Evaluation of impact of social support and care on HIV‐positive and AIDS individuals’ quality of life: a nonrandomised community trial

• Published in: Journal of clinical nursing 2017-02, Vol.26 (3-4), p.369-378
• Main Authors: Li, Xing‐ming, Yuan, Xiao‐qing, Wang, Jun‐jie, Zhang, Wan‐ying, Zhou, Yang, Liu, Gu‐ning
• Format: Article
• Language: English
• Subjects: Acquired immune deficiency syndrome; Acquired Immunodeficiency Syndrome - psychology; Adult; AIDS; Beijing; Community Health Services; Cross-Sectional Studies; Delivery of Health Care; Female; HIV; HIV Seropositivity - psychology; Human immunodeficiency virus; Humans; intervention design; Lentivirus; Male; Middle Aged; Nurse's Role; Nursing; Nursing care; people living with HIV/AIDS; Quality of Life; Retroviridae; Social Support; social support and care model; Surveys and Questionnaires
• ISSN: 0962-1067; 1365-2702
• DOI: 10.1111/jocn.13377

Aims and objectives Our study was conducted to further investigate the model of social support and care for People Living with HIV/AIDS(PLHA), to explore their role in People Living with AIDS's quality of life (QOL) as reference for improving nursing policies for AIDS. Background Social support and care are the most important factors impacting the QOL of People Living with HIV/AIDS, but most studies conducted upon the influence of social support and QOL of People Living with HIV/AIDS are mainly based on cross‐sectional design. Design Our study was a nonrandomised controlled community intervention study. Methods The participants diagnosed as People Living with HIV/AIDS at Beijing You An Hospital received a comprehensive social support care from December 2013 to December 2014. To evaluate the impact of social support and care model on People Living with HIV/AIDS, our study analysed the different dimension scores of social support scale and quality of life before and after the intervention. Correlation between the net benefit value of social support and that of QOL from various dimensions were analysed. Results There were significant differences in the score of objective support and usage of support (all p = 0·02) for social support. Net values of objective support score and usage of support were 0·25 and 0·19, respectively, after intervention. There were significant differences in physiological function, role physical, general health, vitality, social function, mental health, health transition and total score of quality of life (all p