【摘要】 目的 探讨回授(Teach-back)健康教育模式对围绝经期高血压女性血压昼夜节律和生活质量的影响。方法 选取2020年6月—2022年6月温州市中医院收治的围绝经期高血压女性84例为研究对象，采用随机数字表法将研究对象分为对照组和观察组，每组各42例，对照组患者给予常规健康教育，观察组患者在对照组基础上采用Teach-back健康教育模式，两组患者均干预3个月，比较两组患者血压昼夜节律变化、心理状态、健康素养水平、自我效能水平、自我管理行为及生活质量。结果 干预前，两组患者收缩压(SBP)昼夜节律[(7.24±1.31)%vs.(7.32±1.28)%]、舒张压(DBP)昼夜节律[(5.75±1.60)%vs.(5.64±1.53)%]比较，差异均无统计学意义(t=0.283、0.322,均P>0.05);干预后，两组患者SBP昼夜节律、DBP昼夜节律均较干预前上升，且观察组患者均高于对照组[(8.62±1.50)%vs.(7.93±1.41)%、(7.05±1.32)%vs.(6.43±1.48)%],差异均有统计学意义(t=2.172、2.026,均P<0.05)。干预前，两组患者焦虑发生率[88.10%(37/42)vs. 83.33%(35/42)]比较，差异无统计学意义(χ~2=0.389,P>0.05);干预后，两组患者焦虑发生率均较干预前降低，且观察组患者焦虑发生率(14.29%,6/42)低于对照组(35.71%,15/42),差异有统计学意义(χ~2=5.143,P<0.05)。干预前，两组患者健康素养评分[(14.35±3.51)分vs.(14.26±3.57)分]和自我效能评分[(27.11±5.44)分vs.(27.05±5.38)分]比较，差异均无统计学意义(t=0.117、0.051,均P>0.05);干预后，两组患者健康素养评分和自我效能评分均较干预前提升，且观察组患者均高于对照组[(28.91±5.82)分vs.(19.46±4.63)分、(35.23±4.42)分vs.(29.72±4.85)分],差异均有统计学意义(t=8.235、5.442,均P<0.05)。干预前，两组患者自我管理行为评分[(64.92±8.95)分vs.(64.32±8.86)分]和生活质量测定简式量表(WHOQOL-BREF)评分[(54.93±6.79)分vs.(54.36±6.75)分]比较，差异均无统计学意义(t=0.309、0.386,均P>0.05);干预后，两组患者自我管理行为评分和WHOQOL-BREF评分均较干预前提升，且观察组患者均高于对照组[(93.27±12.16)分vs.(77.21±10.04)分、(75.27±8.36)分vs.(63.17±7.43)分],差异均有统计学意义(t=6.600、7.011,均P<0.05)。结论 围绝经期高血压女性应用Teach-back健康教育模式有助于改善血压昼夜节律，恢复正向心理状态，并提升健康素养水平，增强自我效能增强，强化自我管理行为，提高生活质量。更多还原

【Abstract】 Objective To explore the effect of Teach-back health education on the circadian rhythm of blood pressure and quality of life in climacteric hypertensive women.Methods A total of 84 perimenopausal hypertensive women admitted to Wenzhou Hospital of Traditional Chinese Medicine from June 2020 to June 2022 were selected as the study subjects.The study subjects were divided into control group and observation group by random number table method, with 42 cases in each group.The routine health education was given to the control group, the observation group were treated with the Teach-back health education model on the basis of the control group.There were treated for 3 months in two groups.The changes in blood pressure circadian rhythm, mental state, health literacy level, self-efficacy level, self-management behavior and quality of life of patients in the two groups were compared.Results Before intervention, systolic(SBP) circadian rhythm [(7.24±1.31)% vs.(7.32±1.28)%] and diastolic blood pressure(DBP) circadian rhythm [(5.75±1.60)% vs.(5.64±1.53)%] were compared between the two groups.There were no statistically significant differences(t=0.283, 0.322, all P>0.05).After intervention, SBP and DBP circadian rhythm in both groups increased compared with that before intervention.The patients in observation group were higher than those in control group [(8.62±21.50)% vs.(7.93±1.41)%,(7.05±1.32)% vs.(6.43±1.48)%], and the differences were statistically significant(t=2.172, 2.026, all P<0.05).Before intervention, there was no significant difference in the incidence of anxiety between the two groups [88.10%(37/42) vs.83.33%(35/42)](χ~2= 0.389,P>0.05).After intervention, the incidence of anxiety in both groups was lower than before intervention, and the incidence of anxiety in observation group(14.29%, 6/42) was lower than that in control group(35.71%, 15/42), the difference was statistically significant(χ~2=5.143, P<0.05).Before the intervention, there were no significant difference in health literacy scores [(14.35±3.51)scores vs.(14.26±3.57)scores] and self-efficacy scores [(27.11±5.44)scores vs.(27.05±5.38)scores] between the two groups(t=0.117, 0.051,all P>0.05).After intervention, health literacy scores and self-efficacy scores of patients in both groups were improved compared with those before intervention, and patients in observation group were higher than those in control group [(28.91±5.82) scores vs.(19.46±4.63) scores,(35.23±4.42) scores vs.(29.72±4.85) scores].The differences were statistically significant(t=8.235, 5.442, P>0.05).Before intervention, the ratio of self-management behavior score [(64.92±8.95)scores vs.(64.32±8.86)scores] and WHOQOL-BREF score [(54.93±6.79)scores vs.(5.36±6.75)scores] between the two groups of patients, There were no statistically significant differences(t=0.309, 0.386, all P>0.05).After intervention, the self-management behavior scores and WHOQOL-BREF scores of patients in both groups were improved compared with those before intervention, and the patients in observation group were higher than those in control group [(93.27±12.16) scores vs.(77.21±10.04)scores,(75.27±8.36)scores vs.(63.17±7.43)scores], and the differences were statistically significant(t=6.600, 7.011, all P<0.05).Conclusion The application of Teach-back health education model in perimenopausal hypertensive women can improve the circadian rhythm of blood pressure, restore the positive mental state, improve the level of health literacy, enhance self-efficacy, strengthen self-management behavior, and improve the quality of life.更多还原