| Literature DB >> 33935524 |
Qiao-Ping Li1, Jing Li1, Hong-Ying Pan2.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: This study aims to explore the effects of an online home nursing care model application on patients with traumatic spinal cord injury (TSCI).Entities:
Keywords: Oswestry Disability Index; SF-36; home nursing care; online; spinal cord injury
Year: 2021 PMID: 33935524 PMCID: PMC8079355 DOI: 10.2147/RMHP.S301874
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Risk Manag Healthc Policy ISSN: 1179-1594
Clinical Data of 80 Patients Enrolled in the Study
| Index | Control Group (40 Cases) | Observation Group (40 Cases) | t/ | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Age | 17~69 (59.1) | 23~72 (57.8) | 0.61 | 0.543 |
| Cause of the injury | – | – | 0.00 | 1.000 |
| Traffic accident injury | 19 | 22 | – | – |
| Falling injury | 15 | 13 | – | – |
| Heavy object injury | 6 | 5 | – | – |
| Gender | – | – | 0.00 | 1.000 |
| Male | 26 | 28 | – | – |
| Female | 14 | 12 | – | – |
| Location of the injury | – | – | 0.00 | 1.000 |
| Cervical segment | 15 | 13 | – | – |
| Thoracic segment | 19 | 18 | – | – |
| Lumbar segment | 6 | 9 | – | – |
| Frankel classification | – | – | 0.00 | 1.000 |
| A | 6 | 5 | – | – |
| B | 12 | 10 | – | – |
| C | 11 | 13 | – | – |
| D | 7 | 7 | – | – |
| E | 4 | 5 | – | – |
| Complications | – | – | 0.894 | 0.465 |
| Primary hypertension | 9 | 6 | – | – |
| Diabetes | 5 | 4 | – | – |
Notes: Data were analyzed using statistical software SPSS17.0. Measurement data were expressed as mean ± standard deviation (x ± SD), and compared between the two groups using the t-test. Count data were expressed as a (%) rate and compared between groups using the X2 test. P<0.05 was considered statistically significant.
Incidence of Complications in Two Groups of Patients
| Group | Number of Cases | Pressure Sores | Constipation | Joint Stiffness | Muscle Contracture | Foot Drop |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Control group | 40 | 11 | 6 | 7 | 4 | 4 |
| Observation group | 40 | 2 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 |
| – | 7.44 | 3.914 | 5.000 | 4.211 | 4.211 | |
| – | 0.006 | 0.048 | 0.025 | 0.04 | 0.04 |
Notes: Data were analyzed using statistical software SPSS17.0. Measurement data were expressed as mean ± standard deviation (x ± SD), and compared between the two groups using the t-test. Count data were expressed as a (%) rate and compared between groups using the X2 test. P<0.05 was considered statistically significant.
Comparison of ODI Between the Two Groups
| Group | Number of Cases | ODI |
|---|---|---|
| Control group | 40 | 30.1±4.44 |
| Observation group | 40 | 22.9±5.0 |
| – | −6.781 | |
| – | 0.000 |
Notes: Data were analyzed using statistical software SPSS17.0. Measurement data were expressed as mean ± standard deviation (x ± SD), and compared between the two groups using the t-test. Count data were expressed as a (%) rate and compared between groups using the X2 test. P<0.05 was considered statistically significant.
Comparison of the Quality of Life Between the Two Groups
| Group | Number of Cases | SF-36 |
|---|---|---|
| Control group | 40 | 63.2±7.8 |
| Observation group | 40 | 75.8±6.0 |
| – | 8.112 | |
| – | 0.000 |
Notes: Data were analyzed using statistical software SPSS17.0. Measurement data were expressed as mean ± standard deviation (x ± SD), and compared between the two groups using the t-test. Count data were expressed as a (%) rate and compared between groups using the X2 test. P<0.05 was considered statistically significant.