认知领悟治疗和家庭干预对精神分裂症患者治疗中依从性的影响

目的　联合家庭干预和认知领悟治疗法 ,观察其对精神分裂症患者维持治疗中依从性和疗效的影响。方法　将 2 0 0 1年 6月至 2 0 0 1年 12月间入住我院的 118例精神分裂症患者随机分为两组 ,干预组 :药物加家庭干预加认知领悟治疗 ,对照组 :药物加普通心理治疗 ,出院后随访 1年。采用简明精神病评定量表 (BPRS)、社会功能缺陷筛查表 (SDSS)评价疗效 ,观察依从性、复发率和病残率。结果　干预组完全依从性、不依从性、BPRS评分、SDSS评分、治愈率、复发率和病残率较对照组明显改善 ,有统计学差异 (P <0 0 5 )。结论　家庭干预和认知领悟治疗能提高精神分裂症患者维持治疗中的依从性 ,改善预后。     

首发精神分裂症患者阶段性健康教育的效果分析

目的探讨阶段性健康教育对首发精神分裂症患者及其家属的护理干预效果。方法 82例首次发病精神分裂症患者随机分为对照组(n=41)和观察组(n=41),对照组采用常规健康教育模式,观察组采用阶段性健康教育,干预前后均采用住院患者观察量表(NOSIE)、简明精神病量表(BPRS)、自知力与治疗态度问卷(ITAQ)及服药依从性问卷评价干预效果。结果护理干预后2组BPRS评分比较差异无统计学意义(P0.05),而观察组NOSIE、ITAQ评分和服药依从性均明显优于对照组(P0.05)。结论对首发精神分裂症患者及其家属采用阶段性健康教育可增加服药依从性,有助于患者康复。     

认知治疗对精神分裂症患者服药依从性的影响

目的:探讨认知治疗对精神分裂症患者服药依从性的影响. 方法:将100例精神分裂症患者随机平分为干预组和对照组.均接受系统的抗精神病药治疗,干预组在此基础上进行认知治疗,而对照组仅限于一般健康教育,出院后随访1年.采用简明精神病评定量表(BPRS)、自知力与治疗态度问卷(ITAQ)、自拟服药依从性调查表,于治疗前、出院时、出院后6个月及1年分别各评定1次. 结果:两组BPRS、ITAQ、服药依从性和再次住院次数差异有显著性,均以干预组显著较好. 结论:认知治疗能有效提高精神分裂症患者服药依从性,降低复发率.     

个体化唱歌疗法对长期住院精神分裂症患者康复的影响

目的探索个体化唱歌疗法对长期住院精神分裂症患者康复的影响。方法对60例累计住院时长五年以上接受常规治疗的精神分裂症患者随机分组,唱歌组每周三次、每次30分钟唱歌课程。对照组仅常规治疗。结果①唱歌组治疗态度评定问卷(ITAQ)量表评分治疗后明显高于治疗前(P0.01),简明精神病评定量表(BPRS)总评分治疗后明显低于治疗前(P0.01);对照组治疗后无明显统计学差异(P0.05)。②两组比较:治疗前两组的ITAQ量表与BPRS量表评分差异无统计学意义(P0.05);与对照组比较,治疗中后期唱歌组的ITAQ量表评分明显升高(P0.01),BPRS量表总评分明显下降(P0.01)。结论个体化唱歌疗法能够帮助长期住院的精神分裂症患者改善心境、调节情绪、提高自我认识能力,增强其对外界的注意力,加速康复进程。这种个体化唱歌疗法需要进一步增加病例数、对比男女疗效差别,才能更好地推广应用这个辅助治疗方法。     

免费投药对精神分裂症疗效的一年随访研究

目的评估免费投放抗精神病药对精神分裂症患者的疗效。方法对100例非急性期精神分裂症患者配对后按随机数字表随机分为2组,免费投放组48例和对照组52例。免费投放组由医生定时上门免费发药并巡诊,对照组自行选择普通门诊治疗,随访1年。采用简明精神病评定量表（BPRS）和社会功能缺陷筛选量表（SDSS）评估,同时监测复发、再住院、就业及服药依从情况。结果随访结束时免费投放组BPRS,SDSS评分,复发率、再住院率、就业率均显著优于对照组（P〈0.05）,而且服药依从性更好（P〈0.01）。结论免费投放抗精神病药对精神分裂症患者的疗效优于普通门诊,能减少复发,提高患者的依从性,改善患者的社会功能。     

