Copyright
©The Author(s) 2024.
World J Clin Cases. Jul 16, 2024; 12(20): 4065-4073
Published online Jul 16, 2024. doi: 10.12998/wjcc.v12.i20.4065
Published online Jul 16, 2024. doi: 10.12998/wjcc.v12.i20.4065
Table 1 Scales
Scales | Objects | Criteria |
MBI | Physical function | The total score was 100 points, with classifications as follows: 75–95 (mild dependence), 50–70 (moderate dependence), 25–45 (severe dependence), and 0–20 points (full dependence)[9,10] |
GDS | Depression level | The total score was 30 points, indicating depressive symptoms if > 11 points were scored[11] |
HAMA | Anxiety levels | The total score was 50 points, with classifications as follows: ≥ 29 (severe anxiety), 21–28 (marked anxiety), 14–20 (moderate anxiety), and 7–13 points (mild anxiety)[12] |
MNA | Nutritional status | The total score was 30 points, with classifications as follows: > 24 (good), 17–24 (possible malnutrition), and < 17 points (malnutrition)[13] |
MoCA | Cognitive function | The total score was 30 points, wherein < 26 points indicate cognitive impairment[14] |
PSQI | Sleep quality | The total score was 21 points, with classifications as follows: 0–5 (good quality), 6–10 (general), 11–15 (poor), and 16–21 points (fairly poor)[15] |
Table 2 Blood glucose control target in older patients with diabetes
Blood glucose test indicators | No hypoglycemic risk drugs | Use of hypoglycemic risk drugs | ||||
Good | Medium | Poor | Good | Medium | Poor | |
HbA1c (mmol/L) | < 7.5 | < 8.0 | < 8.5 | 7.0–7.5 | 7.5–8.0 | 8.0–8.5 |
FBG (mmol/L) | 5.0–7.2 | 5.0–8.3 | 5.6–10.0 | 5.0–8.3 | 5.6–8.3 | 5.6–10.0 |
2hPBG (mmol/L) | 5.0–8.3 | 5.6–10.0 | 6.1–11.1 | 5.6–10.0 | 8.3–10.0 | 8.3–13.9 |
Table 3 General data between the two groups of patients
Study group (n = 40) | Control group (n = 40) | t/χ2 value | P value | |
Male/female | 19/21 | 22/18 | 0.450 | 0.502 |
Age (yr) | 70.35 ± 4.26 | 71.20 ± 4.18 | 0.901 | 0.370 |
Diabetes course (yr) | 9.13 ± 2.26 | 8.80 ± 2.24 | 0.646 | 0.520 |
Hypertension course (yr) | 5.30 ± 1.09 | 5.28 ± 0.72 | 0.121 | 0.904 |
Table 4 Changes in blood glucose indicators before and after intervention in the two groups (n = 40)
FBG (mmol/L) | 2hPBG (mmol/L) | HbA1c (%) | ||||
Before | After | Before | After | Before | After | |
Study group | 9.28 ± 0.82 | 5.79 ± 0.48a | 11.41 ± 1.20 | 6.75 ± 1.99a | 9.10 ± 1.96 | 6.45 ± 1.06a |
Control group | 9.36 ± 0.75 | 7.54 ± 0.33a | 11.40 ± 1.34 | 8.79 ± 1.78a | 9.05 ± 1.04 | 7.44 ± 1.09a |
t value | 0.404 | 19.060 | 0.076 | 4.815 | 0.128 | 4.303 |
P value | 0.678 | < 0.001 | 0.940 | < 0.001 | 0.899 | < 0.001 |
Table 5 Changes in blood pressure indices before and after intervention (n = 40)
DBP (mmHg) | SBP (mmHg) | |||
Before | After | Before | After | |
Study group | 100.23 ± 6.49 | 86.38 ± 4.75 | 162.60 ± 4.74 | 138.70 ± 7.34 |
Control group | 98.35 ± 5.93 | 89.08 ± 4.21 | 163.45 ± 5.31 | 143.30 ± 6.65 |
t value | 1.348 | 2.691 | 0.755 | 2.939 |
P value | 0.181 | 0.009 | 0.453 | 0.004 |
Table 6 Changes in quality of life in the two groups before and after intervention (n = 40)
Physical health | Emotion | Physiological function | Overall health | Mental health | |
Before | |||||
Study group | 63.45 ± 2.05 | 60.80 ± 2.40 | 65.60 ± 3.02 | 68.80 ± 1.16 | 60.48 ± 1.92 |
Control group | 63.33 ± 2.12 | 61.18 ± 2.33 | 65.18 ± 3.20 | 68.48 ± 1.84 | 60.90 ± 2.24 |
t value | 0.268 | 0.709 | 0.611 | 0.945 | 0.911 |
P value | 0.789 | 0.480 | 0.543 | 0.347 | 0.365 |
After | |||||
Study group | 81.98 ± 2.74a | 78.90 ± 2.52a | 88.03 ± 2.26a | 89.43 ± 3.39a | 92.20 ± 2.09a |
Control group | 75.05 ± 3.02a | 72.63 ± 2.87b | 76.73 ± 2.24a | 80.18 ± 2.32a | 88.90 ± 2.16a |
t value | 10.737 | 10.390 | 22.458 | 14.248 | 6.947 |
P value | < 0.001 | < 0.001 | < 0.001 | < 0.001 | < 0.001 |
- Citation: Bao DY, Wu LY, Cheng QY. Effect of a comprehensive geriatric assessment nursing intervention model on older patients with diabetes and hypertension. World J Clin Cases 2024; 12(20): 4065-4073
- URL: https://www.wjgnet.com/2307-8960/full/v12/i20/4065.htm
- DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.12998/wjcc.v12.i20.4065