• Korean Journal of Adult Nursing
• /
• v.12 no.3
• /
• pp.431-451
• /
• 2000

In this paper, I will examine the variables influencing the Quality of Life of arthritis patients and present basic materials which help arthritis patients have positive thinking in life and ultimately lead a satisfactory life. The subjects for this study are 231 inpatients and outpatients with arthritis living in J and K city in Chonbug Province. For the analysis of collected data I employed the SAS program. The variables for characteristics and the quality of life were analysed by descriptive statistics, T-test and ANOVA, and the relations among variables were analysed through Pearson Correlation; the Regression method was employed to predict the factors affecting quality of life. For the validity of reliance on measuring equipment Cronbach Alpha was used. The results of the study are as follows : (1) The mean score of quality of life of arthritis patients is 3.09(5 in the maximum). The general characteristics which affect the quality of life are age(F=5.13, p=0.0006), standard of education(F=6.49, p=0.0003), marriage status(F=7.77, p=0.0005), monthly pay(F=4.37, p=0.0020), medical benefits (F=4.85, p=0.0087), and supports(F=4.39, p=0.0050). For the disease-related characteristics, there is a significant difference in the 6 items: pain control method(F=5.92, p= 0.0002), physical therapy(F=3.25, p=0.013), whethere or not patients exercise(F=4.62, p=0.0000), regularity of exercise(F=4.79, p=0.0000), frequency of exercise(F=6.29, p=0.0001), and amount of exercise(F=4.62, p=0.0043). Depending on the type of arthritis, there is also a significant difference in the degree of pain felt. The patients with infectious arthritis suffer from pain the most, followed by those with gout, rheumatism and degenerative arthritis, in that order. Although statistics don't show any convincing evidence, those with gout perceive that they are in best health condition, followed by those with rheumatism, degenerative arthritis, and infectious arthritis, in that order(F=2.23, p=0.0669). (2) The quality of life of arthritis patients is correlated positively with perceived health status(r=0.56, p=0.0001), health promoting behavior(r=0.53, p=0.0001), family support (r=0.46, p=0.0001), amount of exercise (r=0.36, p=0.0001), ADL(r=0.36, p=0.0001), HLOC(r=0.32, p=0.0001), frequency of exercise(r=0.32, p=0.0001)in that order, while correlated negatively with the degree of pain felt(r=-0.32, p=0.0001), the number of pain regions(r=-0.19, p= 0.0041), and the duration of pain(r=-0.14, p=0.0279). (3) Regression analysis reveals that the most powerful predictor of the quality of life is perceived health status, which account for 31.11%. The other predictors of the quality of life, which account for 60.22%, are health promoting behavior(16.51%), family support(3.81%), ADL(2.52%), gender(1.86%), the number of family members(1.36%), level of pain(1.24%), duration of pain (1.08%), and level of education(0.67%). The results of the study show that perceived health status and health promoting behavior are the two most important variables. However, considering that the perceived health condition is difficult to control by nursing intervention, it is suggested that the level of expectation for patients, must be decided first, and the health promoting behavior and the family support influencing the quality of life must be taken into account as targets for nursing intervention. As a way of controlling the quality of life, I think that a more comprehensive approach comprising the above important variables along with demographic and general characteristics is needed. I also suggest that we must continue to explore the variables affecting the quality of life and include those variables in nursing intervention.

• Journal of the Korean Society of Radiology
• /
• v.16 no.4
• /
• pp.427-434
• /
• 2022

Atrial fibrillation treatment includes 3D RFCA and Cryo-balloon ablation. Both procedures have in common that they enter after understanding the structure of the heart using angiography equipment. Therefore, there is a disadvantage that the effect of exposure according to the procedure time can be a threat to both the patient and the operator, so this study aims to confirm the relationship between the total ablation time and the effect of radiation exposure. We used follow-up data (retrospective) from 41 patients who underwent coronary angiography and arrhythmia at the same time from March 2019 to July 2022. The range for total ablation time was based on the recorded data from the start to the end of the total ablation. The end point of 3D RFCA was when the ablation was completed for 4 pulmonary veins, and in the case of Cryo-balloon ablation, the data that succeeded in electrical insulation were included. As a result of analyzing the total ablation time, the time taken for Cryo-balloon ablation was 1037.29±103.66 s, which was 2448.61 s faster than 3D RFCA using 3485.9±405.71 s, and was statistically significant. (p<0.05) As a result of analyzing the total fluoroscopy time, the exposure time for 3D RFCA was 2573.75±239.08 s, which was less by 1717.15 s than the exposure time for Cryo-balloon ablation, 4290.9±420.42 s, and was statistically significant. In the case of total area dose product, 3D RFCA was 59.04±13.1 uGy/m², which was lower than Cryo-balloon ablation 980.6±658.07 uGy/m² by 921.56 uGy/m², which was statistically significant. As the insulation time of the Cryo-balloon ablation is shorter than that of the 3D RFCA, the method using the Cryo-balloon ablation is considered to be effective when the patient's condition is not good and a quick procedure is required. However, in patients with permanent Atrial fibrillation, there is a high probability of structural changes in the heart, so it is considered that 3D RFCA is better than Cryo-balloon ablation, which is difficult to manipulate.

