基于老年综合评估同伴教育对老年骨质疏松患者的护理疗效与经济成本分析研究

Analysis of nursing efficacy and economic cost of peer education for elderly patients with osteoporosis based on comprehensive assessment of elderly people

目的研究基于老年综合评估同伴教育对老年骨质疏松患者的护理疗效与经济成本。方法选取2016年3月至2018年10月绵阳市第三人民医院收治的120例老年骨质疏松患者为研究对象,使用随机数字表法分为对照组和观察组,每组60例。观察组患者采取基于老年综合评估同伴教育的护理模式,对照组患者采取常规健康教育护理模式。2组患者均干预12周,比较2组的护理疗效、骨质疏松知晓度、骨质疏松效能以及经济成本之间的差异。结果护理干预前,2组患者的根骨定量超声传导速度(SOS)、简易躯体能力测试(SPPB)以及日常生活能力量表(ADL)之间的差异无统计学意义(P>0.05);护理干预后,2组患者的SOS、SPPB、ADL均显著改善,且观察组患者的SOS[(1 450.15±23.05)m/s]、ADL[(85.23±20.14)分]水平高于对照组[(1 371.16±22.06)m/s、(75.46±20.13)分],SPPB[(18.33±1.14)分]低于对照组[(20.46±1.13)分],差异具有统计学意义(P<0.05)。干预前,2组患者的骨质疏松相关知识、危险因素相关知识、运动知识、钙知识、骨质疏松效能、运动效能以及钙效能评分之间差异无统计学意义(P>0.05);干预后,2组患者的相关评分均显著提升,且观察组患者的相关评分高于对照组,差异具有统计学意义(P<0.05)。2组患者在完好状态(WELL)下,经济效应成本之间差异无统计学意义(P>0.05);当患者发生椎体骨折(VF)、腕骨骨折(WF)、髋部骨折(HF)等情况后,观察组的成本效应值高于对照组,差异具有统计学意义(P<0.05)。结论对于骨质疏松患者,及时开展群体性同伴教育,针对患者在老年评估后存在的问题及时采取干预,能有效提升患者的护理疗效,建议临床推广。

Objective To investigate nursing efficacy and economic cost of peer education for elderly patients with osteoporosis.Methods One hundred and twenty patients with osteoporosis treated in the hospital from March 2016 to October 2018 were selected as research subjects. The patients were equally and randomly divided into 2 groups. The patients in the observation group received the nursing mode based on the comprehensive evaluation of peer education for the elderly, while the patients in the control group were given the routine health education nursing mode. The patients in both groups all received intervention for 12 weeks. Then, the differences in nursing efficacy, osteoporosis knowledge, effect on osteoporosis and economic cost were compared between the patients of the 2 groups.Results After nursing intervention, significant improvement could be found in SOS, SPPB and activities of daily life(ADL) all improved significantly(P<0.05). The levels of SOS[(1 450.15±23.05)m/s] and ADL(85.23±20.14) in the patients of the observation group were obviously higher than those of the control group [(1 371.16±22.06)m/s, 75.46±20.13](P<0.05), while its SPPB level(18.33±1.14) was significantly lower than that of the control group(20.46±1.13)(P<0.05). The scores of knowledge in osteoporosis, risk factors and exercise, as well as the effects on osteoporosis, exercise and calcium all significantly improved(P<0.05), with those of the observation group being obviously higher than those of the control group(P<0.05). When the patients of the 2 group were all at good conditions, there was no statistical difference in cost-effectiveness. When vertebral fracture(VF), wrist fracture(WF), hip fracture(HF) occurred, the cost-effectiveness of the observation group was significantly higher than that of the control group(P<0.05).Conclusion For patients with osteoporosis, group peer education should be carried out in time. Timely intervention based on the problems that existed after evaluation could effectively improve nursing efficacy. For this reason, it is worth further clinical promotion.