医务社工介入对慢性精神分裂症患者社会功能和生活质量的影响

目的 探讨医务社工介入对慢性精神分裂症患者社会功能和生活质量的影响.方法 将2009年1月～2012年3月入住广东省第三荣军医院的慢性精神分裂症患者150例随机分为观察组和对照组,各75例.对照组采用精神科常规护理方法,观察组在对照组基础上采用医务社会工作人员进行辅助护理,共进行8周.采用社会功能缺陷筛选量表（SDSS）、自知力和治疗态度问卷（ITAQ）和生活质量综合评定问卷（GQOLI-74）在干预前后对患者进行评定比较.采用SPSS 15.0软件进行统计学处理.结果 ①SDSS评分比较：观察组和对照组干预后评分（3.27±0.54）分比（6.71±1.32）分]比较,差异有高度统计学意义（t=6.81,P＜0.01）;观察组干预前后评分（6.85±1.16）分比（3.27±0.54）分]比较,差异有高度统计学意义（t=7.01,P＜ 0.01）.②ITAQ评分比较：观察组和对照组干预后（18.81±3.51）分比（12.73±4.20）分]比较,差异有高度统计学意义（t=6.71,P＜0.01）;观察组干预前后评分（4.75±1.06）分比（18.81±3.51）分]比较,差异有高度统计学意义（t=6.77,P＜ 0.01）.③GQOLI-74评分比较：干预后,观察组和对照组在躯体功能（65.22±6.42）分比（51.22±6.54）分]、心理功能（68.12±8.41）分比（50.30±6.35）分]、社会功能（63.93±6.52）分比（51.12±6.51）分]方面比较,差异均有高度统计学意义（t=6.71,P＜0.01;t=7.83,P＜0.01;t=6.55,P＜0.01）,但物质功能（50.12±5.77）分比（48.04±6.47）分]方面比较,差异无统计学意义（t=0.84,P＞0.05）.干预前上述四项两组比较,差异均无统计学意义（均P＞0.05）.结论 医务社工的介入有助于提高精神分裂症患者的社会功能及生活质量.本研究为其他精神病医院开展医务社工服务工作提供了一定的参考价值.

Effects of medical social worker involvement on social function and quality of life in patients with schizophrenia

Objective To explore the effects of medical social worker involvement on social function and quality of life in patients with schizophrenia. Methods 150 cases of hospitalized patients with schizophrenia from January 2009 to March 2012 were divided into observations＇group and control group,with 75 cases in each group. The control group was given routine psychiatric nursing, on the basis of which, the observation group was added medical social worker involve- ment, total of 8 weeks. Social disability screening schedule （SDSS）, insight and treatment attitude questionnaire （ITAQ） and general quality of life inventory （GQOLI-74） before and after intervention on the patients were assessed and com- pMed. SPSS 15.0 software was used to analyze statistically. Results ①SDSS scores were compared： after intervention, the score in the observation group and the control group （3.27±0.54） points Vs （6.71±1.32） points] had a significant dif- ference （t = 6.81, P 〈 0.01）; before and after intervention, score in the observation group（6.85±l.16） points vs （3.27± 0.54） points] had a significant difference （t = 7.01, P 〈 0.01）. （±）ITAQ scores were compared： after intervention, the score in the observation group and the control group （18.81±3.51） points vs （12.73±4.20） points] had a significant differ- ence （t = 6.71, P 〈 0.01）; before and after intervention, score in the observation group （4.75±1.06） points vs （18.81± 3.51） points] had a significant difference （t = 6.77, P 〈 0.01）. （±）GQOLI-74 scores were compared： body function （65.22±6.42） points vs （51.22±6.54） points], psychological function （68.12±8.41） points vs （50.30±6.35） points], social function （63.93±6.52） points vs （51.12±6.51） points] in the observation group and the control group all had significant dif- ferences （t = 6.71, P 〈 0,01; t = 7.83, P 〈 0.01; t = 6.55, P 〈 0.01）, but there was no significant difference about physi- cal