Effect of comprehensive nursing on the quality of life and swallowing function in individuals diagnosed with ischemic stroke

Table 1 General information in the two groups, n (%)

Factors	Research group, n = 92	Control group, n = 80	χ2 value	P value
Sex			0.023	0.880
Male	53 (57.61)	47 (58.75)
Female	39 (42.39)	33 (41.25)
Age (yr)			0.032	0.857
≥ 63	61 (66.30)	52 (65.00)
< 63	31 (33.70)	28 (35.00)
BMI (kg/m2)			0.001	0.977
≥ 23	55 (59.78)	48 (60.00)
< 23	37 (40.22)	32 (40.00)
Underlying disease			0.028	0.956
Diabetes mellitus	25 (23.21)	22 (20.37)
Hypertension	31 (25.00)	26 (27.78)
Hyperlipidemia	36 (28.58)	32 (27.78)
Smoking			0.001	0.983
≥ 400	47 (51.09)	41 (51.25)
< 400	45 (48.91)	39 (48.75)
Education level			0.069	0.793
Middle school not completed	57 (61.96)	48 (60.00)
Middle school completed	35 (38.04)	32 (40.00)
Nutrition status			0.011	0.915
Good	41 (44.57)	35 (43.75)
Fair	51 (55.43)	45 (56.25)

BMI: Body mass index.

Table 2 Comparison of the European stroke scale scores between the two groups before and after treatment, mean ± SD

Factor	Research group, n = 92	Control group, n = 80	t value	P value
Before nursing	61.28 ± 5.82	61.32 ± 5.72	0.045	0.963
After nursing	78.19 ± 6.11	69.33 ± 5.92	9.624	< 0.001
t value	9.22	8.75
P value	< 0.001	< 0.001

Table 3 Comparison of the incidence of adverse reactions between the two groups, n (%)

Adverse reaction	Research group, n = 92	Control group, n = 80	χ2 value	P value
Reflux	1 (1.09)	3 (3.75)
Aspiration	0	3 (3.75)
Fever	2 (2.17)	4 (5.00)
Lung infection	1 (1.09)	3 (3.75)
Adverse reaction rate	4 (4.35)	13 (16.25)	6.806	0.009

Table 4 Comparison of the quality of life between the two groups after nursing, mean ± SD

Item	Research group, n = 92	Control group, n = 80	t value	P value
Role function	72.32 ± 2.54	62.78 ± 2.42	19.01	< 0.001
Physical function	71.27 ± 2.64	62.54 ± 2.33	17.26	< 0.001
Psychological function	73.42 ± 2.65	63.12 ± 2.98	20.85	< 0.001
Social function	72.55 ± 2.43	61.73 ± 2.14	24.74	< 0.001

Table 5 Comparison of rehabilitation compliance assessment between the two groups, n (%)

Rehabilitation compliance	Research group, n = 92	Control group, n = 80	χ2 value	P value
Complete compliance	68 (73.91)	32 (40.00)
Partial compliance	22 (23.91)	30 (37.50)
Non-compliance	2 (2.18)	18 (22.50)
Rehabilitation compliance rate	90 (97.83)	62 (77.50)	17.20	< 0.001

Table 6 Nursing satisfaction comparison between the two groups, n (%)

Nursing satisfaction	Research group, n = 92	Control group, n = 80	χ2 value	P value
Very satisfied	72 (78.26)	43 (53.75)
Satisfied	19 (20.65)	20 (25.00)
Dissatisfied	1 (1.09)	17 (21.25)
Nursing satisfaction rate	53 (98.91)	63 (78.75)	18.57	< 0.001