积极性社区康复及干预对精神分裂症患者精神症状及家庭经济负担的影响

目的：分析积极性社区康复及干预对精神分裂症患者精神症状及家庭经济负担的影响。方法选取2011年8月至2014年8月四川大学华西医院精神卫生中心治疗后在社区进行康复的精神分裂症患者52例，按照随机数表法分为观察组和对照组，每组26例，对照组患者接受常规出院后干预，观察组患者接受积极性社区康复及干预，均持续6个月。采用阳性和阴性症状量表(PANSS)评估两组患者的干预后精神病症状，采用社会功能缺陷筛选量表(SDSS)评估社会功能缺陷，采用疾病家庭负担量表（FBS）评估家庭经济负担。结果观察组患者接受积极性社区康复及干预后，PANSS评分中总分(42.54±5.65)分，阳性症状(7.29±0.87)分，阴性症状(12.42±1.79)分，一般精神病理(20.41±2.87)，均低于对照组患者，差异均有统计学意义(P<0.05)；SDSS评分中职业及工作(0.93±0.13)分、婚姻职能(1.02±0.13)分、父母职能(0.95±0.11)分、社会性退缩(0.82±0.08)分、家庭外的社会活动(0.93±0.09)分、家庭内活动(0.74±0.08)分、家庭职能(0.76±0.08)分、个人生活自理(0.59±0.07)分、对外界的兴趣和关心(0.89±0.07)分、责任心与计划性(1.02±0.13)分，均低于对照组患者，差异均有统计学意义(P<0.05)；观察组患者因疾病复发导致的家庭经济支出值低于对照组患者，家庭负担评分中家庭经济负担(6.38±0.71)分、家庭日常生活(7.12±0.83)分、家庭休闲娱乐活动(5.73±0.63)分、家庭关系(6.02±0.73)分、家庭成员躯体健康(5.38±0.58)分、家庭成员心理健康(7.38±0.84)分，均低于对照组患者，差异均有统计学意义(P<0.05)。结论积极性社区康复干预可以促进精神分裂症患者的病情康复并减少家庭经济负担，具有重要的临床及社会价值。

Influence of positive community rehabilitation intervention on schizophrenia patients' psychiatric state and family economic burden

Objective To analyze the influence of positive community rehabilitation intervention on Schizo-phrenia patients' psychiatric state and family economic burden. Methods Fifty-two schizophrenia patients treated in West China Hospital of Sichuan University from August 2011 to August 2014 were enrolled as the study subjects, which were divided into observation group and control group according to the random number table, with 26 patients in each group. Patients in the control group received routine intervention, and patients in the observation group received positive community rehabilitation intervention, for six months. The psychiatric symptoms were detected by Positive and Nega-tive Syndrome Scale (PANSS), and social functions were tested by Social Disability Screening Schedule (SDSS). Eco-nomic burden of the family was evacuated by Family Burden Scale of Diseases (FBS). Results Observation group pa-tients’PANSS total score, positive symptoms, negative symptoms, general mental pathology were (42.54 ± 5.65) points, (7.29±0.87) points, (12.42±1.79) points, (20.41±2.87), which were significantly lower than those in the control group (P<0.05). SDSS scores of occupation and work, marriage function, parenting function, social withdrawal, family social activ-ities, family activities, family function, personal care, interest on the outside world, sense of responsibility and planning were (0.93 ± 0.13) points, (1.02 ± 0.13) points, (0.95 ± 0.11) points, (0.82 ± 0.08) points, (0.93 ± 0.09) points, (0.74 ± 0.08) points, (0.76 ± 0.08) points, (0.59 ± 0.07) points, (0.89 ± 0.07) points, (1.02 ± 0.13) points, respectively, which were signifi-cantly lower than those in the control group (P<0.05). The economic cost due to recurrence in the observation group was lower than that in the control group. Family burden scores of economic burden of family, daily life of the family, family entertainment, family relationships, physical health of family members, mental health of family members in the observa-tion group were (6.38±0.71) points, (7.12±0.83) points, (5.73±0.63) points, (6.02±0.73) points, (5.38±0.58) points, (7.38± 0.84) points, which were significantly lower than those in the control group (P<0.05). Conclusion Positive community rehabilitation intervention can promote the rehabilitation of patients with schizophrenia and reduce economic burden of the family, which has important clinical and social value.