评估脊髓损伤(SCI)患者的肠道管理效果和受试者满意度:意大利通过MENTOR工具进行的一项多中心调查。

IF 1.8 4区 医学 Q3 CLINICAL NEUROLOGY
Simone Tiberti, Claudio Pilati, Astrid Bonaccorsi, Luigi G Rizzato, Michele Spinelli, Giulio Del Popolo, Gabriele Righi, Valentina Cicioni, Aquilina Colonna, Ilaria Rosso, Giuseppina Frasca, Luisa De Palma, Antonella Andreottola, Lucia Feltroni, Serena V Capobianco, Giorgio Scivoletto
{"title":"评估脊髓损伤(SCI)患者的肠道管理效果和受试者满意度:意大利通过MENTOR工具进行的一项多中心调查。","authors":"Simone Tiberti, Claudio Pilati, Astrid Bonaccorsi, Luigi G Rizzato, Michele Spinelli, Giulio Del Popolo, Gabriele Righi, Valentina Cicioni, Aquilina Colonna, Ilaria Rosso, Giuseppina Frasca, Luisa De Palma, Antonella Andreottola, Lucia Feltroni, Serena V Capobianco, Giorgio Scivoletto","doi":"10.1080/10790268.2024.2414147","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Study design: </strong>Observational prospective multicenter study.</p><p><strong>Objectives: </strong>The aim of this study is to evaluate the efficacy of bowel management and subjects' satisfaction by the Monitoring the Efficacy of Neurogenic Bowel Treatment On Response (MENTOR) tool and the impact of demographic and clinical factors on bowel management.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Consecutive patients with SCI were recruited by nine Italian Spinal Units. The MENTOR tool is a three-dimensional questionnaire assessing objective bowel score measures, patient's subjective perceptions, and \"special attention symptoms\"; the combination of these results defines the allocation of each subject into one of three categories reflecting the possible therapeutic recommendations (red for \"recommend change\", yellow for \"further discussion\", and green for \"monitoring\").</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>We recruited 352 subjects with subacute or chronic SCI. The NBD average score was 11.7 ± 7.2 with 69.9% that expresses \"good\" or \"adequate\" satisfaction. 33.1% had one or more \"special attention symptoms (SAS)\". About the MENTOR tool color: 34.6% of the current treatment was adequate (green), 29.7% needed a revaluation (yellow), and 35% required a change (red). While in \"green\" patients the subjective perception coincided with the score, 24% of \"yellow\" patients and 34.4% of \"red\" patients answered they were well managed. None of the clinical or demographic characteristics was associated with patients' satisfaction or belonging to the three color zones.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Effective bowel management in subjects with SCI did not correlate with patient characteristics or satisfaction. Many patients have inappropriate bowel management despite their satisfaction and the chronicity of the injury. This disparity calls for a periodic assessment with an objective tool such as MENTOR to identify the individual that requires intervention.</p>","PeriodicalId":50044,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Spinal Cord Medicine","volume":" ","pages":"1-10"},"PeriodicalIF":1.8000,"publicationDate":"2024-12-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Evaluation of bowel management efficacy and subjects' satisfaction in people with spinal cord injury (SCI): An Italian multicenter survey via the MENTOR tool.\",\"authors\":\"Simone Tiberti, Claudio Pilati, Astrid Bonaccorsi, Luigi G Rizzato, Michele Spinelli, Giulio Del Popolo, Gabriele Righi, Valentina Cicioni, Aquilina Colonna, Ilaria Rosso, Giuseppina Frasca, Luisa De Palma, Antonella Andreottola, Lucia Feltroni, Serena V Capobianco, Giorgio Scivoletto\",\"doi\":\"10.1080/10790268.2024.2414147\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Study design: </strong>Observational prospective multicenter study.</p><p><strong>Objectives: </strong>The aim of this study is to evaluate the efficacy of bowel management and subjects' satisfaction by the Monitoring the Efficacy of Neurogenic Bowel Treatment On Response (MENTOR) tool and the impact of demographic and clinical factors on bowel management.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Consecutive patients with SCI were recruited by nine Italian Spinal Units. The MENTOR tool is a three-dimensional questionnaire assessing objective bowel score measures, patient's subjective perceptions, and \\\"special attention symptoms\\\"; the combination of these results defines the allocation of each subject into one of three categories reflecting the possible therapeutic recommendations (red for \\\"recommend change\\\", yellow for \\\"further discussion\\\", and green for \\\"monitoring\\\").</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>We recruited 352 subjects with subacute or chronic SCI. The NBD average score was 11.7 ± 7.2 with 69.9% that expresses \\\"good\\\" or \\\"adequate\\\" satisfaction. 33.1% had one or more \\\"special attention symptoms (SAS)\\\". About the MENTOR tool color: 34.6% of the current treatment was adequate (green), 29.7% needed a revaluation (yellow), and 35% required a change (red). While in \\\"green\\\" patients the subjective perception coincided with the score, 24% of \\\"yellow\\\" patients and 34.4% of \\\"red\\\" patients answered they were well managed. None of the clinical or demographic characteristics was associated with patients' satisfaction or belonging to the three color zones.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Effective bowel management in subjects with SCI did not correlate with patient characteristics or satisfaction. Many patients have inappropriate bowel management despite their satisfaction and the chronicity of the injury. This disparity calls for a periodic assessment with an objective tool such as MENTOR to identify the individual that requires intervention.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":50044,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Spinal Cord Medicine\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"1-10\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.8000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-12-02\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Spinal Cord Medicine\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1080/10790268.2024.2414147\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"CLINICAL NEUROLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Spinal Cord Medicine","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/10790268.2024.2414147","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"CLINICAL NEUROLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

