| Literature DB >> 35978998 |
Xuefang Li1, Juan Ge1, Lei He1.
Abstract
Background: The study aimed to examine the effect of self-practice oriented teaching plus psychological intervention on blood glucose level and psychological status of type 2 diabetic patients on first insulin therapy.Entities:
Year: 2022 PMID: 35978998 PMCID: PMC9377873 DOI: 10.1155/2022/5606697
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Evid Based Complement Alternat Med ISSN: 1741-427X Impact factor: 2.650
Comparison of general information between the two groups of patients.
| Observation group ( | Control group ( |
|
| |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Age (year) | 50.15 ± 13.49 | 53.05 ± 13.38 | 0.965 | 0.337 |
|
| ||||
| Gender | 0.219 | 0.639 | ||
| Male | 25 (51.11) | 27 (46.67) | ||
| Female | 15 (48.89) | 13 (53.33) | ||
|
| ||||
| BMI (kg/m2) | 25.23 ± 1.59 | 25.51 ± 1.61 | 0.783 | 0.436 |
|
| ||||
| Course of disease | 5.44 ± 2.18 | 5.45 ± 2.15 | 0.021 | 0.984 |
|
| ||||
| Education level | ||||
| Primary school and below | 16 (40.00) | 18 (45.00) | 0.205 | 0.651 |
| Middle school | 15 (37.50) | 11 (27.50) | 0.912 | 0.340 |
| High school and junior college | 6 (15.00) | 7 (17.50) | 0.092 | 0.762 |
| Junior college and above | 3 (7.50) | 4 (10.00) | 0.157 | 0.692 |
|
| ||||
| Smoking | 0.213 | 0.644 | ||
| Yes | 24 (44.44) | 26 (46.67) | ||
| No | 16 (55.56) | 14 (53.33) | ||
|
| ||||
| Drinking | 0.053 | 0.818 | ||
| Yes | 25 (48.89) | 24 (53.33) | ||
| No | 15 (51.11) | 16 (46.67) | ||
|
| ||||
| Medical payment methods | 0.556 | 0.456 | ||
| Medical insurance | 37 (92.50) | 35 (87.50) | ||
| Self-pay | 3 (7.50) | 5 (12.50) | ||
Comparison of insulin injection between the two groups of patients (n (%)).
| Groups |
| Alternate of the injection site (%) | Standardized insulin injection (%) | Incidence of adverse reactions at the injection site (%) | Disposable rate of needles used (%) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Observation group | 40 | 100.00% (40/40) | 97.50% (39/40) | 5.00% (2/40) | 100.00% (40/40) |
| Control group | 40 | 77.50% (31/40) | 72.50% (29/40) | 25.00% (10/40) | 75.00% (30/40) |
|
| 10.141 | 9.804 | 6.275 | 11.429 | |
|
| <0.05 | <0.05 | <0.05 | <0.05 |
Comparison of nursing satisfaction between the two groups (n (%)).
| Groups |
| Satisfied | Moderately satisfied | Dissatisfied | Total satisfaction rate |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Observation group | 40 | 77.50% (31/40) | 17.50% (7/40) | 5.00% (2/40) | 95.00% (38/40) |
| Control group | 40 | 55.00% (22/40) | 15.00% (6/40) | 30.00% (12/40) | 70.00% (28/40) |
|
| 8.658 | ||||
|
| <0.05 |
Comparison of the ESCA scores between the two groups ().
| Groups |
| Self-concept | Self-responsibility | Self-care skills | Health knowledge level |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Observation group | 40 | 2.73 ± 0.82 | 2.35 ± 0.64 | 2.75 ± 0.47 | 3.16 ± 0.36 |
| Control group | 40 | 1.31 ± 0.55 | 1.13 ± 0.33 | 1.25 ± 0.15 | 1.49 ± 0.67 |
|
| 9.096 | 10.716 | 19.229 | 13.887 | |
|
| <0.001 | <0.001 | <0.001 | <0.001 |
Comparison of the glycemic indexes between the two groups ().
| Groups |
| FPG (mmol/L) | Postprandial blood glucose (mmol/L) | HbAlc (%) | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Before intervention | After intervention | Before intervention | After intervention | Before intervention | After intervention | ||
| Observation group | 40 | 13.11 ± 2.87 | 6.75 ± 1.65 | 15.02 ± 2.31 | 9.51 ± 1.52 | 8.27 ± 1.53 | 6.23 ± 0.51 |
| Control group | 40 | 13.05 ± 2.94 | 8.59 ± 2.02 | 15.03 ± 2.32 | 12.83 ± 1.97 | 8.29 ± 1.59 | 7.39 ± 1.15 |
|
| 0.092 | 4.462 | 0.019 | 8.439 | 0.057 | 5.832 | |
|
| 0.927 | <0.001 | 0.985 | <0.001 | 0.954 | <0.001 | |
Comparison of knowledge of disease scores between two groups.
| Groups |
| Before intervention | After intervention |
|---|---|---|---|
| Observation group | 40 | 1.15 ± 0.27 | 4.01 ± 0.59 |
| Control group | 40 | 1.17 ± 0.31 | 2.95 ± 0.44 |
|
| 0.308 | 9.109 | |
|
| 0.759 | <0.001 |
Figure 1Comparison of the GQOLI-74 scores between the two groups (). Note: abscissa indicates preintervention and postintervention, and ordinate indicates GQOLI-74 scores and points. The GQOLI-74 scores before and after the intervention for patients in the observation group were (45.57 ± 7.98) and (82.15 ± 5.21), respectively. The GQOLI-74 scores of patients in the control group before and after the intervention were (45.66 ± 7.45) and (61.02 ± 4.28), respectively. The symbol indicates a significant difference in the GQOLI-74 scores before and after the intervention in the observation group (t = 24.276, P < 0.001). The symbol ∗∗ indicates a significant difference in the GQOLI-74 scores before and after the intervention in the control group (t = 11.307, P < 0.001). The symbol indicates a significant difference in the GQOLI-74 scores between the two groups of patients after the intervention (t = 19.819, P < 0.001).
Figure 2Comparison of the HAD scores between the two groups (). Note: abscissa indicates before and after the intervention, and coordinate indicates HAD scores and points. The HAD scores of patients in the observation group before and after the intervention were (34.87 ± 3.21) and (5.34 ± 1.21), respectively. The HAD scores of patients in the control group before and after the intervention were (34.81 ± 3.23) and (13.32 ± 2.53) points, respectively. The symbol indicates a significant difference in the HAD scores of patients in the observation group before and after the intervention (t = 54.443, P < 0.001). The symbol∗∗ indicates a significant difference in the HAD scores of patients in the control group before and after the intervention (t = 33.126, P < 0.001). The symbol indicates a significant difference in the HAD scores between the two groups of patients after the intervention (t = 17.996, P < 0.001).