The effects of educational programs and telephone follow-up on the quality of life (QOL) and life satisfaction in patients with acute coronary syndrome in coronary care unit (CCU) and post-CCU
Journal: The Greek E-Journal of Perioperative Medicine (Vol.13, No. 2)Publication Date: 2015-10-25
Authors : Cheraghi S; Toulabi T; Baharvand B; Farhadi A;
Page : 58-70
Keywords : quality of life (QOL); satisfaction; acute coronary syndrome; telephone follow - up; e d- ucational programs; guide nurse;
Abstract
Acute coronary syndrome is a debilitating and progressive disease, which can affect patient's quality of life (QOL) and life satisfaction, which are two important components of patients' treatment and care. The present study was conducted to determine the effects of educational programs and telephone follow-up on the QOL and life satisfaction in patients with acute coronary syndrome. Ninety patients with acute coronary syndrome were enrolled in a randomized clinical trial. The patients in the study were randomly classified into three groups: Group A (n=30) received educational program, Group B (n=30) received educational program plus ten telephone calls, and Group C (n=30) received no interventions. MacNew's questionnaires of patient's QOL and patient's satisfaction were applied for all the groups. During hospitalization, the patients in Groups A and B received three 30-minute sessions of heart-disease-related educational program together with educational booklets. The patients in Group B received additional ten telephone calls for the consistency of the educational program for two months after patient's discharge. Statistical analysis was performed through the analysis of variance and Pearson's correlation test (p<0.05). The results showed that the effects of intervention in Groups A and B on the total score of QOL were not significant compared to the control group. The emotional and physical dimensions of QOL were significantly different between the patients with intervention and Group C. Comparison between satisfaction means of the three groups before intervention showed no significant difference. However, there was significant difference between them after intervention (p < 0.001). There was also a significant difference between satisfaction scores of Groups A and B compared to Group C. However, there was no statistically significant difference between Groups A and B.
Other Latest Articles
Last modified: 2016-12-08 23:08:30