| Literature DB >> 34721637 |
Chun Yi1, Xiqiang Feng2, Yueshuang Yuan3.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To explore the influence of PDCA cycle nursing based on network service on the quality of life and nutritional status of hypertension patients in home care.Entities:
Year: 2021 PMID: 34721637 PMCID: PMC8553435 DOI: 10.1155/2021/6068876
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Evid Based Complement Alternat Med ISSN: 1741-427X Impact factor: 2.629
The information between the two groups (n, %).
| Information | Control group ( | Observation group ( |
|
|
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Gender | 0.348 | 0.555 | ||
| Male | 37 (63.79) | 40 (68.97) | ||
| Female | 21 (36.21) | 18 (31.03) | ||
| Age (years) | 0.180 | 0.672 | ||
| 66–70 | 44 (75.86) | 42 (72.41) | ||
| 71–75 | 14 (24.14) | 16 (27.59) | ||
| Course of disease (years) | 0.035 | 0.852 | ||
| ≤10 | 28 (48.28) | 27 (46.55) | ||
| >10 | 30 (51.72) | 31 (53.45) | ||
| Diabetic | 0.310 | 0.577 | ||
| With | 27 (46.55) | 30 (51.72) | ||
| Without | 31 (53.45) | 28 (48.28) | ||
| Hyperlipidemia | 0.035 | 0.852 | ||
| With | 32 (55.17) | 31 (53.45) | ||
| Without | 26 (44.83) | 27 (46.55) | ||
| Family history | 0.153 | 0.696 | ||
| With | 21 (36.21) | 19 (32.76) | ||
| Without | 37 (63.79) | 39 (67.24) | ||
| Education level | 0.347 | 0.951 | ||
| Primary school | 11 (18.97) | 10 (17.24) | ||
| Junior high school | 15 (25.86) | 16 (27.59) | ||
| High school or technical secondary school | 21 (36.21) | 19 (32.76) | ||
| College degree or above | 11 (18.97) | 13 (22.41) |
The blood pressure control effect between the two groups (n, %).
| Group | Markedly effective | Effective | Invalid | Total effective rate |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Control group ( | 22 (37.93) | 24 (41.38) | 12 (20.69) | 46 (79.31) |
| Observation group ( | 31 (53.45) | 23 (39.65) | 4 (6.90) | 54 (93.10) |
| | 4.640 | |||
| | 0.031 |
The quality of life between the two groups (n, ± s).
| Item | Control group ( | Observation group ( | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Before intervention | After intervention | Before intervention | After intervention | |
| Physical function | 67.89 ± 10.72 | 72.06 ± 8.94 | 68.44 ± 10.15 | 86.75 ± 8.30 |
| Psychological function | 77.18 ± 8.43 | 80.53 ± 8.17 | 77.02 ± 8.56 | 84.92 ± 7.84 |
| Social function | 72.63 ± 9.92 | 76.91 ± 8.20 | 72.57 ± 9.40 | 79.33 ± 7.96 |
| Living condition | 69.94 ± 11.35 | 74.25 ± 8.41 | 71.13 ± 10.63 | 80.50 ± 8.17 |
Note: compared with before intervention, P < 0.05; compared with the control group, #P < 0.05.
The nutritional status between the two groups (n, ± s).
| Item | Control group ( | Observation group ( | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Before intervention | After intervention | Before intervention | After intervention | |
| MIS system | 11.24 ± 3.87 | 9.85 ± 3.22 | 11.50 ± 3.69 | 7.66 ± 4.03 |
Note: compared with before intervention, P < 0.05; compared with the control group, #P < 0.05.
The emotional state between the two groups (n, ± s).
| Item | Control group ( | Observation group ( | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Before intervention | After intervention | Before intervention | After intervention | |
| SAS score | 52.46 ± 7.15 | 49.53 ± 8.32 | 51.97 ± 7.41 | 46.08 ± 8.77 |
| SDS score | 51.83 ± 7.30 | 48.06 ± 8.74 | 51.62 ± 7.59 | 44.81 ± 8.82 |
Note: compared with before intervention, P < 0.05; compared with the control group, #P < 0.05.