家庭干预联合药物自我管理技能训练治疗精神分裂症的疗效

目的 探讨家庭干预联合药物自我管理技能训练治疗精神分裂症的效果.方法 160例精神分裂症患者随机分为观察组和对照组各80例,对照组接受常规治疗,观察组在此基础上给予家庭干预联合药物自我管理技能训练,观察2组简明精神病量表(BPRS)、社会功能缺陷筛选量表(SDSS)、生存质量测量量表(BREF)、阳性症状评定量表(SAPS)和阴性症状评定量表(SANS)评分.结果 2组治疗前各项评分差异均无统计学意义(P＞0.05),治疗6个月与治疗前比较,均明显下降,差异有统计学意义(P＜0.05);观察组优于对照组,差异有统计学意义(P＜0.05).结论 家庭干预联合药物自我管理技能训练提高了治疗依从性,改善了病情、社会功能及生活质量,精神分裂症阳性和阴性症状也明显降低.     

综合护理干预对精神分裂患者的疗效分析

目的探讨综合护理干预在精神分裂患者护理中的应用效果。方法选取2012年1月~2013年12月我院收住院的168例精神分裂症患者,随机分为对照组和观察组,各84例,对照组患者给予常规护理,观察组患者在常规护理的基础上给予综合护理干预,对比两组患者护理前后的简明精神病量表(BPRS)、健康调查简表(SF-36)、社会功能评定量表(SSPI)评分情况。结果护理前两组患者BPRS、SSPI和SF-36评分,组间对比无明显差异(P0.05);干预后两组患者BPRS评分均降低,SSPI和SF-36评分均升高,且观察组上述量表评分改善情况较对照组更显著(P0.05)。结论综合护理干预可以更显著改善精神分裂症患者的病情、生命质量和社会功能。     

病情回放对精神分裂症患者的康复作用

目的:探讨病情回放性心理治疗对精神分裂症患者的疗效. 方法:100例精神分裂症患者随机分为回放组和对照组,每组50例.两组分别进行药物加病情回放治疗和单纯药物治疗.采用简明精神病评定量表(BPRS)、自知力与治疗态度问卷(ITAQ)及社会功能缺陷筛选量表(SDSS),于人院时、出院时和出院后1年对患者进行评估. 结果:治疗后两组BPRS、ITAQ评分、治疗依从性和社会功能均较治疗前有明显改善,但以回放组显著较好(P均<0.05或P<0.01);并维持至出院后1年仍显著优于对照组(P<0.01).入院时回放组和对照组SDSS评分分别为(10.7±1.3)分和(10.3±1.2)分,出院后1年分别为(4.2±0.8)分和(7.2±0.9)分,以回放组显著优于对照组(P<0.01);病情复发率和再住院率均以回放组显著较低(P<0.01). 结论:病情同放性心理治疗可提高精神分裂症患者的治疗依从性,改善自知力,降低复发率和再住院率,有益于患者社会功能的恢复.     

社区综合干预对慢性精神分裂症患者生活质量的影响

目的：探讨社区综合干预对慢性精神分裂症患者生活质量和服药依从性的影响。方法：120例慢性精神分裂症患者,随机分成研究组和对照组,各60例。研究组进行社区综合干预,对照组只进行药物治疗。入组前后实施简明精神病评定量表（BPRS）、生活质量综合评定问卷74（GQOLI-74）以及自知力与治疗态度问卷（ITAQ）评定。结果：治疗12个月研究组BPRS评分显著低于对照组（P〈0．05）;研究组GQOLI-74心理健康因子评分和社会功能因子评分显著高于对照组（P〈0．05）;研究组ITAQ评分显著高于对照组（P〈0．05）。结论：社区综合干预能改善慢性精神分裂症患者的生活质量,提高服药依从性。     

