【摘要】 目的 探讨健康教育路径在下腔静脉滤器（inferior vena cava filter，VCF）置入术患者中的应用效果。 方法 2008年1月－2010年5月，将62例VCF置入术患者随机分为观察组（32例）和对照组（30例），观察组采用健康教育路径进行健康教育，对照组患者采用常规健康教育。 结果 观察组患者的健康教育达标率明显高于对照组（Plt;0.05），焦虑发生率明显低于对照组。 结论 应用健康教育路径对VCF置入术患者实施，能提高患者对健康知识的掌握程度和效果，促进患者早日康复；同时可强化护患沟通，和谐护患关系。【Abstract】 Objective To investigate the effect of health education pathway in patients treated with placement of inferior vena cava filter (VCF). Methods Sixty-two patients treated with placement of inferior VCF from January 2008 to May 2010 were randomly divided into experimental group (n=32) and control group (n=30). Health education pathway and routine general way were adopted respectively to treat patients in the experimental group and the control group. Results Standard-achieving rate of the health education in the experimental group was significantly higher than that in the control group (Plt;0.05), and the incidence of anxiety was also lower in the experimental group. Conclusion Health education pathway for patients treated with placement of inferior VCF can increase the patients’ health care knowledge, lessen patients’ anxiety, and strengthen the nurse-patient communication and harmonious relations.
ObjectivesTo evaluate the methodological quality of clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) of Chinese rehabilitation medicine.MethodsCBM, VIP, CNKI, WanFang Data and Medlive databases were electronically searched to collect CPGs of Chinese rehabilitation medicine from January 1979 to May 2018. Four reviewers evaluated the methodological quality of the CPGs by AGREE Ⅱ.ResultsA total of 11 CPGs were included, which involved 5 CPGs on nervous system rehabilitation, 1 CPG on bone and joint system rehabilitation, 1 CPG each on pediatric rehabilitation, internal medicine system rehabilitation, burn rehabilitation, earthquake rehabilitation and rehabilitation diagnosis and treatment criteria respectively. The results of AGREE Ⅱ score showed that the average scores on six domains were 65.3%, 28.0%, 9.3%, 42.1%, 6.3% and 4.0%. There were not any level A (recommended) guidelines. Two guidelines were level B (recommended after being revised). The other nine guidelines were level C (not recommended).ConclusionsThere are a few rehabilitation CPGs in China and the quality of methodology is low. AGREE's methods and concepts have not been fully used for formulation. The rigor of development, clarity of presentation, applicability and editorial independence of guidelines should be emphasized, so as to produce high level CPGs and improve clinical practice quality in rehabilitation medicine.