Please wait a minute...
文章检索
预防医学  2026, Vol. 38 Issue (4): 410-414    DOI: 10.19485/j.cnki.issn2096-5087.2026.04.019
  疾病控制 本期目录 | 过刊浏览 | 高级检索 |
老年糖尿病患者综合护理联合康复干预效果评价
史耀熊, 徐洁, 王筱颖, 胡涛, 方珍
杭州市拱墅区文晖街道社区卫生服务中心(杭州市拱墅区中医院),浙江 杭州 310004
Effects of comprehensive nursing combined with rehabilitation intervention among elderly patients with diabetes mellitus
SHI Yaoxiong, XU Jie, WANG Xiaoying, HU Tao, FANG Zhen
Wenhui Street Community Health Service Center of Gongshu District (Gongshu District Traditional Chinese Medicine Hospital), Hangzhou, Zhejiang 310004, China
全文: PDF(811 KB)  
输出: BibTeX | EndNote (RIS)      
摘要 目的 评价综合护理联合康复干预对社区老年糖尿病患者的干预效果,为基层医疗机构优化老年糖尿病个性化管理方案、提升患者生活质量提供依据。方法 采用分层随机抽样方法抽取2023年1月—2024年1月在杭州市拱墅区文晖街道社区卫生服务中心签约管理的≥65岁糖尿病患者为研究对象,随机分为干预组和对照组。对照组实施社区常规管理,干预组在此基础上实施综合护理联合康复干预,干预周期3个月,随访至6个月。通过杭州市社区卫生服务信息系统收集人口学信息、下肢血管情况和血压水平,检测空腹血糖、餐后2 h血糖和糖化血红蛋白;采用SF-36健康调查量表、社区糖尿病患者依从性量表分别评估生活质量、依从性。采用重复测量的方差分析比较两组患者干预前后差异。结果 干预组60例,男性32例,女性28例;对照组60例,男性30例,女性30例。两组患者性别、年龄、糖尿病病程、高血压合并症、糖化血红蛋白和生活质量得分的基线资料比较,差异无统计学意义(均P>0.05)。重复测量方差分析结果显示,干预3个月,两组患者空腹血糖、餐后2 h血糖、糖化血红蛋白组间与时间存在交互效应(均P<0.05),干预组上述指标的下降幅度大于对照组;随访6个月,两组患者生活质量各维度得分组间与时间存在交互效应(均P<0.05),干预组生活质量各维度得分上升幅度大于对照组,且高于干预前(均P<0.05)。干预组患者依从性、下肢血管病变改善率和血压控制达标率分别为95.00%、86.67%和80.00%,高于对照组的78.33%、51.66%和58.33%(均P<0.05)。结论 综合护理联合康复干预可改善老年糖尿病患者血糖控制水平、提高生活质量和有助于提高下肢血管病变改善率与血压控制达标率。
服务
把本文推荐给朋友
加入引用管理器
E-mail Alert
RSS
作者相关文章
史耀熊
徐洁
王筱颖
胡涛
方珍
关键词 老年人糖尿病综合护理康复干预生活质量    
AbstractObjective To evaluate the intervention effects of comprehensive nursing combined with rehabilitation intervention among elderly patients with diabetes mellitus in community settings, so as to provide the evidence for optimizing personalized management strategies for elderly diabetes and improving patients' quality of life at primary healthcare institutions. Methods A stratified random sampling method was used to select patients with diabetes mellitus aged ≥65 years who were under contracted management at Wenhui Subdistrict Community Health Service Center in Gongshu District, Hangzhou City from January 2023 to January 2024. The participants were randomly divided into an intervention group and a control group. The control group received routine community management, while the intervention group received comprehensive nursing combined with rehabilitation intervention in addition to routine management. The intervention period lasted 3 months, with follow-up until 6 months. Demographic information, lower extremity vascular status, and blood pressure levels were collected through Hangzhou Community Health Service Information System. Fasting plasma glucose, 2-hour postprandial blood glucose, and glycated hemoglobin were measured. Quality of life and adherence were assessed using the SF-36 Health Survey Scale and the Community Diabetes Patient Adherence Scale, respectively. Repeated-measures analysis of variance was used to compare differences between the two groups before and after intervention. Results The intervention group comprised 60 patients, including 32 males and 28 females, and the control group comprised 60 patients, including 30 males and 30 females. No statistically significant differences were found in baseline characteristics between the two groups, including gender, age, duration of diabetes, hypertension comorbidity, glycated hemoglobin, and quality of life scores (all P>0.05). Repeated-measures analysis of variance showed that at 3 months of intervention, there were significant interaction effects between group and time for fasting plasma glucose, 2-hour postprandial blood glucose, and glycated hemoglobin (all P<0.05), with greater reductions in the intervention group than in the control group. At 6 months of follow-up, there were significant interaction effects between group and time for all dimensions of quality of life scores (all P<0.05), with greater increases in the intervention group than in the control group, and scores were higher than those before intervention (all P<0.05). The rates of adherence, improvement in lower extremity vascular lesions, and blood pressure control achievement in the intervention group were higher than in the control group (95.00% vs. 78.33%, 86.67% vs. 51.66%, and 80.00% vs. 58.33%, all P<0.05). Conclusion Comprehensive nursing combined with rehabilitation intervention can improve blood glucose control, enhance quality of life, and increase the improvement of lower extremity vascular lesions rate and the blood pressure control achievement rate in elderly patients with diabetes.
