情绪干预对酒精所致的精神和行为障碍患者效果评价

The effect of emotional intervention on alcohol -induced mental disorders patients

目的评价情绪干预对酒精所致的精神和行为障碍患者情绪状态、躯体症状及健康状态影响，为患者康复提供指导。方法选择连续性纳入的确诊为酒精所致的精神和行为障碍患者118例，采用数字表法随机分为情绪干预组56例与常规干预组62例，分别进行常规干预与情绪干预，干预4周后，采用Zung焦虑自评量表、抑郁自评量表、社会功能缺陷筛选量表（SDSS）、简明精神评定量表（BPRS）和健康状况量表SCL-90进行效果评价。结果干预4周后，情绪干预组失访率3．57％，常规干预组失访率8．06％；情绪干预组：焦虑[干预前后差值=（19．90±3．18）]、抑郁[干预前后差值=（23．02±4．26）]、BPRS[干预前后差值=（15．46±3．29）]、SDSS[干预前后差值=（1．89±0．91）]、躯体化[干预前后差值=（0．48±0．24）]、强迫[干预前后差值=（0．29±0．22）]、人际关系敏感[干预前后差值=（0．30±0．24）]、抑郁[干预前后差值=（0．26±0．24）]、焦虑[干预前后差值=（0．31±0．19）]、敌对[干预前后差值=（0．16±0．17）]、恐怖[干预前后差值=（0．32±0．20）]、偏执[干预前后差值=（0．36±0．29）]、精神病性[干预前后差值=（0．35±0．25）]与常规干预组焦虑[干预前后差值=（8．27±1．72）]、抑郁[干预前后差值=（12．31±2．64）]、BPRS[干预前后差值=（11．69±4．17）]、SDSS[干预前后差值=（1．52±0．84）]、躯体化[干预前后差值=（0．25±0．17）]、强迫[干预前后差值=（0．12±0．14）]、人际关系敏感[干预前后差值=（0．19±0．18）]、抑郁[干预前后差值=（0．18±0．16）]、焦虑[干预前后差值=（0．15±0．13）]、敌对[干预前后差值=（0．09±0．07）]、恐怖[干预前后差值=（0．11±0．12）]、偏执[干预前后差值=（0．17±0．14）]、精神病性[干预前后差值=（0．16±0．15）]相比，差异均有统计学意义（焦虑：t=4．159，P=0．000；抑郁：t=16．013，P=0．000；BPRS：t=5．269，P=0．000；SDSS：t=2．227，P=0．028；躯体化：t=5．851，P=0．000；强迫：t=4．883，P=0．000；人际关系敏感：t=2．741，P=0．001；抑郁：t=2．076，P=0．004；焦虑：t=5．202，P=0．000；敌对：t=2．864，P=0．005；恐怖：t=6．749，P=0．000；偏执：t=4．432，P=0．000；精神病性：t=4．885，P=0．000）。结论情绪干预对酒精所致的精神和行为障碍患者情绪状态、躯体症状及健康状态具有积极影响，值得临床推广应用。

Objective To observe the influence of emotional intervention on alcohol - induced mental disorders patients and provide guidance for health intervention. Methods 118 patients with alcohol - induced mental disorders were divided into emotional intervention group and conventional intervention group. After 4 weeks, the effect was evaluated by anxiety, depression, SDSS, BPRS, SCL - 90. Results After 4 weeks intervention, the lost rate of follow up in the emotional intervention group was 3.57% ,which in the conventional intervention group was 8.06%. In the emotional intervention group, the differential values before and after intervention of anxiety, depression, BPRS, SDSS, somatization, compulsion, interpersonal relationship sensitivity, depression dimension, anxiety dimension, rivalry, consternation,crankiness and spirit were （ 19.90 ± 3.18）, （23.02 ± 4.26）, （ 15.46 ± 3.29）, （ 1.89± 0.91 ）, （0.48±0.24）,（0.29±0.22）,（0.30±0.24）,（0.26±0.24）,（0.31±0. 19）,（0.16±0. 17）,（0.32±0. 20）, （0.36±0.29 ）, （0.35±0.25 ） respectively. Compared with the conventional intervention group, the differential values were higher than conventional intervention group [ （8.27 ± 1.72）, （ 12.31 ± 2.64）, （ 11.69 ± 4. 17）, （1.52 ±0.84）,（0. 25 ±0.17）,（0.12 ±0.14）,（0.19±0.18）,（0.18±0. 16）, （0.15±0.13）,（0.09±0.07）,（0.11± 0. 12）, （0. 17± 0. 14）, （0. 16± 0. 15 ）]. There were significant differences between the two groups （anxiety：t =4. 159 ,P =0. 000 ;depression ：t = 16. 013 ,P =0.000 ; BPRS：t =5. 269 ,P =0.000 ;SDSS：t =2.227,P = 0. 028 ; somatization： t = 5.851, P = 0.000; compulsion ： t = 4. 883, P = 0.000 ; interpersonal relationship sensitivity： t = 2.741 ,P =0.001 ; depression： t =2. 076,P = O. 004 ; anxiety： t =5. 202,P =0. 000; rivalry ： t =2. 864,P =0. 005; consternation： t = 6. 749, P = 0. 000 ; crankiness ： t = 4. 432, P = 0. 000 ; spirit： t = 4. 885, P = 0. 000 ）. Conclusion Emotional intervention has positive effect on emotional states, somatic symptoms and quality of life, it is worthy of clinical promotion.