Objective To study its specific application style, by analyzing factors influencing effects of treating knee joint dysfunction in rehabilitative community. Method From 2011 May to 2012 November, to choice 20 non-athlete patients on knee joint dysfunction patients, according to the role of patients in the treatment (mark A) and setting of therapeutic goal (mark B), patients were randomly divided into the common goal group A1B1 and own goal group A1B2 under the cooperation group, common goal group A2B1 and own goal group A2B2 under competition group(each group,5 cases), who had rehabilitation training in 5 days a week, respectively in the morning and afternoon, 40min each time. The ifrst day of the week, all groups received psychological counseling;weekly the best patient told her story and experience about exercise for others. Training content:In the morning each group received one-on-one traditional training. In the afternoon according to different groups, they received different forms of functional training. After 1 months of training, assess psychological, pain and function index. Results Comparison of before and after the treatment, all index in each group had statistical signiifcance (P<0.05);component comparison after treatment:①HAMD evaluation of contrast, A1B1 and A1B2, A1B2 and A2B1, there was statistical signiifcance (P<0.05);②Assessment of VAS in contrast, there was no difference between the groups (P>0.05);③The active lfexion angle of contrast, according to the sample mean the comparative result was that main effect of the B factor accounted for 6.8%, the interaction of AB accounted for 6.2%, there were not statistically signiifcant (P>0.05);only main effect of A accounted for 7.2%, with statistical signiifcance (P<0.05). The passive lfexion angle of contrast, the main effect of the B factor accounted for 5%, the interaction of AB accounted for 6.2%, there were not statistically signiifcant (P>0.05);only main effect of A accounted for 7.8%, with statistical signiifcance (P<0.05).④The comparison of Lysholm evaluation, according to the sample mean the comparative result was that main effect of the A factor accounted for 0.2%, the interaction of AB is 0.8%, there were not statistically signiifcant (P<0.05);only main effect of the B factor accounted for 15.6%, with statistical signiifcance (P>0.05);comparison of B1 and B2, with P<0.05. Conclusion The rehabilitation community can be roughly divided into 4 kinds of forms of therapy. Common goal groups under cooperation and competition form got the best effect. The range of motion, the common goal under competition increased rapidly;in improving the ability and treatment of security, the common goal under cooperation got stable effect and also more secure. The therapist can choose different treatment, according to therapeutic requirements and characteristics of patients with their own.%目的本研究通过对影响膝关节功能障碍集体康复效果的治疗因素的分析，探究集体康复在其治疗中的具体应用形式。方法从2011年5月至2012年11月选择非运动员膝关节功能障碍患者20例，根据治疗过程中患者间的训练关系(标记A)和训练内容的完成标准(标记B)。随机将患者分为合作组下的共同完成目标组A1B1和各自完成目标组A1B2，竞争组下的共同完成目标组A2B1和各自完成目标组A2B2，每组各5例，各组每周进行5d康复训练。上下午各一次，每次40min。每周首天治疗师进行集体心理辅导；每周选出优秀患者现身说法，介绍经验。功能训练内容：①上午每组都进行传统的一对一的康复训练。②下午根据不同分组进行不同形式的功能训练。训练1个月后，进行心理、疼痛及功能指标测定。结果各指标对比，每组治疗前后有统计学意义(P<0.05)；治疗后组间对比：①HAMD评定对比，A1B1与A1B2，A1B2与A2B1，有统计学意义(P<0.05)；②VAS评定对比，各组间无差异性(P>0.05)；③主动屈曲角度对比，结合样本均数的比较结果，B因素的主效应为6.8%，AB的交互作用为6.2%，均不具有统计学意义(P>0.05)；仅A因素的主效应7.2%，有统计学意义(P<0.05)。被动屈曲角度对比，B因素的主效应为5.0%，AB的交互作用为6.2%，均不具有统计学意义(P>0.05)；仅A因素的主效应7.8%，有统计学意义(P<0.05)。④Lysholm评定对比，结合样本均数的比较结果，A因素的主效应为0.2%，AB的交互作用为0.8%，均不具有统计学意义(P<0.05)；仅B因素的主效应15.6%，有统计学意义(P>0.05)；B1与B2对比，P<0.05。结论集体康复形式大体归纳为4种治疗形式。以合作、竞争结合共同完成目标的形式效果最好。关节活动度上，竞争-共同完成目标形式提高较快；在提高能力和治疗安全方面，合作-共同完成目标形式效果稳定安全。治疗师可以根据治疗的要求结合患者自身的性格特点，在具体的集体康复治疗过程中选择治疗方式。
展开▼