• Journal of radiological science and technology
• /
• v.38 no.1
• /
• pp.23-30
• /
• 2015

Positron emission tomography scan has been growing diagnostic equipment in the development of medical imaging system. Compare to 99mTc emitting 140 keV, Positron emission radionuclide emits 511 keV gamma rays. Because of this high energy, it needs to reduce radioactive emitting from patients for radio technologist. We searched the external dose rates by changing distance from patients and measure the external dose rates when we used shielder investigate change external dose rates. In this study, the external dose distribution were analyzed in order to help managing radiation protection of radio technologists. Ten patients were searched (mean age: $47.7{\pm}6.6$, mean height: $165.5{\pm}3.8cm$, mean weight: $65.9{\pm}1.4kg$). Radiation was measured on the location of head, chest, abdomen, knees and toes at the distance of 10, 50, 100, 150, and 200 cm, respectively. Then, all the procedure was given with a portable radiation shielding on the location of head, chest, and abdomen at the distance of 100, 150, and 200 cm and transmittance was calculated. In 10 cm, head ($105.40{\mu}Sv/h$) was the highest and foot($15.85{\mu}Sv/h$) was the lowest. In 200 cm, head, chest, and abdomen showed similar. On head, the measured dose rates were $9.56{\mu}Sv/h$, $5.23{\mu}Sv/h$, and $3.40{\mu}Sv/h$ in 100, 150, and 200 cm, respectively. When using shielder, it shows $2.24{\mu}Sv/h$, $1.67{\mu}Sv/h$, and $1.27{\mu}Sv/h$ in 100, 150, and 200 cm on head. On chest, the measured dose rates were $8.54{\mu}Sv/h$, $4.90{\mu}Sv/h$, $3.44{\mu}Sv/h$ in 100, 150, and 200 cm, respectively. When using shielder, it shows $2.27{\mu}Sv/h$, $1.34{\mu}Sv/h$, and $1.13{\mu}Sv/h$ in 100, 150, and 200 cm on chest. On abdomen, the measured dose rates were $9.83{\mu}Sv/h$, $5.15{\mu}Sv/h$, and $3.18{\mu}Sv/h$ in 100, 150, and 200 cm, respectively. When using shielder, it shows $2.60{\mu}Sv/h$, $1.75{\mu}Sv/h$, and $1.23{\mu}Sv/h$ in 100, 150, and 200 cm on abdomen. Transmittance was increased as the distance was expanded. As the distance was further, the radiation dose were reduced. When using shielder, the dose were reduced as one-forth of without shielder. The Radio technologists are exposed of radioactivity and there were limitations on reducing the distance with Therefore, the proper shielding will be able to decrease radiation dose to the technologists.

• The Korean Journal of Nuclear Medicine Technology
• /
• v.14 no.2
• /
• pp.159-165
• /
• 2010

Purpose: Positron emission tomography scan has been growing diagnostic equipment in the development of medical imaging system. Compare to $^{99m}Tc$ emitting 140 keV, Positron emission radionuclide emits 511 keV gamma rays. Because of this high energy, it needs to reduce radioactive emitting from patients for radiotechnologist. We searched the external dose rates by changing distance from patients and measure the external dose rates when we used shielder investigate change external dose rates. In this study, the external dose distribution were analyzed in order to help managing radiation protection of radiotechnologists. Materials and Methods: Ten patients were searched (mean age: $47.7{\pm}6.6$, mean height: $165.5{\pm}3.8$ cm and mean weight: $65.9{\pm}1.4$ kg). Radiation were measured on the location of head, chest, abdomen, knees and toes at the distance of 10, 50, 100, 150 and 200 cm. Then, all the procedure was given with a portable radiation shielding on the location of head, chest and abdomen at the distance of 100, 150 and 200 cm and transmittance was calculated. Results: In 10 cm, head (105.40 ${\mu}Sv/h$) was the highest and foot (15.85 ${\mu}Sv/h$) was the lowest. In 200 cm, head, chest and abdomen showed similar. On head, the measured dose rates were 9.56 ${\mu}Sv/h$, 5.23 ${\mu}Sv/h$, and 3.40 ${\mu}Sv/h$ in 100, 150 and 200 cm respectively. When using shielder, it shows 2.24 ${\mu}Sv/h$, 1.67 ${\mu}Sv/h$, and 1.27 ${\mu}Sv/h$ in 100, 150 and 200 cm on head. On chest, the measured dose rates were 8.54 ${\mu}Sv/h$, 4.90 ${\mu}Sv/h$, 3.44 ${\mu}Sv/h$ in 100, 150 and 200 cm, respectively. When using shielder, it shows 2.27 ${\mu}Sv/h$, 1.34 ${\mu}Sv/h$, and 1.13 ${\mu}Sv/h$ in 100, 150 and 200 cm on chest. On abdomen, the measured dose rates were 9.83 ${\mu}Sv/h$, 5.15 ${\mu}Sv/h$ and 3.18 ${\mu}Sv/h$ in 100, 150 and 200cm respectively. When using shielder, it shows 2.60 ${\mu}Sv/h$, 1.75 ${\mu}Sv/h$ and 1.23 ${\mu}Sv/h$ in 100, 150 and 200 cm on abdomen. Transmittance was increased as the distance was expanded. Conclusion: As the distance was further, the radiation dose were reduced. When using shielder, the dose were reduced as one-forth of without shielder. The Radio technologists are exposed of radioactivity and there were limitations on reducing the distance with Therefore, the proper shielding will be able to decrease radiation dose to the radiotechnologists.

