| Objective:To explore the effects of touch,maternal voice stimulation,touch combined with maternal voice stimulation on premature infants' oral feeding and growth.by comparing the differences of the three intervention methods,to evaluate the feasibility and safety of touch,maternal voice stimulation.Seek effective intervention methods to promoting oral feeding of premature infants.Methods:120 hospitalized premature infants who met the inclusion criteria were randomly selected from the neonatal department of ganzhou people's hospital during from June 2018 to February 2019.The control group,touch group,maternal voice stimulation group,touch combined with maternal voice stimulation.The control group received routine nursing care of premature infants.On the basis of routine care for premature infants,the touch group,newborns were given touch,twice a day,10 minutes at a time.The maternal voice stimulation group,newborns were given maternal voice stimulation.Play the mother's voice before oral feeding at 09:00?12:00?15:00?18:00.The touch combined with maternal voice stimulation group,newborns were given touch and maternal voice stimulation.Observe and record the The feeding process,feeding performance at the beginning and complete of oral feeding,feeding intolerance,weight,length and head circumference increase of premature infants.Results:1.Oral feeding performance: at the beginning of oral feeding,there were no significant differences in proficiency,feeding rate and milk intake between the touch group and the control group(P > 0.05).The proficiency,feeding rate and milk intake ratio of the maternal voice stimulation group and the touch group were higher than those of the control group,with statistical differences(P < 0.05).There was no interaction between maternal voice stimulation and touch(P > 0.05).There was nosignificant difference between combined intervention and touch intervention and maternal voice stimulation intervention alone(P > 0.05).At the time of complete oral feeding,the feeding rate and proficiency of the three groups in the intervention group were all higher than those in the control group,with statistical differences(P <0.05).The effect of maternal voice stimulation group was better than that of touch group,with statistical difference(P < 0.05).There was no interaction between maternal voice stimulation and touch,(P > 0.05).There was no statistical difference between combined intervention and touch alone(P > 0.05).There was no significant difference in milk intake between the four groups(P > 0.05).2.Incidence of feeding intolerance: the incidence of feeding intolerance in the three intervention groups was lower than that in the control group,with statistical difference(P < 0.05).Among them,the effect of touch and touch combined maternal voice stimulation was more obvious than that of maternal voice stimulation,with statistical difference(P < 0.05).There was no interaction between maternal voice stimulation and touch(P > 0.05),and there was no statistical difference between combined intervention and touch alone(P > 0.05).3.Feeding process: there was no statistical difference between the four groups of PMA at the beginning of oral feeding(P > 0.05);PMA and feeding conversion days in the three groups were all smaller than those in the control group,with statistical difference(P < 0.05).There was no significant difference between the touch group and maternal voice stimulation group(P > 0.05).There was no interaction between maternal voice stimulation and touch(P > 0.05).Combined intervention had a slightly stronger effect than touch and maternal voice stimulation alone,with statistical difference(P<0.05).There was no significant difference in indwelling gastric tube time between the four groups(P > 0.05).4.growth and development:The recovery time to birth weight in the intervention group was smaller than that in the control group,with statistical difference(P < 0.05).The increase of body weight,head circumference and body length on day 14 was higher than that in the control group,with statistical difference(P < 0.05).There was no significant difference in the effect of combined intervention of touch and maternal voice stimulation compared with that of touch and maternalvoice stimulation alone(P > 0.05).Conclusion:1.At the beginning of oral feeding,touch had no effect on the oral feeding performance of premature infants.maternal voice stimulation and touch combined with maternal voice stimulation promoted the oral feeding performance of premature infants,and there was no interaction between touch and maternal voice stimulation.In the case of complete oral feeding,touch,MMS and touch combined with maternal voice stimulation can improve the feeding rate and proficiency of premature infants,but have no effect on the milk intake ratio.maternal voice stimulation is more effective than touch,and the combined intervention has no difference from the single intervention.2.Touch,maternal voice stimulation and touch combined with maternal voice stimulation can reduce the occurrence of feeding intolerance of premature infants,and touch is more significant than maternal voice stimulation.The effect of combined intervention was no different than that of single intervention.3.Touch,maternal voice stimulation,touch combined with maternal voice stimulation can promote premature infant feeding process,cut completely through the mouth feeding PMA,and no influence to started oral feeding PMA,touch with maternal voice stimulation effects were no obvious difference,a touch touch joint maternal voice stimulation intervention,maternal voice stimulation single intervention effect is a bit strong,touch,maternal voice stimulation,touch joint maternal voice stimulation indwelling gastric tube time had no impact.4.Touch,maternal voice stimulation and touch combined with maternal voice stimulation can promote the early recovery of birth body mass of premature infants,promote the growth of head circumference and body length,and contribute to growth and development.The three intervention methods have no difference in effect. |
PDF Full Text Request