手术前ESCA及SF-36量表总分及各维度得分比较差异无统计学意义(P>0.05)。应用自护理论进行护理干预后,观察组患者自护能力总分、自我概念自护责任感、自我技能、健康知识水平得分分别为(109.74±11.43),(27.18±3.92),(29.76±5.74),(40.11±4.16),(46.63±3.09)分,明显高于对照组(101.05±10.51),(21.19±4.06),(18.91±7.25),(27.44±4.71),(36.03±3.65)分,两组比较差异有统计学意义( t值分别为4.108,3.251,-7.261,-9.752,-8.842;P<0.05)。干预后观察组SF-60量表总体健康、生理功能、生理职能、躯体疼痛、情感职能、精力、社会功能及精神健康维度得分分别为(65.11±8.06),(80.04±24.91),(52.94±14.08),(78.32±16.23),(70.23±21.68),(64.17±11.38),(62.07±11.80),(78.67±8.95)分,明显高于对照组的(54.21±7.11),(74.21±24.22),(38.59±11.54),(55.66±14.49),(56.31±21.64),(58.34±10.29),(54.57±10.14),(68.58±8.11)分,两组比较差异有统计学意义(t值分别为6.282,2.053,4.026,5.304,2.231,2.742,1.762,5.065;P<0.05)。结论运用Orem自理理论进行护理干预能使患者掌握自我护理的方法和技巧,可充分发挥患者的最大自理潜能,促进患者康复,提高生活质量。
出处 《中华现代护理杂志》 2013年第34期4266-4269,共4页 Chinese Journal of Modern Nursing
  • 相关文献

参考文献11

  • 1Goessens BM, Visseren FL, Kappelle LI, et al. Asympot,atic carotid artery stenosis and the risk of new vascular event, in patients with manifest arterial disease : the SMART study. Stroke, 2007,38 ( 5 ) : 1470-1475.
  • 2American College of Cardiology Foundation, American Society of Interventional & Therapeutic Neuroradlology, Society fbrCardiovascular Angiography and Interventions, et al. ACCF/ SCAI/SVMB/SIR/ASITN 2007 clinical expert consensus document on carotid stenting: a report of the American College of Cardiology Foundation Task Force on Clinical Expert Consensus Documents (ACCF/SCAI/SVMB/SIR/ASITN Clinical Expert Consensus Document Committee on Carotid Stenting). J Am Coll Cardio1,2007,49 ( 1 ) : 126170.
  • 3International Carotid Stenting Study investigators, Ederle J, Dobson J, et al. International Carotid Stenting Study investigators. Carotid artery stenting compared with endarterectomy in patients with symptomatic carotid stenosis (International Carotid Stenting Study) :an interim analysis of a randomized controlled trial. Lancet, 2010,375(9719) :985-997.
  • 4Ederle J, Bonati LH, Dobson J, et al. Endovascular treatment with angioplasty or stenting versus endarterectomy in patients with carotid artery stenosis in the Carotid and Vertebra.[ Artery Transluminal Angioplasty Study ( CAVATAS ) : long-term follow- up of a randomized trial. Lancet Neurol,2009,8 (10) :898-907.
  • 5Gurm HS,Yadav JS,Faryad P,et al. Long-term results of carotid stenting versus endarterectomy in high-risk patients. N Engl JMed,2008,358 ( 15 ) : 1572-1579.
  • 6Doig D, Brown MM. Carotid stenting versus endarterectomy. Annu Rev Med ,2012,63:259-276.
  • 7Keamey BY, Fleiseher BJ. Development of an instrument to measure exercise of serf-care agency. Res Nurs Health, 1979,2 ( 1 ) :25-34.
  • 8Danquah FV, Wasserman J, Meininger J, et al. Quality of life measures for patients on hemodialysis: a review of psychometric properties. Nephrol Nurs J,2010,37(3) :255-269, quiz 270.
  • 9Gran AI, Weimar C, Buggle F, et al. Risk factors, outcome, and treatment in subtypes of stroke: the German Stroke data bank, 2001,32( 11 ) :2559-2566.
  • 10胡晓林,王世平.自护理论在老年护理中的应用[J].现代护理,2005,11(24):2102-2103. 被引量:15

二级参考文献22

共引文献23

同被引文献7

引证文献1

相关作者

内容加载中请稍等...

相关机构

内容加载中请稍等...

相关主题

内容加载中请稍等...

浏览历史

内容加载中请稍等...
;
使用帮助 返回顶部