Key wordsthe elderly    diabetes mellitus    comprehensive nursing care    rehabilitation intervention    quality of life
收稿日期: 2025-09-11      修回日期: 2026-02-24      出版日期: 2026-04-10
中图分类号:  R587.1  
作者简介: 史耀熊,本科,主管技师,主要从事慢性病管理、社区康复和医防融合工作
通信作者: 徐洁,E-mail:1013337936@qq.com   
引用本文:   
史耀熊, 徐洁, 王筱颖, 胡涛, 方珍. 老年糖尿病患者综合护理联合康复干预效果评价[J]. 预防医学, 2026, 38(4): 410-414.
SHI Yaoxiong, XU Jie, WANG Xiaoying, HU Tao, FANG Zhen. Effects of comprehensive nursing combined with rehabilitation intervention among elderly patients with diabetes mellitus. Preventive Medicine, 2026, 38(4): 410-414.
链接本文:  
https://www.zjyfyxzz.com/CN/10.19485/j.cnki.issn2096-5087.2026.04.019      或      https://www.zjyfyxzz.com/CN/Y2026/V38/I4/410
[1] 任洁,鹿斌.《中国老年糖尿病诊疗指南(2024版)》指导下老年糖尿病的诊治重点与策略革新[J].中华全科医学,2025,23(11):1825-1829.
[2] 杨盛谊,丁晓宇,杨卓乔,等.杭州市中老年人群2010—2018年“三高”指标变化趋势分析[J].中国全科医学,2020,23(18):2235-2241.
[3] 骆雅萍,于淑娟,朱苗苗,等.社区老年糖尿病患者自我忽视的诠释性现象学研究[J].中华护理杂志,2024,59(2):203-209.
[4] 中华人民共和国国家卫生健康委员会.关于加强基层慢性病健康管理服务的指导意见[EB/OL].[2026-02-24].https://www.nhc.gov.cn/jws/c100073/202510/3974d142eb1c4dd385b6e880f8617dcc.shtml.
[5] LIU X Y,ZHANG L Y,FAN X Q,et al.Impact of family doctor system on diabetic patients with distinct service utilisation patterns:a difference-in-differences analysis based on group-based trajectory modelling[J/OL].BMJ Glob Health,2024,9(9)[2026-02-24].https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjgh-2023-014717.
[6] 王素华,李立明,李俊.SF-36健康调查量表的应用[J].国外医学(社会医学分册),2001,18(1):4-8.
[7] 孟亚军,李宁秀,陈建华,等.SF-36在中国HIV感染者中应用的信度和效度[J].现代预防医学,2007,34(13):2410-2412,2415.
[8] 王洁,莫永珍,卞茸文,等.中文版8条目Morisky用药依从性问卷在老年2型糖尿病患者中应用信效度[J].中国老年学杂志,2015,35(21):6242-6244.
[9] 李元召,吴斌,印其忠,等.传统运动模式干预社区2型糖尿病患者的效果评价[J].上海医药,2020,41(4):43-44,56.