家庭护理干预对稳定精神分裂症患者病情的影响

目的 探讨家庭护理干预对稳定精神分裂症患者病情的影响.方法 对临床痊愈出院的精神分裂症263例随机分为研究组(132)例和对照组(131)例,出院后2组均给予抗精神病药物维持治疗和护理,研究组在此基础上实施家庭护理干预,观察一年.采用简明精神病评定量表(BPRS)、服药依从量表于入组时、3个月、6个月、1年后进行评定.结果 1年后,研究组BPRS总分、服药依从性明显好于对照组,差异有显著性(P<0.01);研究组的复发率(21.9%)低于对照组(33.5%),差异有显著性(χ2=3.95,P<0.05).结论 家庭护理干预对稳定精神分裂症患者病情有重要意义.     

Needs-based cognitive-behavioural family intervention for carers of patients suffering from schizophrenia: 12-month follow-up.

OBJECTIVE: To examine longer-term effectiveness of a needs-based family intervention for carers and out-patients suffering from schizophrenia. METHOD: Seventy-nine unselected patient-carer pairs were recruited from a geographical area and allocated randomly to one of two conditions. One group received needs-based cognitive-behavioural family intervention in combination with general family support plus the standard care. The control group received the general family support and standard care only. RESULTS: Analysis was carried out on an intention-to-treat basis. There was a significant advantage for family intervention, in terms of relapse (37% relapsed compared to 72%, NNT=3) and on other clinical measures. Treatment group and medication compliance were significant and independent predictors of relapse. There was a significant reduction in carer needs in the intervention group. CONCLUSION: Family intervention directed at carers' needs within a standard mental health service can produce benefits for patients beyond the term of intervention.     

Going beyond: an adventure- and recreation-based group intervention promotes well-being and weight loss in schizophrenia.

OBJECTIVE: To undertake a preliminary study to assess the feasibility of clinical implementation and evaluate the effectiveness of a novel adventure- and recreation-based group intervention in the rehabilitation of individuals with schizophrenia. METHODS: In a 2-year, prospective, case-control study, 23 consecutively referred, clinically stabilized schizophrenia patients received the new intervention over an 8-month period; 31 patients on the wait list, considered the control group, received standard clinical care that included some recreational activities. Symptom severity, self-esteem, self-appraised cognitive abilities, and functioning were documented for both groups with standardized rating scales administered at baseline, on completion of treatment, and at 12 months posttreatment. RESULTS: Treatment adherence was 97%, and there were no dropouts. Patients in the study group showed marginal improvement in perceived cognitive abilities and on domain-specific functioning measures but experienced a significant improvement in their self-esteem and global functioning (P < 0.05), as well as a weight loss of over 12 lb. Improvement was sustained over 1 year with further occupational and social gains. CONCLUSION: In the context of overcoming barriers to providing early intervention for youth and preventing metabolic problems among older adults with schizophrenia, adventure- and recreation-based interventions could play a useful complementary role.     

Impact of Personalized In‐Home Nursing Care Plans on Dependence in ADLs/IADLs and on Family Burden Among Adults Diagnosed With Schizophrenia: A Randomized Controlled Study

PURPOSE: The study aims to assess the impact of personalized in‐home nursing care plans on the degree of dependence among adult patients with schizophrenia, and on family burden. DESIGN AND METHODS: This is a randomized controlled study with 94 participants: The experimental group received a personalized in‐home nursing care plan. The comparison group got a standard care at its mental health center. FINDINGS: The pretest–posttest multivariate analysis of covariance revealed statistically significant group differences (p= .003). The help received the positive activity and the degree of independence in the experimental group improved mainly due to intervention. PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS: A personalized in‐home nursing care plan improves the degree of independence of people diagnosed with schizophrenia living in the community and reduces the burden perceived by the family.     

