Lorig K, González V M, Laurent D D, Morgan L, Laris B A
Stanford University School of Medicine, Palo Alto, California, USA.
Arthritis Care Res. 1998 Dec;11(6):448-54. doi: 10.1002/art.1790110604.
Study 1: Qualitative methods incorporating incomplete block design. Study 2: Comparison of 3- and 6-week outcomes. Study 3: Pretest/posttest comparison.
Study 1: Pain management, exercise, and sharing ranked as the most useful aspects of the ASMP. Nutrition, medications, and making decisions about nontraditional treatments ranked least useful. Study 2: Six-week ASMP subjects improved pain, health distress, illness impact, exercise, cognitive pain management, self-efficacy, and reduced visits to physicians (P < 0.05). Three-week subjects improved health distress, cognitive pain management, and self-efficacy (P < 0.05). Study 3: Improved knowledge, self-efficacy, and pain (P < 0.05).
The traditional 6-week ASMP is more effective than a 3-week version. A 1.5-hour community program is effective in increasing knowledge, self-efficacy, and contact with the Arthritis Foundation.
1)确定关节炎自我管理项目(ASMP)的优势与不足。2)比较为期3周和6周的ASMP。3)评估为时1.5小时的关节炎项目。
研究1:采用不完全区组设计的定性方法。研究2:比较3周和6周的结果。研究3:前测/后测比较。
研究1:疼痛管理、运动和分享被列为ASMP最有用的方面。营养、药物治疗以及对非传统治疗方法的决策被列为最没用的方面。研究2:参加为期6周ASMP的受试者疼痛、健康困扰、疾病影响、运动、认知性疼痛管理、自我效能得到改善,就医次数减少(P<0.05)。参加为期3周ASMP的受试者健康困扰、认知性疼痛管理和自我效能得到改善(P<0.05)。研究3:知识、自我效能和疼痛得到改善(P<0.05)。
传统的为期6周的ASMP比为期3周的更有效。一个为时1.5小时的社区项目在增加知识、自我效能以及与关节炎基金会的联系方面是有效的。