| Literature DB >> 36034196 |
Fan Peng1,2, Rui Mei3, Chanyuan Liu4, Xiu Liu5, Jing Xiong6, Lu Lv7, Fang Wang8.
Abstract
This study aimed to explore the effect of health education combined with psychological care on patients with vestibular neuritis and the effect on their vestibular function. One hundred patients with vestibular neuritis admitted to our hospital from January 2019 to December 2020 were enrolled and divided into two groups by the random number: the control group (CG) (n= 53, health education) and the study group (SG) (n= 47, health education + psychological care). The Dizziness Handicap Inventory (DHI) scores, Berg Balance Scale (BBS) scores, depression scores (SDS), anxiety scores (SAS), satisfaction with care, compliance, incidence of falls, quality of life (QOF), and clinical symptom scores were compared between the two groups. Compared with the CG, the SG had a more significant reduction in DHI scores and SDS and SAS scores and a significant increase in BBS scores (P < 0.05). Compared with the CG, the SG had higher nursing satisfaction and compliance and a lower incidence of falls (P < 0.05). Nursing efficiency was higher in the SG than in the CG (P < 0.05). QOF scores were higher in the SG than in the CG (P < 0.05). Clinical symptom scores were lower in the SG than in the CG (P < 0.05). Health education combined with psychological care can improve vestibular function and bad mood, reduce the incidence of falls, improve the QOF, and result in high patient satisfaction and compliance, which should be widely promoted.Entities:
Mesh:
Year: 2022 PMID: 36034196 PMCID: PMC9392610 DOI: 10.1155/2022/3780683
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Contrast Media Mol Imaging ISSN: 1555-4309 Impact factor: 3.009
Comparison of DHI and BBS scores (x̅ ± s).
| Group | Number of cases | DHI score | BBS score | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Preintervention | Postintervention | Preintervention | Postintervention | ||
| Control group | 53 | 71.4 ± 5.4 | 31.1 ± 3.8 | 10.7 ± 2.1 | 31.1 ± 4.2 |
| Study group | 47 | 71.6 ± 5.3 | 23.8 ± 4.1 | 10.6 ± 2.3 | 40.9 ± 4.4 |
|
| — | 1.682 | 15.324 | 0.782 | 14.985 |
|
| — | >0.05 | <0.05 | >0.05 | <0.05 |
Comparison of SDS and SAS scores (x̅ ± s).
| Group | Number of cases | SDS score | SAS score | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Preintervention | Postintervention | Preintervention | Postintervention | ||
| Control group | 53 | 58.4 ± 6.6 | 43.6 ± 5.8 | 64.1 ± 6.5 | 48.4 ± 3.8 |
| Study group | 47 | 57.7 ± 6.5 | 29.2 ± 2.1 | 63.8 ± 6.7 | 30.4 ± 3.5 |
|
| — | 0.524 | 16.354 | 1.087 | 18.175 |
|
| — | >0.05 | <0.05 | >0.05 | <0.05 |
Comparison of nursing satisfaction, compliance, and incidence of falls (cases, %).
| Group | Number of cases | Satisfaction | Adherence | Incidence of falls |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Control group | 37 | 31 (83.8) | 29 (78.4) | 7 (18.9) |
| Study group | 41 | 39 (95.1) | 38 (92.7) | 1 (2.4) |
|
| — | 7.325 | 5.421 | 4.635 |
|
| — | <0.05 | <0.05 | <0.05 |
Figure 1Comparison of the nursing effect between the two groups, #P < 0.05.
Figure 2Comparison of quality of life scores, #P < 0.05.
Figure 3Comparison of clinical symptom scores, #P < 0.05.
Figure 4Comparison of DHI scores, #P < 0.05.