Peiss B, Kurleto B, Rubenfire M
Department of Medicine, Sinai Hospital, Detroit, MI, USA.
J Gen Intern Med. 1995 Feb;10(2):77-81. doi: 10.1007/BF02600231.
Primary care physicians and their office nurses were compared with inpatient dietitians by evaluating patient performance on a standardized test and three-day dietary food choices. Neither the educators nor the patients were aware of the study. Supplemental information was provided by a study dietitian and patients were reevaluated six weeks later.
Preventive cardiology program in a university-affiliated teaching hospital.
Fifty consecutive patients referred to a preventive cardiology program who had received dietary and cardiac risk factor information within the preceding six weeks by a physician and office nurse (27) or an inpatient dietitian (23) were enrolled. Forty-five patients completed the study objectives.
The patients completed a three-day food record, fasting lipids, and a test of knowledge of coronary risk factors and dietary concepts. The correct answers were discussed and a standard American Heart Association phase I diet was recommended. Six weeks later dietary food records, fasting lipids, and the test were repeated.
By participant recall, the dietitians (group II) spent an average of 30.6 +/- 25 minutes, compared with 8.2 +/- 14.4 minutes by the physicians and nurses (group I) (p < 0.05). Group II patients had a higher total knowledge score, but they were no better in risk factors, weight control, or calculated dietary fat or cholesterol. There was no correlation between time spent and percentage of calories from fat or total test score. Six weeks after the program instruction the mean cholesterol level for all the participants was reduced, and group II had a lower fat intake than did group I, which was associated with significantly lower serum cholesterol, not present at entry.
Primary care physicians and their office nurses, using less time than do dietitians, can be effective educators in providing patient education for coronary risk reduction and dietary fat intake. A second formal dietary consultation appears beneficial in improving compliance and lipid control.
1)比较医生或护士简短教育课程与营养师提供的教育对患者关于冠心病危险因素、饮食建议及依从性知识的影响;2)确定额外的正规饮食咨询对知识、饮食脂肪和血脂的价值。
通过评估患者在标准化测试及三天饮食食物选择方面的表现,将初级保健医生及其办公室护士与住院营养师进行比较。教育者和患者均不知晓该研究。由研究营养师提供补充信息,六周后对患者重新评估。
一所大学附属医院的预防心脏病项目。
连续50名被转诊至预防心脏病项目的患者,他们在之前六周内由医生和办公室护士(27名)或住院营养师(23名)接受了饮食及心脏危险因素信息,其中45名患者完成了研究目标。
患者完成一份三天的食物记录、空腹血脂检测以及一份关于冠心病危险因素和饮食概念的测试。讨论正确答案并推荐标准的美国心脏协会一期饮食。六周后重复饮食食物记录、空腹血脂检测及测试。
通过参与者回忆,营养师(第二组)平均花费30.6±25分钟,而医生和护士(第一组)花费8.2±14.4分钟(p<0.05)。第二组患者的总知识得分更高,但在危险因素、体重控制或计算得出的饮食脂肪或胆固醇方面并无更优表现。花费时间与脂肪热量百分比或总测试得分之间无相关性。项目指导六周后,所有参与者的平均胆固醇水平降低,第二组的脂肪摄入量低于第一组,这与血清胆固醇显著降低相关,而入院时不存在这种情况。
初级保健医生及其办公室护士,虽比营养师用时少,但在为患者提供降低冠心病风险及饮食脂肪摄入的教育方面可成为有效的教育者。第二次正规饮食咨询似乎有利于提高依从性和控制血脂。