| Literature DB >> 30065943 |
Jolanta Zwolińska1, Aneta Weres1, Justyna Wyszyńska1.
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Few studies evaluated the effects of spa therapy on pain perception and quality of life in older people with osteoarthritis. Therefore, the aim of the study was to evaluate the short- and long-term effects of spa therapy on quality of life and pain in patients aged 60 years and older with osteoarthritis.Entities:
Mesh:
Year: 2018 PMID: 30065943 PMCID: PMC6051296 DOI: 10.1155/2018/7492106
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Biomed Res Int Impact factor: 3.411
Figure 1Flow diagram of study population.
Detailed characteristics of the study group.
|
|
| % |
|---|---|---|
|
| ||
|
| ||
| Female | 43 | 61.4 |
| Male | 27 | 38.6 |
|
| ||
|
| ||
|
| ||
| City | 42 | 60.0 |
| Village | 28 | 40.0 |
|
| ||
|
| ||
|
| ||
| Horyniec Zdrój | 32 | 45.7 |
| Iwonicz Zdrój | 27 | 38.6 |
| Rymanów Zdrój | 11 | 15.7 |
|
| ||
|
| ||
|
| ||
| White-collar work | 36 | 51.4 |
| Blue-collar work | 30 | 42.9 |
| Mixed | 4 | 5.7 |
|
| ||
|
| ||
|
| ||
| Underweight | 1 | 1.4 |
| Normal | 19 | 27.1 |
| Overweight | 30 | 42.9 |
| Obesity | 20 | 28.6 |
Pain intensity in VAS and the Modified Laitinen Pain Questionnaire.
| Variable |
|
|
|
|
|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
| |||||
|
| |||||
| Assessment 1 | 5.5 | 5.5 | 1.9 | 0 | 9 |
| Assessment 2 | 4.0 | 4 | 2.3 | 0 | 10 |
| Assessment 3 | 2.5 | 2 | 2.1 | 0 | 7 |
| Assessment 2 versus assessment 1 | -1.4 | -1 | 2.2 | -8 | 5 |
| Assessment 3 versus assessment 2 | -1.5 | -1 | 2.1 | -7 | 2 |
| Assessment 3 versus assessment 1 | -3.0 | -3 | 2.2 | -9 | 2 |
|
| |||||
|
| |||||
|
| |||||
| Assessment 1 | 5.9 | 6 | 2.5 | 0 | 12 |
| Assessment 2 | 4.2 | 4 | 2.3 | 0 | 9 |
| Assessment 3 | 2.8 | 3 | 2.1 | 0 | 9 |
| Assessment 2 versus assessment 1 | -1.7 | -2 | 2.2 | -6 | 3 |
| Assessment 3 versus assessment 2 | -1.4 | -1 | 1.9 | -6 | 3 |
| Assessment 3 versus assessment 1 | -3.1 | -3 | 2.4 | -8 | 2 |
p is the probability value calculated using the Wilcoxon test.
Quality of life of the study group.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
| |||||
|
| |||||
| Assessment 1 | 59.5 | 60.7 | 10.9 | 35.7 | 85.7 |
| Assessment 2 | 59.0 | 60.7 | 10.0 | 28.6 | 85.7 |
| Assessment 3 | 60.9 | 60.7 | 7.6 | 42.9 | 78.6 |
| Assessment 2 versus assessment 1 ( | -0.5 | 0.0 | 10.6 | -21.4 | 25.0 |
| Assessment 3 versus assessment 2 ( | 1.9 | 0.0 | 9.2 | -25.0 | 32.1 |
| Assessment 3 versus assessment 1 ( | 1.4 | 0.0 | 10.3 | -21.4 | 28.6 |
|
| |||||
|
| |||||
|
| |||||
| Assessment 1 | 67.1 | 66.7 | 12.4 | 41.7 | 91.7 |
| Assessment 2 | 67.5 | 68.8 | 11.3 | 37.5 | 87.5 |
| Assessment 3 | 69.0 | 70.8 | 9.7 | 41.7 | 83.3 |
| Assessment 2 versus assessment 1 ( | 0.4 | 0.0 | 9.0 | -20.8 | 16.7 |
| Assessment 3 versus assessment 2 ( | 1.5 | 0.0 | 11.2 | -33.3 | 41.7 |
| Assessment 3 versus assessment 1 ( | 2.0 | 4.2 | 13.0 | -37.5 | 33.3 |
|
| |||||
|
| |||||
|
| |||||
| Assessment 1 | 76.1 | 75.0 | 17.1 | 41.7 | 100.0 |
| Assessment 2 | 77.5 | 83.3 | 16.4 | 41.7 | 100.0 |
| Assessment 3 | 81.1 | 83.3 | 14.7 | 25.0 | 100.0 |
| Assessment 2 versus assessment 1 ( | 1.4 | 0.0 | 12.3 | -33.3 | 33.3 |
| Assessment 3 versus assessment 2 | 3.6 | 0.0 | 11.1 | -16.7 | 33.3 |
| Assessment 3 versus assessment 1 | 5.0 | 0.0 | 14.3 | -33.3 | 41.7 |
|
| |||||
|
| |||||
|
| |||||
| Assessment 1 | 71.3 | 71.9 | 13.5 | 37.5 | 100.0 |
| Assessment 2 | 73.3 | 73.4 | 12.9 | 31.3 | 100.0 |
| Assessment | 79.4 | 81.3 | 9.8 | 40.6 | 96.9 |
| Assessment 2 versus assessment 1 ( | 2.0 | 0.0 | 12.1 | -25.0 | 31.3 |
| Assessment 3 versus assessment 2 | 6.2 | 6.3 | 10.0 | -18.8 | 37.5 |
| Assessment 3 versus assessment 1 | 8.1 | 6.3 | 12.8 | -15.6 | 50.0 |
p is the probability value calculated using the Wilcoxon test.