SF-36评分在颈源性头痛低温等离子消融术后患者生活质量评价中的应用被引量：67

Short from health survey-36 in evaluating quality of life in patients with cervicogenic headache treated by coblation

导出

摘要目的探讨健康调查简表(SF-36)评分在颈源性头痛低温等离子消融术后患者疼痛护理中的应用。方法选择南方医科大学南方医院麻醉科自2017年2月至2018年8月应用低温等离子消融治疗的30例颈源性头痛患者,分析患者治疗前后视觉模拟量表(VAS)评分、焦虑自评量表(SAS)评分和SF-36评分的变化情况,并通过Pearson相关性分析明确VAS、SAS及SF-36评分之间的关系。结果10周随访期后,患者VAS评分从治疗前的(7.70±0.88)分下降至(3.30±1.12)分,SAS评分从(62.47±4.59)分下降至(49.20±6.48)分,SF-36评分从(38.50±4.15)分升高至(78.64±6.39)分,差异均有统计学意义(P<0.05)。相关性分析结果显示,VAS评分与SAS评分呈正相关关系(r=0.720,P=0.012),与SF-36评分呈负相关关系(r=-0.850,P=0.001);SAS评分与SF-36评分呈负相关关系(r=-0.940,P=0.000)。结论SF-36评分可作为颈源性头痛患者低温等离子消融术后疼痛护理干预的参考依据。 Objective To explore the value of short from health survey-36 (SF-36) in evaluating quality of life and pain care in patients with cervicogenic headache treated by coblation. MethodsThirty patients with cervicogenic headache accepted coblation treatment in our hospital from February 2017 to August 2018 were chosen in this retrospective analysis. The changes of visual analogue scale (VAS) scores, self-rating anxiety scale (SAS) scores and SF-36 scores (quality of life) before and after treatment were analyzed, and the correlations of these scale scores were determined by Pearson correlation analysis. ResultsAfter the 10 weeks of follow-up, the VAS scores of these 30 patients decreased from 7.70±0.88 to 3.30±1.12, SAS scores decreased from 62.47±4.59 to 49.20±6.48, and SF-36 scores increased from 38.50±4.15 to 78.64±6.39, with significant differences (P<0.05). VAS scores were positively correlated with SAS scores (r=0.720, P=0.012), but negatively correlated with SF-36 scores (r=-0.850, P=0.001);SAS scores were negatively correlated with SF-36 scores (r=-0.940, P=0.000). ConclusionSF-36 can be used as a reference for pain nursing intervention in patients with cervicogenic headache after coblation.

作者吕春子朱丽瑜陈壮容陈会荣黄惠娟宋璇胡琴周琳朱晨 Lyu Chunzi;Zhu Liyu;Chen Zhuangrong;Chen Huirong;Huang Huijuan;Song Xuan;Hu Qin;Zhou Lin;Zhu Chen(Department of Anesthesiology, Nanfang Hospital, Southern Medical University, Guangzhou 510515, China)

机构地区南方医科大学南方医院麻醉科

出处《中华神经医学杂志》 CAS CSCD 北大核心 2019年第8期824-827,共4页 Chinese Journal of Neuromedicine

基金广东省科技计划项目(2017ZC0087).

关键词颈源性头痛生活质量健康调查简表评分疼痛护理 Cervicogenic headache Quality of life Short from health survey-36 Pain nursing

分类号 R473.6 [医药卫生—护理学]

作者简介通信作者:朱晨,Email:mzkzc2@163.com.

引文网络
相关文献

参考文献2

1赵龙超,刘志军,何燕,李宁秀,刘丹萍.简明健康状况调查问卷第二版评价成都市城镇居民生命质量适用性研究[J].中华预防医学杂志,2014,48(5):370-374. 被引量：33
2司马蕾,樊碧发,徐仲煌,张挺杰,贾东林,张国荣.普瑞巴林治疗神经病理性癌痛的疗效和安全性研究[J].中华神经医学杂志,2016,15(10):1032-1035. 被引量：26

二级参考文献20

1Ware JE Jr,Sherbourne CD.The MOS 36-item short-form health survey (SF-36).I.Conceptual framework and item selection[J].Med Care,1992,30(6):473-483.
2Gandek B,Ware JE Jr,Aaronson NK,et al.Tests of data quality,scaling assumptions,and reliability of the SF-36 in eleven countries:results from the IQOLA Project.International Quality of Life Assessment[J].J Clin Epidemiol,1998,51(11):1149-1158.
3Ware JE Jr,Gandek B.Overview of the SF-36 health survey and the international quality of life assessment (IQOLA) project[J].J Clin Epidemiol,1998,51 (11):903-912.
4Ware JE Jr.SF-36 health survey update[J].Spine (Phila Pa 1976),2000,25(24):3130-3139.
5Jenkinson C,Stewart-Brown S,Petersen S,et al.Assessment of the SF-36 version 2 in the United Kingdom[J].J Epidemiol Community Health,1999,53 (1):46-50.
6Taft C,Karlsson J,Sullivan M.Performance of the Swedish SF-36 version 2.0[J].Qual Life Res,2004,13 (1):251-256.
7Ware JE Jr,Kosinski M,Dewey JE.How to score version 2 of the SF-36 health survey[M].Lincoln,RI:Quality Metric Incorporated,2000.
8Ware JE Jr,Gandek B.Methods for testing data quality,scaling assumptions,and reliability:the IQOLA Project approach[J].J Clin Epidemiol,1998,51 (11):945-952.
9Howard KI,Forehand GC.A method for correcting item-total correlations for the effect of relevant item inclusion[J].Educat Psychol Measures,1962,22(4):731-735.
10McHorney CA,Ware JE Jr,Lu JF,et al.The MOS 36-item Short-Forn Health Survey (SF-36):Ⅲ.Tests of data quality,scaling assumptions,and reliability across diverse patient groups[J].Med Care,1994,32(1):40-66.