Clinical rehabilitation · 1999
The effect of a joint protection education programme for people with rheumatoid arthritis.
СтатьяПоддержка исследования: вне правительства СШАНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Hammond A, Lincoln N
Аннотация
OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the effects of an education programme in improving adherence with joint protection by people with rheumatoid arthritis (RA).
DESIGN: A repeated measures design. Subjects were assessed at six weeks and one week before and six and twelve weeks after education.
SETTING: Rheumatology unit in a large district general hospital.
SUBJECTS: Twenty-one people diagnosed with RA (mean age 48.95 years (SD 12.54) and disease duration of 6.43 years (SD 7.7) ).
INTERVENTION: An 8-hour arthritis education programme delivered over four sessions, including two hours of joint protection education designed to be typical of current UK practice.
MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The Joint Protection Behaviour Assessment (JPBA), an observational assessment of hand joint protection methods used during kitchen activities, to measure adherence with education. Other assessments included a joint protection knowledge questionnaire, hand joint counts, hand pain visual analogue scale, the Health Assessment Questionnaire (HAQ) and HAQ Pain scale to identify any short-term changes in hand pain, pain on activity and functional status. At the beginning and end of the study subjects were interviewed to obtain their self-report of joint protection behaviours and reasons for following or not following the advice given.
RESULTS: Median JPBA scores did not improve pre- to posteducation (18.4% to 23.7%; p = 0.65) and neither did hand joint count, hand pain, HAQ and HAQ Pain scores. However, joint protection knowledge improved significantly (p = 0.01) and the majority of people believed joint protection to be a beneficial strategy. Reasons for not changing behaviour included problems recalling information; joint protection being considered inappropriate as 'hands were not that bad yet'; lack of skill; and difficulties changing habits.
CONCLUSION: The joint protection education programme improved knowledge but not use of taught methods. Educational strategies being used by therapists need to be focused on enhancing adherence.
DESIGN: A repeated measures design. Subjects were assessed at six weeks and one week before and six and twelve weeks after education.
SETTING: Rheumatology unit in a large district general hospital.
SUBJECTS: Twenty-one people diagnosed with RA (mean age 48.95 years (SD 12.54) and disease duration of 6.43 years (SD 7.7) ).
INTERVENTION: An 8-hour arthritis education programme delivered over four sessions, including two hours of joint protection education designed to be typical of current UK practice.
MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The Joint Protection Behaviour Assessment (JPBA), an observational assessment of hand joint protection methods used during kitchen activities, to measure adherence with education. Other assessments included a joint protection knowledge questionnaire, hand joint counts, hand pain visual analogue scale, the Health Assessment Questionnaire (HAQ) and HAQ Pain scale to identify any short-term changes in hand pain, pain on activity and functional status. At the beginning and end of the study subjects were interviewed to obtain their self-report of joint protection behaviours and reasons for following or not following the advice given.
RESULTS: Median JPBA scores did not improve pre- to posteducation (18.4% to 23.7%; p = 0.65) and neither did hand joint count, hand pain, HAQ and HAQ Pain scores. However, joint protection knowledge improved significantly (p = 0.01) and the majority of people believed joint protection to be a beneficial strategy. Reasons for not changing behaviour included problems recalling information; joint protection being considered inappropriate as 'hands were not that bad yet'; lack of skill; and difficulties changing habits.
CONCLUSION: The joint protection education programme improved knowledge but not use of taught methods. Educational strategies being used by therapists need to be focused on enhancing adherence.