癫(癎)术后抗癫(癎)药物的治疗模式

目的 探讨癫(癎)术后抗癫(癎)药物的应用方法及影响因素.方法 2002-2005年在我院接受了手术治疗的170例癫(癎)患者,根据不同手术时段分为3组,A组:2002年至2003年10月的病例;B组:2003年11月至2004年10月药师与临床医生一起对癫(癎)手术患者进行用药教育的病例;C组:2004年11月至2005年10月接受全程化药学服务的病例.对随访1年后各组之间的疗效、用药安全性、抗癫(癎)药应用依从性等指标进行了比较,初步探讨术后应用抗癫(癎)药的规律.结果 B组和C组在疗效(71%、81%)、用药安全性、抗癫(癎)药用药依从性等指标上均优于A组(46%),差异均有统计学意义(X2=7.08、15.50,P<0.05).结论 神经内外科医生、药师合作的个体化癫(癎)术后全程化服务是一种较新的、有效的癫(癎)术后管理模式.     

A randomized clinical trial of inpatient family intervention. IV. Followup results for subjects with schizophrenia

This is the last of a series of four papers, here focussing on schizophrenia, which report followup data up to 18 months from a randomized clinical trial of a psychoeducational family intervention (IFI), which was added to medication and limited to the inpatient phase of treatment, after which post-hospital care was not controlled. Our data suggested that patients with poor prehospital functioning (i.e., the chronic patients) may benefit from inpatient family intervention, but this therapeutic effect appears to be limited to females and does not appear until 18 months postadmission. Families of patients with schizophrenia also show benefit from having received IFI, the effect is seen earlier than with the patients, and is associated with achieving the goals of IFI. The results in the IFI group could not be accounted for by improved post-hospital medication compliance, but they may be related to this group's greater tendency to obtain further family treatment after discharge.     

社区干预对精神分裂症患者社会功能及生存质量的影响

目的探讨以患者为中心的“患者-家属-社区居民”模式的社区干预对精神分裂症患者社区康复的影响。方法将精神分裂症患者随机分成干预组和对照组,对干预组患者及其家属、社区居民实施群体干预和个别指导,对照组只给予一般健康指导,共干预1年。采用家庭社会关怀度指数问卷（APGAR）、社会功能缺陷量表（SDSS）和生活质量综合评定问卷（GQOL1～74）对干预效果进行评定。结果实施干预后,干预组患者的社会功能缺陷程度明显降低,与干预前及两组间比较,均有显著性意义（P〈0．01）。患者得到较多的家庭、社会支持,家庭社会关怀度显著提高（P〈0．01）。患者生活质量与家庭社会支持度的相关性分析,除物质生活维度,其余3个维度即躯体功能（r=0．34、P〈0．01）、心理功能（r=0．36P〈0．01）、社会功能（r=0．28,P〈0．05）均与家庭社会关怀度呈正相关,患者生活质量明显提高（P〈0．01）。结论及时的社区干预可有效提高精神分裂症患者的社会功能和生活质量。     

上海某区医院-社区一体化康复模式对精神分裂症患者的效果(英文)

背景 精神分裂症患者远期疗效不理想的可能因素之一是住院治疗与社区精神卫生服务间缺乏连贯性。目的 评估医院-社区一体化康复模式对精神分裂症患者康复的疗效。方法 在上海市长宁区10家社区卫生服务中心参与医院-社区一体化康复计划的90例精神分裂症患者作为干预组,从长宁区社区普通管理的门诊精神分裂症患者中随机抽取52例患者作为对照组。由不了解患者分组情况的医生在入组(基线)和12个月后采用阳性与阴性症状量表(Positive and Negative Syndrome Scale,PANSS)、Morningside康复状态量表(Morningside Rehabilitation Status Scale,MRSS)评估患者情况。同时在上述两个时点采用家庭负担会谈量表(Family Burden Scale,FBS)、抑郁自评量表(Self-rating Depression Scale,SDS)、焦虑自评量表(Self-rating Anxiety Scale,SAS)和社会支持评定量表(Social Support Rating Scale,SSRS)评估患者法定监护人(绝大部分是与患者同住的家属)的情况。结果 入组时,PANSS评估结果显示两组的临床状况相仿,但是MRSS评估结果表明干预组的社会功能明显不如对照组。干预1年后研究组的临床症状和社会功能的改善程度均比对照组显著。1年中,研究组有3例(3.3%)住院,而对照组有6例(11.5%)(Fisher确切概率法,p=0.074)。无论是入组时还是1年后,两组监护人之间在感到的负担、抑郁、焦虑以及自我报告的社会支持等的差异均无显著性,但是干预组患者监护人的抑郁和焦虑症状在1年后得到改善。结论 医院-社区一体化康复模式能促进精神分裂症患者临床症状和社会功能的改善。今后需要进一步开展这一项目,来提高参与一体化康复模式的患者比例,并为患者家属提供更好的心理社会支持服务。     