研究设计:观察性前瞻性多中心研究。目的:本研究的目的是通过监测神经源性肠治疗疗效(MENTOR)工具评估肠道管理的疗效和受试者的满意度,以及人口统计学和临床因素对肠道管理的影响。方法:意大利9个脊柱单位招募连续的脊髓损伤患者。MENTOR工具是一种三维问卷,评估客观肠道评分测量、患者主观感知和“特别注意症状”;这些结果的组合将每个受试者划分为三个类别之一,反映了可能的治疗建议(红色代表“建议改变”,黄色代表“进一步讨论”,绿色代表“监测”)。结果:我们招募了352名亚急性或慢性脊髓损伤患者。NBD的平均得分为11.7±7.2,其中69.9%的人表示“良好”或“足够”满意。33.1%有一个或多个“特别注意症状(SAS)”。关于MENTOR工具的颜色:34.6%的当前治疗是足够的(绿色),29.7%需要重新评估(黄色),35%需要改变(红色)。而在“绿色”患者中,主观感知与得分一致,24%的“黄色”患者和34.4%的“红色”患者回答他们得到了很好的管理。临床或人口学特征与患者满意度或属于三个颜色区域无关。结论:脊髓损伤患者的有效肠道管理与患者特征或满意度无关。许多患者有不适当的肠道管理,尽管他们的满意度和慢性损伤。这种差异要求使用MENTOR等客观工具进行定期评估,以确定需要干预的个体。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Evaluation of bowel management efficacy and subjects' satisfaction in people with spinal cord injury (SCI): An Italian multicenter survey via the MENTOR tool.

Study design: Observational prospective multicenter study.

Objectives: The aim of this study is to evaluate the efficacy of bowel management and subjects' satisfaction by the Monitoring the Efficacy of Neurogenic Bowel Treatment On Response (MENTOR) tool and the impact of demographic and clinical factors on bowel management.

Methods: Consecutive patients with SCI were recruited by nine Italian Spinal Units. The MENTOR tool is a three-dimensional questionnaire assessing objective bowel score measures, patient's subjective perceptions, and "special attention symptoms"; the combination of these results defines the allocation of each subject into one of three categories reflecting the possible therapeutic recommendations (red for "recommend change", yellow for "further discussion", and green for "monitoring").

Results: We recruited 352 subjects with subacute or chronic SCI. The NBD average score was 11.7 ± 7.2 with 69.9% that expresses "good" or "adequate" satisfaction. 33.1% had one or more "special attention symptoms (SAS)". About the MENTOR tool color: 34.6% of the current treatment was adequate (green), 29.7% needed a revaluation (yellow), and 35% required a change (red). While in "green" patients the subjective perception coincided with the score, 24% of "yellow" patients and 34.4% of "red" patients answered they were well managed. None of the clinical or demographic characteristics was associated with patients' satisfaction or belonging to the three color zones.

Conclusions: Effective bowel management in subjects with SCI did not correlate with patient characteristics or satisfaction. Many patients have inappropriate bowel management despite their satisfaction and the chronicity of the injury. This disparity calls for a periodic assessment with an objective tool such as MENTOR to identify the individual that requires intervention.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Journal of Spinal Cord Medicine
Journal of Spinal Cord Medicine 医学-临床神经学
CiteScore
4.20
自引率
5.90%
发文量
101
审稿时长
6-12 weeks
期刊介绍: For more than three decades, The Journal of Spinal Cord Medicine has reflected the evolution of the field of spinal cord medicine. From its inception as a newsletter for physicians striving to provide the best of care, JSCM has matured into an international journal that serves professionals from all disciplines—medicine, nursing, therapy, engineering, psychology and social work.
×
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:481959085
Book学术官方微信