Effects Of Progressive Muscle Relaxation Training On Mood,Sleep And Quality Of Life In Patients With Hepatitis B Cirrhosis

ObjectiveTo investigate the role of progressive muscle relaxation training(PMRT)in patients with hepatitis B cirrhosis.It is hoped that PMRT can reduce the negative emotions of patients,improve the quality of sleep,improve the quality of life,and provide a basis for clinical nursing work.MethodsThis research is a kind of experimental research.Patients with HBV cirrhosis who were admitted to a third-level hospital infectious department from January 2019 to December 2019 were selected and scored by the Self-rating Anxiety Scale(SAS)and the Self-rating Depression Scale(SDS).Patients were divided into intervention group and control group.After inclusion in the study,the Pittsburgh Sleep Quality Index Scale(PSQI)and the Chronic Liver Disease Questionnaire(CLDQ)were distributed to patients,and general information was collected.The control group was given routine nursing measures for hepatitis B cirrhosis,and the intervention group was given PMRT based on this.The PMRT is provided to the patient in the form of audio,and the PMRT is performed twice a day,30 minutes each time from the day of admission for 2 weeks.The same scale was measured at 1 week of admission(except CLDQ)and at 2 weeks of admission.All data are analyzed by SPSS23.0 statistical software.Measurement data are expressed as mean and standard deviation(? x ± s),count data are expressed as frequency and composition ratio [N(%)],and 2 test and t test,Repeated measurement analysis of variance,non-parametric rank sum test,etc.for statistical analysis,P<0.05 was considered statistically significant.Results1.A total of 92 patients with HBV cirrhosis were included.A total of 84 patients completed the trial,accounting for 91.3%,including 41 in the intervention group and 43 in the control group.2.Comparison of general demographic data between the two groups of patients,the results showed that there was no significant difference(P>0.05),which is comparable.3.Comparison of baseline levels between the two groups of patients: SAS,SDS,PSQI,and CLDQ scores were not significantly different(P>0.05),and were comparable.4.Comparison of SAS scores between the two groups of patients:(1)Overall comparison:(1)main effect of time.The SAS scores of the two groups do not consider intervention factors,and the difference at 3 time points is statistically significant(P<0.05);(2)main intervention Effect,the SAS score of the two groups does not consider the time factor,and the difference is statistically significant(P<0.05);(3)The SAS score is statistically significant in the difference between the time and the interaction effect of the intervention(P<0.05),indicating that time and intervention 2There is an interaction between people,and the time factor will have different effects with different groups.(2)Comparison within the group: The SAS scores of the intervention group were compared before intervention,after 1 week of intervention,and after 2 weeks of intervention,and the difference was statistically significant(P<0.05);the control group before intervention,after 1 week of intervention,and 2 weeks of intervention After the SAS scores were compared,the difference was statistically significant(P<0.05),indicating that the anxiety of the two groups of patients has improved with time.(3)Comparison between groups: The scores of the two groups of patients were compared at three time points.The difference in the scores of the two groups of patients before the intervention was not statistically significant(P>0.05).There was a difference in the scores after 1 week of intervention and after 2 weeks ofintervention The statistical significance(P<0.05)shows that the effect of the intervention group is better than that of the control group with time.5.Comparison of SDS scores of the two groups of patients:(1)Overall comparison:(1)main effect of time.The SDS scores of the two groups do not consider the intervention factors,and the difference at 3 time points is statistically significant(P<0.05);(2)intervention The main effect is that the SDS scores of the two groups are statistically significant regardless of the time factor(P<0.05);(3)SDS scores are statistically significant in the difference between the time and intervention interaction effects(P<0.05),indicating that time and intervention two There is an interaction between people,and the time factor will have different effects with different groups.(2)Comparison within the group: The SDS scores of the intervention group before intervention,after 1 week of intervention,and after 2 weeks of intervention were compared,and the difference was statistically significant(P<0.05);the control group before intervention,after 1 week of intervention,and 2 weeks of intervention After the comparison of the SDS scores,the difference was statistically significant(P<0.05),indicating that with the extension of time,the depression of the two groups of patients has improved.(3)Comparison between groups: The scores of the two groups of patients were compared at three time points.The difference in scores between the two groups before intervention was not statistically significant(P>0.05).The difference in scores after 1 week of intervention and after 2 weeks of intervention was The statistical significance(P<0.05)shows that the effect of the intervention group is better than that of the control group with time.6.Comparison of PSQI scores of the two groups of patients:(1)Overall comparison:(1)main effect of time,the PSQI score of the two groups does not consider the intervention factors,and the difference at 3 time points is statistically significant(P<0.05);(2)intervention The main effect is that the PSQI scores of the two groups are statistically significant regardless of the time factor(P<0.05);(3)PSQI scores are statistically significant in the difference between the time and the interactioneffect of the intervention(P<0.05),indicating that time and intervention two There is an interaction between people,and the time factor will have different effects with different groups.(2)Comparison within the group: the intervention group was compared after 1week of intervention,2 weeks of intervention and before intervention,the difference was statistically significant(P<0.05),and there was no difference in scores after 2weeks of intervention and after 1 week of intervention Statistical significance(P>0.05),indicating that with the extension of time,the sleep quality of the intervention group improved,but the improvement effect was not significant in the second week;the PSQI scores of the control group at three time points were compared,and the difference was not statistically significant(P>0.05),indicating that with the extension of time,the sleep quality of the control group did not improve significantly.(3)Comparison between groups: The scores of the two groups of patients were compared at three time points.The difference in scores between the two groups before intervention was not statistically significant(P>0.05).The difference in scores after 1 week of intervention and after 2weeks of intervention was The statistical significance(P<0.05)shows that the effect of the intervention group is better than that of the control group with time.7.Comparison of the CLDQ scores of the two groups of patients:(1)Overall comparison:(1)main effect of time.The CLDQ scores of the two groups do not consider the intervention factors,and the difference in scores between the two time points is statistically significant(P<0.05);(2)The main effect of intervention,the difference in CLDQ scores of the two groups regardless of the time factor was statistically significant(P<0.05);(3)CLDQ score was statistically significant in the difference between time and intervention interaction effects(P<0.05),indicating time and intervention There is an interaction between the two,and the time factor will have different effects depending on the group.(2)Comparison within the group: the intervention group had a significant difference in scores after 2 weeks of intervention and before intervention(P<0.05);the control group had a significant difference in scores after 2 weeks of intervention and before intervention(P<0.05),Indicating that astime goes on,the quality of life of the two groups of patients has improved;(3)Comparison between the groups: the scores of the two groups of patients at two time points are compared respectively,and there is no statistically significant difference in the scores of the two groups of patients before intervention(P>0.05),the difference in scores after 2 weeks of intervention was statistically significant(P<0.05),indicating that the effect of the intervention group was better than the control group with time.Conclusion1.Progressive muscle relaxation training can improve anxiety and depression in patients with hepatitis B cirrhosis.2.The quality of sleep of patients with hepatitis B cirrhosis after one week of progressive muscle relaxation training is improved,and the quality of sleep in the second week maintains the level after the improvement in the first week,which may be related to the potential factors of mild hepatic encephalopathy.3.Progressive muscle relaxation training can improve the quality of life of patients with hepatitis B cirrhosis.