Copyright
©The Author(s) 2022.
World J Clin Cases. Feb 16, 2022; 10(5): 1508-1516
Published online Feb 16, 2022. doi: 10.12998/wjcc.v10.i5.1508
Published online Feb 16, 2022. doi: 10.12998/wjcc.v10.i5.1508
Table 1 Comparison of two groups of general data, n (%)
General information | Control group (n = 50) | Observation group (n = 50) |
Gender | ||
Male | 29 (58.00) | 27 (54.00) |
Female | 21 (42.00) | 23 (46.00) |
Age (yr) | 62.32 ± 8.92 | 61.69 ± 9.22 |
Course of stroke (yr) | 2.12 ± 0.56 | 2.09 ± 0.54 |
Body mass index (kg/m2) | 22.85 ± 3.23 | 22.80 ± 3.37 |
Stroke type | ||
Cerebral infarction | 32 (64.00) | 28 (56.00) |
Cerebral hemorrhage | 18 (36.00) | 22 (44.00) |
Education | ||
Primary plus junior | 9 (18.00) | 10 (20.00) |
Technical secondary school, high school and College | 23 (46.00) | 19 (38.00) |
Bachelor degree or above | 18 (36.00) | 21 (42.00) |
Caregiver patient relationship | ||
Children | 17 (34.00) | 15 (30.00) |
Spouse | 24 (48.00) | 24 (48.00) |
Other | 9 (18.00) | 11 (22.00) |
Table 2 Comparison of bone phosphorus metabolism, self-perceived burden scale, ability of daily living in two groups (mean ± SD)
Group | Control group (n = 50) | Observation group (n = 50) | |
ALP (IU/L) | Before intervention | 82.36 ± 12.05 | 83.01 ± 10.15 |
After intervention | 95.25 ± 13.65a | 101.14 ± 14.58a,c | |
β-CTX (ng/mL) | Before intervention | 182.02 ± 23.36 | 179.85 ± 25.11 |
After intervention | 164.02 ± 15.34a | 159.03 ± 12.74a | |
Osteocalcin (μg/L) | Before intervention | 9.56 ± 1.21 | 9.53 ± 1.26 |
After intervention | 12.36 ± 1.52a | 13.02 ± 1.61a,c | |
Vitamin D3 (ng/L) | Before intervention | 9.66 ± 2.85 | 9.71 ± 2.91 |
After intervention | 13.65 ± 3.12a | 14.02 ± 3.05a | |
SPBS score | Before intervention | 35.23 ± 4.56 | 34.95 ± 5.02 |
After intervention | 28.65 ± 3.36a | 22.01 ± 3.77a,c | |
ADL score | Before intervention | 31.25 ± 3.69 | 30.98 ± 4.05 |
After intervention | 65.74 ± 5.69a | 79.14 ± 6.33a,c |
Table 3 Comparison of burden scores of caregivers between the two groups (mean ± SD, min)
Parameter | Control group (n = 50) | Observation group (n = 50) | ||
Before intervention | After intervention | Before intervention | After intervention | |
Time dependent load | 16.23 ± 3.24 | 10.23 ± 2.12a | 16.09 ± 3.36 | 7.82 ± 1.92a,c |
Development-constrained load | 14.25 ± 2.96 | 7.56 ± 2.01a | 14.06 ± 3.11 | 5.23 ± 1.49a,c |
Physiological load | 10.26 ± 2.13 | 5.87 ± 1.41a | 10.21 ± 2.06 | 3.96 ± 0.95a,c |
Social load | 6.21 ± 1.25 | 2.58 ± 0.45a | 6.09 ± 1.33 | 1.51 ± 0.38a,c |
Emotional load | 4.02 ± 1.02 | 1.85 ± 0.23a | 3.97 ± 0.91 | 1.02 ± 0.18a,c |
Total score | 50.56 ± 5.36 | 28.63 ± 4.02a | 51.04 ± 4.98 | 19.85 ± 3.47a,c |
Table 4 Comparison of Harris hip function scores between the two groups (mean ± SD, min)
Parameter | Control group (n = 50) | Observation group (n = 50) | ||
Before intervention | After intervention | Before intervention | After intervention | |
Pain degree | 8.56 ± 1.65 | 35.69 ± 4.12a | 8.70 ± 1.71 | 40.52 ± 4.56a,c |
Daily activity function | 2.96 ± 0.52 | 10.12 ± 2.02a | 3.05 ± 0.45 | 11.89 ± 2.14a,c |
Gait | 1.85 ± 0.63 | 7.12 ± 1.63a | 1.87 ± 0.59 | 9.36 ± 1.45a,c |
Walking aid | 1.63 ± 0.36 | 5.24 ± 0.96a | 1.68 ± 0.30 | 7.11 ± 1.41a,c |
Walking distance | 1.98 ± 0.37 | 6.36 ± 1.32a | 1.95 ± 0.31 | 8.05 ± 1.17a,c |
Deformity | 2.03 ± 0.41 | 3.12 ± 0.29a | 2.06 ± 0.35 | 3.56 ± 0.31a,c |
Joint range of motion | 1.98 ± 0.29 | 3.22 ± 0.37a | 2.03 ± 0.26 | 3.69 ± 0.41a,c |
Total score | 20.36 ± 2.12 | 70.52 ± 6.02a | 20.13 ± 2.23 | 83.12 ± 7.02a,c |
Table 5 Comparison of global quality of life questionnaire scores between the two groups (mean ± SD, min)
Group | Control group (n = 50) | Observation group (n = 50) | |
Physical health | Before intervention | 51.02 ± 9.63 | 50.29 ± 10.13 |
After intervention | 75.69 ± 11.05a | 82.34 ± 10.53a,c | |
Mental health | Before intervention | 68.36 ± 10.26 | 66.95 ± 12.97 |
After intervention | 81.36 ± 8.66a | 87.96 ± 9.43a,c | |
Material life | Before intervention | 61.62 ± 8.63 | 62.05 ± 9.34 |
After intervention | 66.36 ± 7.44a | 73.05 ± 8.05a,c | |
Social function | Before intervention | 59.02 ± 7.14 | 58.36 ± 7.74 |
After intervention | 67.36 ± 5.98a | 75.45 ± 8.06a,c |
Table 6 Comparison of satisfaction between the two groups, n (%)
Group | Number of cases | Very satisfied | Basically satisfied | Dissatisfied | Satisfaction |
Control group | 50 | 21 (42.00) | 18 (36.00) | 11 (22.00) | 39 (78.00) |
Observation group | 50 | 30 (60.00) | 17 (34.00) | 3 (6.00) | 47 (94.00)a |
- Citation: Shen YL, Zhang ZQ, Zhu LJ, Liu JH. Timing theory continuous nursing, resistance training: Rehabilitation and mental health of caregivers and stroke patients with traumatic fractures. World J Clin Cases 2022; 10(5): 1508-1516
- URL: https://www.wjgnet.com/2307-8960/full/v10/i5/1508.htm
- DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.12998/wjcc.v10.i5.1508