中国临床康复
中國臨床康複
중국림상강복
CHINESE JOURNAL OF CLINICAL REHABILITATION
2005年
37期
122-123
,共2页
认知障碍%运动障碍%生活质量%康复
認知障礙%運動障礙%生活質量%康複
인지장애%운동장애%생활질량%강복
背景:随着社会的发展和进步,生活质量越来越得到重视,在功能独立性评定的基础上,增加对生活质量的评定是必然的趋势.目的:探讨功能独立性评定和生活质量评定在康复临床中的结合应用.设计:病例分析.单位:复旦大学中山医院.对象:选择2003-01/12中山医院康复科病房住院患者83例,其中男45例,女38例.根据疾病分为以下4组:[1]骨关节康复组42例.[2]脑卒中康复组17例.[3]内科康复组15例.[4]肿瘤康复组9例.患者均自愿参加本实验.方法:每例患者在出入院24 h内进行功能独立性和生活质量的评定,功能独立性量表采用功能独立性问卷评定(包括13项运动方面内容,5项认知方面内容.运动类活动总分最低为13分,最高为91分;认识类活动总分最低为5分,最高为35分;功能独立性问卷总分最低为18分,最高为126分),生活质量采用功能活动问卷进行评定(包括打电话、自理经济、购物、使用交通工具、做家务、工作、参加娱乐性活动等,总分100分),每份问卷均由作者亲自填写.主要观察指标:各组患者在出入院时功能独立性评分和功能活动问卷评分.结果:83例患者均进入结果分析.[1]脑卒中组的平均年龄和住院时间明显高于其他组(P＜0.01).[2]脑卒中组出院时功能独立性运动分、认知分明显高于入院时(5.276,3.624分;6.200,5.941分,P＜0.01).功能活动问卷评分明显低于入院时(1.253,1.547分,P＜0.01).[3]骨关节组出入院功能独立性认知分基本一致,出院时运动分明显高于入院时(6.220,5.388分,P＜0.01).功能活动问卷评分明显低于入院时(0.610,0.912分,P＜0.01).[4]肿瘤组只有能活动问卷评分明显低于入院时(0.722,0.989分,P＜0.05).[5]内科组的所有项目出入院评分基本一致(P＞0.05).结论:在康复临床中功能活动问卷评分比功能独立性评分更敏感,但并不能取代功能独立性评分,应该结合使用.
揹景:隨著社會的髮展和進步,生活質量越來越得到重視,在功能獨立性評定的基礎上,增加對生活質量的評定是必然的趨勢.目的:探討功能獨立性評定和生活質量評定在康複臨床中的結閤應用.設計:病例分析.單位:複旦大學中山醫院.對象:選擇2003-01/12中山醫院康複科病房住院患者83例,其中男45例,女38例.根據疾病分為以下4組:[1]骨關節康複組42例.[2]腦卒中康複組17例.[3]內科康複組15例.[4]腫瘤康複組9例.患者均自願參加本實驗.方法:每例患者在齣入院24 h內進行功能獨立性和生活質量的評定,功能獨立性量錶採用功能獨立性問捲評定(包括13項運動方麵內容,5項認知方麵內容.運動類活動總分最低為13分,最高為91分;認識類活動總分最低為5分,最高為35分;功能獨立性問捲總分最低為18分,最高為126分),生活質量採用功能活動問捲進行評定(包括打電話、自理經濟、購物、使用交通工具、做傢務、工作、參加娛樂性活動等,總分100分),每份問捲均由作者親自填寫.主要觀察指標:各組患者在齣入院時功能獨立性評分和功能活動問捲評分.結果:83例患者均進入結果分析.[1]腦卒中組的平均年齡和住院時間明顯高于其他組(P＜0.01).[2]腦卒中組齣院時功能獨立性運動分、認知分明顯高于入院時(5.276,3.624分;6.200,5.941分,P＜0.01).功能活動問捲評分明顯低于入院時(1.253,1.547分,P＜0.01).[3]骨關節組齣入院功能獨立性認知分基本一緻,齣院時運動分明顯高于入院時(6.220,5.388分,P＜0.01).功能活動問捲評分明顯低于入院時(0.610,0.912分,P＜0.01).[4]腫瘤組隻有能活動問捲評分明顯低于入院時(0.722,0.989分,P＜0.05).[5]內科組的所有項目齣入院評分基本一緻(P＞0.05).結論:在康複臨床中功能活動問捲評分比功能獨立性評分更敏感,但併不能取代功能獨立性評分,應該結閤使用.