[10] 王春莉,李雪,范玉满,等.医养结合模式护理干预对老年2型糖尿病患者血糖水平、自我管理能力及心理状态的影响[J].黑龙江医药科学,2025,48(9):181-183,186.
[11] GOODALL R J,ELLAUZI J,TAN M K H,et al.A systematic review of the impact of foot care education on self efficacy and self care in patients with diabetes[J].Eur J Vasc Endovasc Surg,2020,60(2):282-292.
[1] 张文, 吴成果, 郑登虎, 罗建奎, 罗杰, 孙建, 张理翌, 雷蓉蓉, 廖文平. 南川区老年人群结核分枝杆菌潜伏感染调查[J]. 预防医学, 2026, 38(4): 338-342.
[2] 朱颖, 凌羽晓, 祝惠红. 2014—2023年嘉善县老年肺结核患者就诊延迟和确诊延迟分析[J]. 预防医学, 2026, 38(4): 343-347.
[3] 张曦小雪, 王雪纯, 刘良楹, 武文君, 马玉, 何耀, 刘淼. 老年人认知功能变化轨迹的影响因素分析[J]. 预防医学, 2026, 38(4): 352-356.
[4] 赵锦航, 李殿江, 陈伟, 王志勇, 潘志, 刘思浚. 老年2型糖尿病患者自我效能在社会支持与抑郁症状间的中介效应分析[J]. 预防医学, 2026, 38(4): 357-361.
[5] 黄文, 许璐璐, 黄敏钢, 王柯颖, 陈康康, 陈奇峰. 老年人肌少症的影响因素研究[J]. 预防医学, 2026, 38(4): 362-366.
[6] 金茜, 叶振淼, 姜雪霞, 樊丽辉, 张默涵, 谢轶敏, 罗永园, 郑宇航. 2016—2023年温州市糖尿病发病趋势分析[J]. 预防医学, 2026, 38(4): 372-376.
[7] 李丹, 揭金花, 李宏, 林麒, 庄海林. 老年2型糖尿病患者应对方式、日常生活活动能力在社会支持与抑郁症状间的中介效应分析[J]. 预防医学, 2026, 38(3): 279-283,290.
[8] 蒋扬莹, 楼赟, 王方鲁, 陈松华. 2014—2024年诸暨市老年人群肺结核流行特征和时空聚集性分析[J]. 预防医学, 2026, 38(3): 222-225,230.
[9] 李海华, 叶勇, 袁瑞, 运靖宜, 王浩博, 傅雨欣. 2006—2025年湖州市儿童青少年糖尿病发病趋势及年龄-时期-队列分析[J]. 预防医学, 2026, 38(3): 257-262.
[10] 陈绍云, 于传宁, 邹健锋, 霍泳琦, 谷超男, 陈健东, 严新凤, 曹思静. 老年人跌倒致中重度伤害的影响因素分析[J]. 预防医学, 2026, 38(3): 302-306.
[11] 马宗康, 刘星郎, 李惠惠, 何国威, 颜萍, 张传荣, 马萱, 车雅洁, 于珊, 陈凤辉. 老年人轻度认知功能障碍风险预测模型研究[J]. 预防医学, 2026, 38(2): 124-129.
[12] 秦永发, 赵佳, 李辉, 陈静, 韩雪. 2010—2021年杨浦区4类慢性病过早死亡对期望寿命的影响[J]. 预防医学, 2026, 38(2): 130-134,139.
[13] 万阳, 张世伟, 胡建功, 肖春丽, 赵红叶, 吴殚, 甘冰洋, 陈梦鑫, 张瑞祎, 王凤双, 彭涛. 顺义区老年人健康素养水平及影响因素分析[J]. 预防医学, 2026, 38(2): 201-205.
[14] 吴成慧, 彭艳红, 张可, 朱维晔, 邓亮, 谭玲玲, 瞿丹丹, 米秋香. 中青年2型糖尿病患者益处发现的影响因素分析[J]. 预防医学, 2026, 38(1): 31-35.
[15] 李燕冰, 周树彤, 李莹莹, 毕善琳, 李友卫. 农村中老年慢性病患者自我效能感在家庭健康与健康素养间的中介效应分析[J]. 预防医学, 2026, 38(1): 75-78,84.
Viewed
Full text


Abstract

Cited

  Shared   
  Discussed