{"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.