4.5 Article

A randomized controlled trial of a health promotion education programme for people with multiple sclerosis

期刊

CLINICAL REHABILITATION
卷 20, 期 9, 页码 783-792

出版社

SAGE PUBLICATIONS LTD
DOI: 10.1177/0269215506070805

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objective: To evaluate the effectiveness of a health promotion education programme for people with multiple sclerosis (the OPTIMISE programme) in terms of increasing the level of health-promoting activity undertaken, improving self-efficacy and enhancing quality of life. Design: A randomized controlled single blinded trial. Non-parametric analysis was undertaken to test for significant differences between treatment and control groups change scores. Subjects and setting: Sixty-two adults (32 treatment and 30 control subjects) with multiple sclerosis of any type, Expanded Disability Status Scale (EDSS) 1-7. Intervention: An eight-week multidisciplinary outpatient health promotion education programme aimed at increasing knowledge, skills and confidence in undertaking health promotion activities. Outcome measures: Health Promoting Lifestyle Profile, Self-Rated Abilities for Health Practices Scale and the Short Form 36 Item Health Survey. Results: Following completion of the programme, treatment subjects had significantly higher levels of health promotion activity undertaken (P<0.01) and self-efficacy for health promotion activities (P<0.01). These benefits were sustained for at least three months after the programme ceased. Certain domains of quality of life also improved in treatment subjects more than controls (physical P=0.03, mental health and general health P<0.01), although only mental health and general health showed further improvement at three months. Participants provided positive feedback regarding the usefulness of the intervention and demonstrated observable changes to their health promotion behaviours. Conclusions: The OPTIMISE programme produced significant changes in health-promoting behaviours.

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

4.5
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