4.3 Article

Effects of a structured health education programme by a diabetic education nurse on cardiovascular risk factors in Chinese Type 2 diabetic patients: a 1-year prospective randomized study

期刊

DIABETIC MEDICINE
卷 21, 期 12, 页码 1274-1279

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/j.1464-5491.2004.01329.x

关键词

cardiovascular risk factors; Chinese; health education; structured care; Type 2 diabetes

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Aims To assess the effect of regular diabetic health education on cardiovascular risk factors in Chinese Type 2 diabetic patients. Methods This was a 1-year prospective randomized study. One hundred and eighty Type 2 diabetic subjects were recruited from three regional diabetic centres in Hong Kong. Ninety received additional structured reinforcement of diabetic health education by a trained nurse after the doctors' consultations every 3 months (intervention group). The others received the same medical care except no nursing reinforcement (control group). Outcome measures included fasting plasma glucose, HbA(1c), body mass index, waist circumference, blood pressure and lipid profiles, which were assessed before the study and after 1 year. Results Two of the controls defaulted follow-up. The intervention group and controls had similar age and sex distribution. At the end of study, the intervention group had reducted their waist circumference, diastolic blood pressure, HbA(1c), total cholesterol and low-density lipoprotein cholesterol levels. The controls had reduced their total cholesterol and low-density lipoprotein cholesterol levels. Other cardiovascular risk factors were not significantly changed in the controls. Addition of drugs and/or dosage increment of anti-diabetic drugs, lipid-lowering agents and anti-hypertensive agents were similar between the two groups. Conclusions Regular structured reinforcement with diabetic health education is useful. It helps to control more successfully some of the cardiovascular risk factors in Chinese Type 2 diabetic patients.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.3
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据