[A study on the effect that rehabilitation education influence on the knowledge attitude and practice of public health nurse].

Abstract

The home visiting health nurses are important man-power who can serve various and persistent rehabilitation care to disabled person in community. The Community Based Rehabilitation project (CBR) of national rehabilitation center have been carried out from 1995. As a part of that project national health center performed rehabilitation education program for home visiting health nurses. The purpose of this study is to analysis the effect of this education. In the first stage all of those groups were educated for two weeks in national rehabilitation center. But only two group nurses, one is in a urban and the other in a rural community, have been educated continually in the field through discussing rehabilitation care case study. The data in this study were gathered from three group health nurses and analysed by SAS computer program. The results about knowledge, attitude and practice changes of the three group nurses were as follows. 1. In the pre education state the mean point of all nurses' attitude for rehabilitation was 59, but in the post education state that was 90. The difference between pre and post attitude is very significant (t = -14.1, p < 0.0001). 2. In the pre education state the mean point of all nurses' knowledge for rehabilitation was 45, but in the post education state that was 78. The difference between pre and post knowledge is very significant (t = -12.7, p < 0.0001). 3. In the pre education state the mean point of all nurses' practice for rehabilitation care was 37, but in the post education state that was 62. The difference between pre and post practice is very significant (t = -7.3, p < 0.0001). 4. In practice point, the two group nurses who have been educated continuously were superior to the other (t = -3.9, p < 0.001). 5. All points between the urban and rural nurses were no significant differences (p > 0.1). 6. All changes of the attitude, knowledge and practice did not affected by age (F = 0.58, p > 0.1), professional career (F = 0.61, p > 0.1), educational background (F = 0.97, p > 0.1).