3.9 Article

Education of patients with sleep apnea syndrome: Feasibility of a phone coaching procedure. Phone-coaching and SAS

期刊

REVUE DES MALADIES RESPIRATOIRES
卷 29, 期 1, 页码 40-46

出版社

MASSON EDITEUR
DOI: 10.1016/j.rmr.2011.11.001

关键词

Sleep apnea syndrome; Continuous airway pressure; Patient education; Feasibility procedure; Treatment compliance

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Introduction. - The most commonly used treatment for obstructive sleep apnea syndrome (OSA) is the application of continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP) during sleep. However compliance with this treatment is frequently below 70%. Methods. - The main aim of this study was to evaluate the feasibility of an educational intervention (EI) delivered in phone calls made to OSA patients (n=66) treated with CPAP by a home care provider (SADIR). The educational intervention consisted of five sessions of telephone based counseling intervention by appropriately trained staff delivered on day 3, 10, 30, 60 and 90 after initiation of treatment. Secondary objectives were to compare, using a case-control design, CPAP compliance of OSA patients (n=133) with or without EI. Results. - Ninety-eight percent of patients accepted the intervention to participate in the study. Fifty-seven patients (86%) received the full intervention program and 44 patients (66%) strictly respected the pre-defined timings per protocol. A higher adherence to CPAP at six months was observed in the EI group compared to patient without EI (94% versus 81%) (P < 0.05). CPAP compliance at three months was 54 minutes higher in the EI group compared to the control group (4 h 39 +/- 2 h 17 and 3 h 45 +/- 2 h 45 respectively) but this difference was not statistically significant. Conclusion. - An educational intervention dispensed by phone is applicable and would have an impact on CPAP compliance. Its efficacy on long-term compliance has to be confirmed in a larger group using a randomized procedure. (C) 2011 SPLF. Published by Elsevier Masson SAS. All rights reserved.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

3.9
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据