| Literature DB >> 34938419 |
Ming Shi1, Pengyu Zhang2, Ling Xia3, Zhiteng Wei4, Fangjie Bi5, Yujia Xu6, Pan Wang7.
Abstract
Objective: To explore the application of multimode health education combined with humanistic care in pain management of patients with femoral fracture and its influence on VAS score.Entities:
Mesh:
Year: 2021 PMID: 34938419 PMCID: PMC8687774 DOI: 10.1155/2021/1242481
Source DB: PubMed Journal: J Healthc Eng ISSN: 2040-2295 Impact factor: 2.682
Comparison of general data (n = 60).
| Observation indexes | Routine group | Combined group | X2/ |
|
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Age (years old) | 54.68 ± 5.36 | 55.21 ± 5.42 | 0.539 | 0.591 |
| BMI (kg/m2) | 23.46 ± 3.17 | 23.51 ± 3.22 | 0.086 | 0.932 |
|
| ||||
| Fracture sites | ||||
| Fracture of proximal femur | 23 (38.33) | 22 (36.67) | 0.036 | 0.850 |
| Femoral shaft fracture | 16 (26.67) | 18 (30) | 0.164 | 0.685 |
| Distal femoral fracture | 21 (35) | 20 (33.33) | 0.037 | 0.847 |
|
| ||||
| Gender | 0.333 | 0.564 | ||
| Male | 41 (68.33) | 38 (63.33) | ||
| Female | 19 (31.67) | 22 (36.67) | ||
|
| ||||
| Education degree | 0.137 | 0.711 | ||
| High school degree below | 36 (60) | 34 (56.67) | ||
| Junior high school degree and above | 24 (40) | 26 (43.33) | ||
|
| ||||
| Residence | 0.134 | 0.714 | ||
| Urban | 31 (51.67) | 33 (55) | ||
| Rural | 29 (48.33) | 27 (45) | ||
Figure 1Comparison of awareness rate of health knowledge (%). The abscissa indicates groups, and the ordinate indicates the percentage (%). In the routine group, 44 cases were qualified, with the awareness rate of health knowledge of 73.33%. In the combined group, 56 cases were qualified, with the awareness rate of health knowledge of 93.33%. Conspicuous difference in the awareness rate of health knowledge between the two groups (X2 = 8.640, P = 0.003).
Comparison of sitting durability between the two groups (n (%)).
| Group | Poor | Average | Good | Excellent |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Routine group ( | 8 (13.33) | 9 (15) | 10 (16.67) | 33 (55) |
| Combined group ( | 1 (1.67) | 5 (8.33) | 6 (10) | 48 (80) |
|
| 5.886 | 1.294 | 1.154 | 8.547 |
|
| 0.015 | 0.255 | 0.283 | 0.003 |
Comparison of joint range of motion between two groups (n (%)).
| Group | Poor | Average | Good | Excellent |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Routine group ( | 9 (15) | 19 (31.67) | 18 (30) | 14 (23.33) |
| Combined group ( | 2 (3.33) | 13 (21.67) | 20 (33.33) | 25 (41.67) |
|
| 4.904 | 1.564 | 0.154 | 4.596 |
|
| 0.027 | 0.215 | 0.695 | 0.032 |
Figure 2Comparison of VAS scores between the two groups (‾x ± s). The abscissa indicates time nodes, and the ordinate indicates the score. The VAS scores of the routine group at 1 d, 2 d, and 3 d after admission and at 1 d, 2 d, and 3 d after surgery were (5.73 ± 0.86), (5.02 ± 0.61), (4.11 ± 0.65), (5.58 ± 0.73), (4.38 ± 0.66), and (3.52 ± 0.55). The VAS scores of the combined group at 1 d, 2 d, and 3 d after admission and at 1 d, 2 d, and 3 d after surgery were (4.81 ± 0.82), (4.15 ± 0.58), (3.27 ± 0.60), (4.77 ± 0.66), (3.85 ± 0.37), and (3.16 ± 0.42). Significant differences in the VAS scores between the two groups at 1 d, 2 d, and 3 d after admission from left to right (t = 5.997, t = 8.001, t = 7.356, P < 0.001). #Significant differences in the VAS scores between the two groups at 1 d, 2 d, and 3 d after surgery from left to right (t = 6.375, t = 5.426, t = 4.030, P < 0.001).
Comparison of compliance behaviors (n (%)).
| Evaluation indexes | Routine group | Combined group |
| |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Exercise | 1 week | 52 (86.67) | 60 (100) | 8.571/0.003 |
| 1 month | 47 (78.33) | 55 (91.67) | 4.183/0.041 | |
| 6 months | 24 (40) | 36 (60) | 4.800/0.028 | |
|
| ||||
| Medical waist belt using | 1 week | 50 (83.33) | 58 (96.67) | 5.926/0.015 |
| 1 month | 47 (78.33) | 56 (93.33) | 5.551/0.018 | |
| 6 months | 32 (53.33) | 43 (71.67) | 4.302/0.038 | |
|
| ||||
| Correct working posture | 1 week | 49 (81.67) | 59 (98.33) | 9.259/0.002 |
| 1 month | 46 (76.67) | 57 (95) | 8.292/0.004 | |
| 6 months | 30 (50) | 41 (68.33) | 4.174/0.041 | |
Figure 3Comparison of the scores of Rasmussen and Johner-Wruhs. The abscissa indicates evaluation dimensions, and the ordinate indicates the scores. The scores of Rasmussen and Johner-Wruhs in the routine group were (24.55 ± 3.16) and (84.79 ± 3.18). The scores of Rasmussen and Johner-Wruhs in the combined group were (28.24 ± 1.57) and (95.57 ± 1.41). Significant difference in Rasmussen scores between the two groups (t = 8.100, P < 0.001). Significant difference in Johner-Wruhs scores between the two groups (t = 24.005, P < 0.001).