Service use among patients with schizophrenia in psychoeducational multiple-family group treatment

OBJECTIVES: Outpatient and inpatient mental health service outcomes for outpatients with schizophrenia or schizoaffective disorder who received psychoeducational multiple-family group treatment were compared with outcomes for similar patients who received standard care. METHODS: A total of 106 outpatients with schizophrenia or schizoaffective disorder who were receiving services from a large community mental health center were randomly assigned to receive standard care or standard care plus multiple-family group treatment. The two-year multiple-family intervention consisted of weekly group sessions designed to educate patients and their family members about the biological basis of mental illness and treatment, to improve illness management and coping skills, and to provide social support. The group sessions were conducted by two clinicians using a standardized protocol. Each multiple-family group included five to eight families and consumers. Service records for the year before and after random assignment to the study groups were examined in an intent-to-treat analysis. RESULTS: During the year after random assignment to study groups, multiple-family group treatment was associated with a lower rate of psychiatric hospitalization than standard care. It was only marginally associated with lower use of crisis services, and it was not associated with the amount of outpatient service time. CONCLUSIONS: The findings suggest that implementation of multiple-family group treatment in a capitated community mental health setting improves hospitalization outcomes without increasing the overall volume of outpatient mental health services.     

Benchmarking treatment of schizophrenia: a comparison of service delivery by the national government and by state and local providers

This study compared treatment of schizophrenia in two types of organization: a national, government-operated health care system, the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA), and in hospitals and clinics operated by state and local providers. Between 1994 and 1996, 746 male patients with a clinical diagnosis of schizophrenia residing in two states in the Southeast and Midwest were surveyed: 192 VA inpatients were compared with 96 non-VA inpatients, and 274 VA outpatients were compared with 184 non-VA outpatients. VA patients were older and had higher incomes than non-VA patients but did not differ significantly on measures of clinical status, satisfaction with providers, or community adjustment. VA outpatients were more likely to have been hospitalized during the previous year than non-VA outpatients and were less likely to have received services from a day hospital, from a case manager or social worker, or to have received crisis intervention services. On 5 of 26 Schizophrenic Patient Outcomes Research Team treatment recommendations, a smaller proportion of VA than non-VA patients adhered to standards. Four of these reflected reduced access among VA patients to psychosocial services such as work therapy, job training, or case management services. Cross-sectional surveys can be used to compare quality of care across service systems. VA care was associated with similar satisfaction and clinical outcomes but greater reliance on hospital treatment and less use of community-based psychosocial services.     

全程干预对首发精神分裂症患者的影响

目的:探讨全程综合性干预对首发精神分裂症患者社会功能及生活质量的影响。方法:将116例首发精神分裂症患者随机分为干预组和药物组各58例,其中脱落7例。两组均接受抗精神病药治疗,干预组同时接受全程综合干预措施1年。采用简明精神病评定量表(BPRS)、住院病人护士观察量表(NOSIE-30)、社会功能缺陷量表(SDSS)和生活质量综合评定问卷(GQOLI)分别于入组时及干预结束时进行评估。结果:入组时,两组所有量表评分差异均无显著性;干预结束时,干预组的BPRS、NOSIE-30中的总消极因素及SDSS评分均明显低于药物组;而NOSIE-30总分、总积极因素及GQOLI评分均明显高于药物组。结论:全程综合性干预措施有助于改善首发精神分裂症患者的精神症状,促进其社会功能的恢复,提高其生活质量。