• The Korean Journal of Nuclear Medicine Technology
• /
• v.25 no.1
• /
• pp.34-40
• /
• 2021

Purpose If a new test is introduced or reagents are changed in the laboratory of a medical institution, the characteristics of the test should be analyzed according to the procedure and the assessment of reagents should be made. However, several necessary conditions must be met to perform all required comparative evaluations, first enough samples should be prepared for each test, and secondly, various reagents applicable to the comparative evaluations must be supplied. Even if enough comparative evaluations have been done, there is a limit to the fact that the data variation for the new reagent represents the overall patient data variation, The fact puts a burden on the laboratory to the change the reagent. Due to these various difficulties, reagent changes in the laboratory are limited. In order to introduce a competitive bid, the institute conducted a full investigation of Radioimmunoassay(RIA) reagents for each test and established the range of reagents available in the laboratory through comparative evaluations. We wanted to share this process. Materials and Methods There are 20 items of tests conducted in our laboratory except for consignment tests. For each test, RIA reagents that can be used were fully investigated with the reference to external quality control report. and the manuals for each reagent were obtained. Each reagent was checked for the manual to check the test method, Incubation time, sample volume needed for the test. After that, the primary selection was made according to whether it was available in this laboratory. The primary selected reagents were supplied with 2kits based on 100tests, and the data correlation test, sensitivity measurement, recovery rate measurement, and dilution test were conducted. The secondary selection was performed according to the results of the comparative evaluation. The reagents that passed the primary and secondary selections were submitted to the competitive bidding list. In the case of reagent is designated as a singular, we submitted a explanatory statement with the data obtained during the primary and secondary selection processes. Results Excluded from the primary selection was the case where TAT was expected to be delayed at the moment, and it was impossible to apply to our equipment due to the large volume of reagents used during the test. In the primary selection, there were five items which only one reagent was available.(squamous cell carcinoma Ag(SCC Ag), β-human chorionic gonadotropin(β-HCG), vitamin B12, folate, free testosterone), two reagents were available(CA19-9, CA125, CA72-4, ferritin, thyroglobulin antibody(TG Ab), microsomal antibody(Mic Ab), thyroid stimulating hormone-receptor-antibody(TSH-R-Ab), calcitonin), three reagents were available (triiodothyronine(T3), Tree T3, Free T4, TSH, intact parathyroid hormone(intact PTH)) and four reagents were available are carcinoembryonic antigen(CEA), TG. In the secondary selection, there were eight items which only one reagent was available.(ferritin, TG, CA19-9, SCC, β-HCG, vitaminB12, folate, free testosterone), two reagents were available(TG Ab, Mic Ab, TSH-R-Ab, CA125, CA72-4, intact PTH, calcitonin), three reagents were available(T3, Tree T3, Free T4, TSH, CEA). Reasons excluded from the secondary selection were the lack of reagent supply for comparative evaluations, the problems with data reproducibility, and the inability to accept data variations. The most problematic part of comparative evaluations was sample collection. It didn't matter if the number of samples requested was large and the capacity needed for the test was small. It was difficult to collect various concentration samples in the case of a small number of tests(100 cases per month or less), and it was difficult to conduct a recovery rate test in the case of a relatively large volume of samples required for a single test(more than 100 uL). In addition, the lack of dilution solution or standard zero material for sensitivity measurement or dilution tests was one of the problems. Conclusion Comparative evaluation for changing test reagents require appropriate preparation time to collect diverse and sufficient samples. In addition, setting the total sample volume and reagent volume range required for comparative evaluations, depending on the sample volume and reagent volume required for one test, will reduce the burden of sample collection and planning for each comparative evaluation.