鼓圈活动对住院精神分裂症患者社会功能及自尊水平的影响
Influence of Drum Circle Activity on Social Functioning and Self-Esteem of Inpatients with Schizophrenia

目的：探讨运用鼓圈活动的康复模式对住院期间精神分裂症患者的社会功能及自尊水平的影响。方法：组建护患共同参与的团体小组模式，选取2020年6月至2021年3月在宜昌市优抚医院住院的精神分裂症患者100例，采用随机数字表法分为实验组50例、对照组50例。两组患者在住院后、实验前均行常规康复治疗，对照组给予常规康复治疗方式不变，实验组在对照组的基础上给予鼓圈活动，周期为8周。采用阳性与阴性症状量表(Positive and Negative Syndrome, PANSS)评分对比两组患者干预前后精神症状变化情况；采用住院精神病人社会功能评定量表(Scale of Social function in Psychosis Inpatients, SSPI)对比两组患者干预前后社会功能变化情况；采用自尊量表(self-esteem scale, SES)对比两组患者干预前后自尊水平。结果：两组患者干预后PANSS评分比较，差异有统计学意义(p < 0.05)；各组患者干预前后PANSS评分比较，差异有统计学意义(p < 0.05)。两组患者干预后SSP评分比较，差异有统计学意义(p < 0.05)；各组患者干预前后SSP评分比较，差异有统计学意义(p < 0.05)；各组患者干预前后SSP评分比较，差异有统计学意义(p < 0.05)。两组患者干预后SES评分比较，差异有统计学意义(p < 0.05)；各组患者干预前后SES评分比较统计学意义(p < 0.05)。结论：鼓圈联合心理护理的整合式模式有利于促进住院精神分裂症患者社会功能的恢复，提高其自尊水平。
Objective: To explore the effect of rehabilitation model with drum circle activity on social function and self-esteem of patients with schizophrenia during hospitalization. Methods: A group model was established in which nurses and patients participated together. A total of 100 patients with schizophrenia hospitalized in Yichang Special Care Hospital from June 2020 to March 2021 were selected and randomly divided into experimental group (n = 50) and control group (n = 50). The patients in the two groups were given conventional rehabilitation after hospitalization and before the experiment, the patients in the control group were given conventional rehabilitation without change, and the patients in the experimental group were given drum circle activity on the basis of the control group, with a cycle of 8 weeks. Positive and Negative Syndrome Scale (PANSS) score was used to compare the changes of psychiatric symptoms before and after intervention in the two groups; Scale of Social Function in Psychosis Inpatients (SSPI) was used to compare the changes of social function before and after intervention in the two groups; Self-esteem Scale (SES) was used to compare the self-esteem level before and after intervention in the two groups. Results: There was significant difference in PANSS score after intervention between the two groups (p < 0.05); there was significant difference in PANSS score before and after intervention between the groups (p < 0.05). The SSP scores of the two groups were significantly different (p < 0.05); the SSP scores of the two groups were significantly different (p < 0.05); the SSP scores of the two groups were significantly different (p < 0.05). There was a significant difference in SES scores between the two groups (p < 0.05); there was a significant difference in SES scores between the two groups (p < 0.05).