배경:수착사회적발전화진보,생활질량월래월득도중시,재공능독립성평정적기출상,증가대생활질량적평정시필연적추세.목적:탐토공능독립성평정화생활질량평정재강복림상중적결합응용.설계:병례분석.단위:복단대학중산의원.대상:선택2003-01/12중산의원강복과병방주원환자83례,기중남45례,녀38례.근거질병분위이하4조:[1]골관절강복조42례.[2]뇌졸중강복조17례.[3]내과강복조15례.[4]종류강복조9례.환자균자원삼가본실험.방법:매례환자재출입원24 h내진행공능독립성화생활질량적평정,공능독립성량표채용공능독립성문권평정(포괄13항운동방면내용,5항인지방면내용.운동류활동총분최저위13분,최고위91분;인식류활동총분최저위5분,최고위35분;공능독립성문권총분최저위18분,최고위126분),생활질량채용공능활동문권진행평정(포괄타전화、자리경제、구물、사용교통공구、주가무、공작、삼가오악성활동등,총분100분),매빈문권균유작자친자전사.주요관찰지표:각조환자재출입원시공능독립성평분화공능활동문권평분.결과:83례환자균진입결과분석.[1]뇌졸중조적평균년령화주원시간명현고우기타조(P＜0.01).[2]뇌졸중조출원시공능독립성운동분、인지분명현고우입원시(5.276,3.624분;6.200,5.941분,P＜0.01).공능활동문권평분명현저우입원시(1.253,1.547분,P＜0.01).[3]골관절조출입원공능독립성인지분기본일치,출원시운동분명현고우입원시(6.220,5.388분,P＜0.01).공능활동문권평분명현저우입원시(0.610,0.912분,P＜0.01).[4]종류조지유능활동문권평분명현저우입원시(0.722,0.989분,P＜0.05).[5]내과조적소유항목출입원평분기본일치(P＞0.05).결론:재강복림상중공능활동문권평분비공능독립성평분경민감,단병불능취대공능독립성평분,응해결합사용.
BACKGROUND: With the development of China, quality of life (QOL) is getting more and more attention, however, there are few studies on QOL, especially in Mainland China.OBJECTIVE: To observe the situation of combinative application of Functional Independence Measure (FIM) and QOL assessment in rehabilitation clinical practice.DESIGN: Case analysis.SETTING: Zhongshan Hospital of Fudan University.PARTICIPANTS: Totally 83 rehabilitation patients selected from Shanghai Zhongshan Hospital from January to December 2003,consenting to take part in the study, were divided into 4 groups: bone & joint rehabilitation(n=42), stroke rehabilitation (n=17), internal medicine (n=15), and cancer rehabilitation (n=9).METHODS: Every patient carried out functional independence assessment and quality of life measurement within 24 hours of admission. FIM was adopted for functional independence assessment which included 13 items of motor (ranged from 13 to 91 points) and 5 items of cognition (ranged from 5to 35 points), and FAQ for quality of life included making telephone call,self-care economy, shopping, using vehicle, housework, jobs, entertainment,etc. with 100 in total. The author performed all the assessment.MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Every patient carried out FIM and FAQ assessment after admission and discharge.RESULTS: All data of totally 83 patients entered the final analysis. [1]The average age and length of hospital stay in stroke group were higher than those in other groups (P ＜ 0.01). [2] FIM motor and cognitive scores in stroke group were higher at discharge than those at admission (5.276,3.624;6.200,5.941,P ＜ 0.01), but scores of functional activity were lower at discharge than those at admission (1.253, 1.547, P ＜ 0.01). [3]In bone joint group, the FIM cognitive scores were coincidence in general, while motor scores were higher at discharge than those at admission (6.220,5.388, P ＜ 0.01), but scores of functional activity were lower at discharge than those at admission (0.610, 0.912, P ＜ 0.01). [4] Only scores of functional activity in tumor group were lower at discharge than those at admission (0.722, 0.989, P ＜ 0.05). [5] All items in internal medicine group were coincidence in general (P ＞ 0.05).CONCLUSION: FAQ is more sensitive than FIM in rehabilitation practice, but cannot replace FIM, and should be used with FIM.
