| Urinary incontinence is listed as one of the five world's diseases, also called"social cancer", and is a important health problem of the patients and their familymembers, psychological, social and health. The problem of the elderly women withurinary incontinence is an important field in the Geriatric medicine and Geriatricnursing.Many foreign theories support the study of the behaviors, change ,andSelf-efficacy is increasingly applied in studies of the effects of individual behaviorthrough a series of process such as indirect experiences,detailed consulting directexperiences and popular explanation,Therefore,the comprehensive nursingintervention based on self-efficacy affect the self-efficacy of the older womenpatients ,to improve symptoms of incontinence;on the other hand directly affectpatients symptoms.Objective1.To provide the evidence of nursing intervention for the elderly patients with UrinaryIncontinence.2.To report on the reliability and validity testing of the Chinese version of theGeriatric Self-efficacy scale for Urinary Incontinence(GSE-UI) .The Self-efficacylevel of the elderly patients were assessmented with the localized scale.Evaluate theeffect of the comprehensive intervention on the self-efficacy in the elderly womenwith UI after the nursing intervention,and evaluate intervention effect and perfectintervention plans. Help nursing staff to provide the targeted nursing intervention forthe patients.MethodsIn a senile apartment of ShanXi, 90 cases met inclusion and exclusion standardresearch objective were choiced with the convenient sampling method.Ninety UIpatients were randomly divided into intervention group (45 cases) and control group(45 cases) .The patients in the intervention group received 12- weeks comprehersiveintervention,which concluded behavior,psychology inervention and socienty sustain.The《GSE-UI》was used to measure the two groups before and after thenursing intervention. The symptoms of the patients were measured with 1-hr periodextended pad test and the international incontinence adisory committee incontinencequestionnaire(ICI-Q-SF).All material was statistically analyzed with SPSS13.0packages.Result1The intervention group,s self-efficacy total score (and the four fields)respectivelywas 61.6±2.1(17.4±2.2；10.0±1.2；22.1±4.3；12.1±2.2) before the intervention and107.2±3.6(28.5±3.4；17.1±1.3；40.2±3.7；21.4±2.2) after intervention.The controlgroup,s self-efficacy total score (and the four fields)respectively was 61.7±1.9(17.1±2.0；9.8±1.1；22.4±4.2；12.4±1.8)before the intervention and 67.2±2.3(18.2±2.7；11.2±1.5；23.6±3.3；14.2±2.0)after intervention. The two sets of patients,generally material and self-efficacy scoring comparative differences were notstatistically significant before intervention (p > 0.05).The differences of theself-efficacy scoring between the intervention group and control group werestatistically significant after intervention (p＜0.05).The differences between theintervention groups, self-efficacy scoring before and after intervention werestatistically significant (p＜0.05). The differences between the control groups,self-efficacy scoring before and after intervention were not statistically significant(p > 0.05).2The intervention group,s ICI-Q-SF scorerespectively was 12.1±1.4 before theintervention and 4.4±2.0after intervention.The control group,s ICI-Q-SF scorerespectively was 11.8±1.8 before the intervention and 10.3±1.2 after intervention. Thetwo sets of patients, ICI-Q-SF scoring comparative differences were not statisticallysignificant before intervention (p > 0.05).The differences of the ICI-Q-SF scoringbetween the intervention group and control group were statistically significant afterintervention (p＜0.05).The differences between the intervention groups, ICI-Q-SFscoring before and after intervention were statistically significant (p＜0.05). Thedifferences between the control groups, ICI-Q-SF scoring before and after interventionwere not statistically significant (p > 0.05).3The leakage of the intervention gruop was 30.6±2.2(Moderate leakage) before intervention and 8.4±1.3(mild leakage)after intervention.And the leakage of thecontrol group was 32.1±1.9(Moderate leakage)before intervention and 29.7±2.1(Moderate leakage)after intervention. The two sets of patients, leakage comparativedifferences were not statistically significant before intervention (p > 0.05).Thedifferences of the leakage between the intervention group and control group werestatistically significant after intervention (p＜0.05).The differences between theintervention groups, leakage before and after intervention were statistically significant(p＜0.05). The differences between the control groups, leakage before and afterintervention were not statistically significant (p > 0.05).4 Chinese version of GSE-UI has good validity,reliability and feasibity. This scaleinclude 25 items and four potential factors respectively were faith in self-controllingleakage of urine; consciousness;confidence in controlling pelvic muscles exercise andconfidence in its curative effect; confidence in overcome ing the obstacles. The totalCronbach,αcoefficient of this scale was 0.92.The Cronbach,acoefficient of the fourpotential factors were preponderated over 0.7.The facter loadings of the scale wasbetween 0.23 and 0.90.The four dimensions, loadings are 1.Namely the setting of therelevant questions is reasonable.χ~2 / df was 2.25,and REMSE was 0.128,thus thedegree of this model is good.On the whole,the proposition of the four potentialfactors in this scale was accorded with the real situation. This scale has good constructvalidity.Conclusion1The results showed that Self-efficacy level of patients before intervention wasgeneral.The self-efficacy level after giving nursing intervention was obviously higherthan one before giving the nursing intervention.The comprehensive nursinginterventionl is effective for improve patient's symptoms and improve self-efficacyleve.2 Chinese version of GSE-UI has good validity,reliability and feasibity.And it canbe used to identify the improvements in the pantients with urine incontinence.
|
PDF Full Text Request