The effect of telephone training and follow-up on patients' adherence to the treatment regimen after myocardial infarction

{"title":"The effect of telephone training and follow-up on patients' adherence to the treatment regimen after myocardial infarction","authors":"","doi":"10.32592/ajnmc.30.3.151","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Background and Objective: Non-adherence to treatment increases complications and mortality after myocardial infarction. The present study aimed to assess the effect of education and telephone follow-up on patients' adherence to the treatment regimen after myocardial infarction.\nMaterials and Methods: This clinical trial study was performed on of 150 patients who were selected via convenience sampling method and assigned to three groups: control, intervention 1 (face-to-face training based on the training booklet), and intervention 2 (face-to-face training and follow-up telephone care). Patients in intervention group 2 were followed up by telephone for three months. Data were collected based on a questionnaire of adherence to the treatment regimen and demographic. Data analysis was performed in SPSS software (version 21) using ANOVA, Chi-square, Fisher, and Repeated Measures ANOVA.\nResults: The mean score of adherence at the beginning of the study was 64.60±8.13 (P<0.001). The mean score of adherence to treatment in all three groups was increased 1.5 months after the intervention; nonetheless, it was higher in intervention group 1 (face-to-face training) than that in other groups (81.69±5.12) (P<0.001). Three months after the intervention, the mean of adherence to treatment in intervention group 2 (face-to-face training and telephone follow-up) was higher than that in other groups (87.94±4.04) (P<0.001). During the three stages, no statistically significant difference was observed between the two methods of telephone follow-up and education alone (P=0.710).\nConclusion: Education with and without telephone follow-up leads to improved adherence to treatment; therefore, one of the two educational methods can be selected to increase patients' adherence to the treatment regimen.","PeriodicalId":129048,"journal":{"name":"Avicenna Journal of Nursing and Midwifery Care","volume":"29 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2022-05-16","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Avicenna Journal of Nursing and Midwifery Care","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.32592/ajnmc.30.3.151","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background and Objective: Non-adherence to treatment increases complications and mortality after myocardial infarction. The present study aimed to assess the effect of education and telephone follow-up on patients' adherence to the treatment regimen after myocardial infarction. Materials and Methods: This clinical trial study was performed on of 150 patients who were selected via convenience sampling method and assigned to three groups: control, intervention 1 (face-to-face training based on the training booklet), and intervention 2 (face-to-face training and follow-up telephone care). Patients in intervention group 2 were followed up by telephone for three months. Data were collected based on a questionnaire of adherence to the treatment regimen and demographic. Data analysis was performed in SPSS software (version 21) using ANOVA, Chi-square, Fisher, and Repeated Measures ANOVA. Results: The mean score of adherence at the beginning of the study was 64.60±8.13 (P<0.001). The mean score of adherence to treatment in all three groups was increased 1.5 months after the intervention; nonetheless, it was higher in intervention group 1 (face-to-face training) than that in other groups (81.69±5.12) (P<0.001). Three months after the intervention, the mean of adherence to treatment in intervention group 2 (face-to-face training and telephone follow-up) was higher than that in other groups (87.94±4.04) (P<0.001). During the three stages, no statistically significant difference was observed between the two methods of telephone follow-up and education alone (P=0.710). Conclusion: Education with and without telephone follow-up leads to improved adherence to treatment; therefore, one of the two educational methods can be selected to increase patients' adherence to the treatment regimen.
电话培训及随访对心肌梗死后患者治疗方案依从性的影响
背景与目的:不坚持治疗会增加心肌梗死后的并发症和死亡率。本研究旨在评估教育和电话随访对心肌梗死后患者依从性治疗方案的影响。材料与方法:本临床试验研究采用方便抽样法选取150例患者,分为3组:对照组、干预1组(根据培训手册进行面对面培训)、干预2组(面对面培训并随访电话护理)。干预组2通过电话随访3个月。数据是根据对治疗方案的依从性和人口统计调查问卷收集的。数据分析采用SPSS软件(版本21),采用方差分析、卡方分析、Fisher分析和重复测量方差分析。结果:研究开始时的平均依从性评分为64.60±8.13分(P<0.001)。干预后1.5个月,三组患者的治疗依从性平均得分均有所提高;干预1组(面授组)得分(81.69±5.12)高于其他各组(P<0.001)。干预3个月后,干预2组(面对面培训+电话随访)的治疗依从性平均值(87.94±4.04)高于其他组(P<0.001)。在三个阶段,电话随访与单独教育两种方法的差异无统计学意义(P=0.710)。结论:有或没有电话随访的教育可提高治疗依从性;因此,可以选择两种教育方法中的一种来提高患者对治疗方案的依从性。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
1.10
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信