吴越, 张紫娟, 姚建军, 张恒, 范洁, 许凌峰, 王妙妙, 沈文艳. 积极性社区干预对精神分裂症患者疗效及家庭经济负担的影响[J]. 环境与职业医学, 2015, 32(8): 763-766,770. DOI: 10.13213/j.cnki.jeom.2015.14650
引用本文: 吴越, 张紫娟, 姚建军, 张恒, 范洁, 许凌峰, 王妙妙, 沈文艳. 积极性社区干预对精神分裂症患者疗效及家庭经济负担的影响[J]. 环境与职业医学, 2015, 32(8): 763-766,770. DOI: 10.13213/j.cnki.jeom.2015.14650
WU Yue , ZHANG Zi-juan , YAO Jian-jun , ZHANG Heng , FAN Jie , XU Ling-feng , WANG Miao-miao , SHEN Wen-yan . Effects of Assertive Community Intervention on Patients with Schizophrenia and Their Family Economic Burden[J]. Journal of Environmental and Occupational Medicine, 2015, 32(8): 763-766,770. DOI: 10.13213/j.cnki.jeom.2015.14650
Citation: WU Yue , ZHANG Zi-juan , YAO Jian-jun , ZHANG Heng , FAN Jie , XU Ling-feng , WANG Miao-miao , SHEN Wen-yan . Effects of Assertive Community Intervention on Patients with Schizophrenia and Their Family Economic Burden[J]. Journal of Environmental and Occupational Medicine, 2015, 32(8): 763-766,770. DOI: 10.13213/j.cnki.jeom.2015.14650

积极性社区干预对精神分裂症患者疗效及家庭经济负担的影响

Effects of Assertive Community Intervention on Patients with Schizophrenia and Their Family Economic Burden

  • 摘要: 目的 评估积极性社区干预对精神分裂症患者疗效及其家庭经济的影响。

    方法 120例符合入组标准的社区慢性精神分裂症患者,随机分为研究组和对照组,研究组予积极性社区干预,对照组提供常规的社区精神卫生服务,随访观察1年。分别于干预开始前、干预1年末进行"阳性与阴性症状量表(PANSS)" "生活质量综合评定问卷-74 (成人用) (GQOLI-74)""社会功能缺陷筛选量表(SDSS)"评定,并采用自制疾病经济花费调查表比较治疗1年期间两组患者的医疗费用和其他经济损失情况。

    结果 干预1年末,研究组PANSS、GQOLI-74、SDSS评分与对照组比较,差异有统计学意义(t=5.036,P=0.000; t=3.309,P=0.001; t=2.408,P=0.011)。研究组患者复发1例(1.7%),对照组复发11例(18.3%),两组差异有统计学意义(χ2=7.50,P=0.01)。研究组1年中因精神疾病造成的家庭经济损失低于对照组,差异具有统计学意义(Z=2.517,P=0.012)。

    结论 积极性社区干预能有效改善慢性精神分裂症患者的临床症状,提高生活质量和社会功能,减轻患者家庭经济负担。

     

    Abstract: Objective To evaluate the effects of assertive community intervention on patients with schizophrenia and family economic burden.

    Methods Patients (n=120) with chronic schizophrenia and meeting study recruitment requirements were randomly assigned to a study group (with assertive community intervention) and a control group (with regular community mental health service). All the patients were followed up for one year. Positive and Negative Syndrome Scale (PANSS), Generic Quality of Life Inventory (GQOLI-74), and Social Disability Screening Schedule (SDSS) were assessed before and after the oneyear intervention. Self-administered form on disease burden was also used to compare the medical expense and other economic loss of the two groups.

    Results At the end of the one-year intervention, there were statistical differences in the score averages of PANSS, GQOLI-74, and SDSS between the intervention group and the control group (t=5.036, P=0.000; t=3.309, P=0.001; t=2.408, P=0.011). One case relapsed in the intervention group (1.7%), whereas 11 cases did in the control group (18.3%) (χ2=7.50, P=0.01). The economic loss related to schizophrenia in the intervention group was lower than that in the control group (Z=2.517, P=0.012).

    Conclusion Assertive community intervention shows significant improvement in clinical symptoms, quality of life, and social function and reducing the family economic burden of patients with schizophrenia.

     

/

返回文章
返回