| Literature DB >> 35529916 |
Haiyan Wu1, Ya Wen2, Saijin Guo1.
Abstract
Objective: To study the effect of nutritional support under the clinical nursing path on the nursing effect, quality of life, and nutritional status of elderly patients with Alzheimer's disease.Entities:
Year: 2022 PMID: 35529916 PMCID: PMC9071863 DOI: 10.1155/2022/9712330
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Evid Based Complement Alternat Med ISSN: 1741-427X Impact factor: 2.650
Statistics of general data comparison ( ± s).
| Group | Experimental group | Control group | t/ |
|
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Gender (male/female) | 32/23 | 30/25 | 0.15 | 0.70 |
| Age (years) | 76.05 ± 4.24 | 75.83 ± 5.11 | 0.25 | 0.81 |
| Height (cm) | 163.18 ± 10.54 | 162.92 ± 10.88 | 0.13 | 0.90 |
| Weight (kg) | 70.25 ± 8.22 | 69.77 ± 8.51 | 0.30 | 0.76 |
| Course of disease (years) | 3.86 ± 1.52 | 3.90 ± 1.67 | 0.13 | 0.90 |
| History of smoking (years) | 13.51 ± 3.33 | 13.96 ± 3.67 | 0.67 | 0.50 |
| History of drinking (years) | 20.83 ± 4.09 | 20.07 ± 3.96 | 0.99 | 0.32 |
| Hypertension (case) | 9 | 10 | 0.06 | 0.80 |
| Diabetes (case | 7 | 10 | 0.63 | 0.43 |
| Hypertension (case) | 10 | 8 | 0.27 | 0.61 |
Comparison of the efficacy rate of nursing.
| Group | Markedly effective | Effective | Ineffective | Total efficacy rate (%) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Experimental group | 35 | 13 | 7 | 87.27% |
| Control group | 14 | 21 | 20 | 63.64% |
| X2 | 8.30 | |||
|
| 0.004 |
Figure 1Comparison of QLI between two groups. The abscissas, from left to right, represent the indicators of the experimental group and the control group in the QLI, which are daily routines, work and life, and interpersonal relationships. While the ordinates represent the QLI points. ∗represents that daily routines points (8.26 ± 1.57) of the experimental group was compared with the daily routines points (6.00 ± 1.04) of the control group. t = 8.90, P < 0.001. The difference is statistically significant; ∗∗represents that the work and life points (9.03 ± 0.51) of the experimental group was compared with the points (6.27 ± 1.04) of the control group. t = 10.87, P < 0.001. The difference is statistically significant; ∗∗∗represents the interpersonal relationship points (8.16 ± 1.13) of the experimental group was compared with the interpersonal relationship points (5.77 ± 1.25) of the control group. t = 10.52, P < 0.001. The difference is statistically significant.
Comparison of the PSQI and SDSS between the two groups ( ± s, points).
| Group | PSQI ( | SDSS ( |
|---|---|---|
| Experimental group | 10.36 ± 2.06 | 9.84 ± 2.91 |
| Control group | 15.27 ± 3.38 | 16.53 ± 4.41 |
| t | 9.20 | 9.39 |
|
| <0.001 | <0.001 |
Figure 2Comparison of the MSSNS of the two groups. The abscissas represent the experimental group and the control group from left to right, and the ordinates represent the MSSNS points. ∗represents that the MSSNS points (51.68 ± 5.22) of the experimental group were compared with the MSSNS points (56.38 ± 5.09) of the control group. t = 4.78, P < 0.001. The difference is statistically significant.
Comparison of malnutrition status.
| Group | Good nutritional status | Moderate malnutrition | Severe malnutrition | Occurrence rate of malnutrition |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Experimental group | 49 | 6 | 0 | 10.90% |
| Control group | 32 | 16 | 7 | 41.82% |
| X2 | 13.53 | |||
|
| <0.001 |