An investigation on application of the standard of "Assessment for Therapeutic Efficacy on Kashin-Beck Disease" (WS/T 79-2011) / 中华地方病学杂志

ABSTRACT

Objective:To investigate the application and problems existing in the implementation of the standard of "Assessment for Therapeutic Efficacy of Kashin-Beck Disease" (WS/T 79-2011, referred to as new standard), and to provide technical basis and suggestions for further improving the standard.Methods:In 2019, a questionnaire survey was conducted and analyzed in Sichuan, Shaanxi, Qinghai and Gansu provinces and Tibet Autonomous Region on basic information, standard implementation, publicity, training and application of scoring method of joint dysfunction index of Kashin-Beck disease prevention and control technicians.Results:One hundred and thirty-four questionnaires were distributed in this survey and 132 valid questionnaires were recovered, of which 88.64% (117/132) of Kashin-Beck disease prevention and control technicians received training in the new standard and 89.39% (118/132) used the new standard; 78.03% (103/132) thought that the standard terms were clear and easy to master; 71.97% (95/132) thought it was simple, convenient and easy to operate; 49.24% (65/132) thought that the standard evaluation results were consistent with the actual improvement of patients, and 50.75% (67/132) thought that it was generally consistent; 72.73% (96/132) thought that the design was scientific, reasonable and feasible. When using the scoring method of joint dysfunction index, more than 90% of the technicians thought that the five index terms of "joint rest pain", "joint movement pain", "morning stiffness", "maximum walking distance" and "limb activity ability" were easy to understand and ask questions. When patients with Kashin-Beck disease were investigated, the constituent ratios of easy to understand the five index terms were 96.21% (127/132), 83.33% (110/132), 90.15% (119/132), 78.79%(104/132), 90.15%(119/132) and the constituent ratios of easy to answer were 95.45% (126/132), 83.33% (110/132), 89.39% (118/132), 75.00% (99/132) and 89.39% (118/132), respectively.Conclusions:The new standard terms are clear, the design is scientific and reasonable, the operation is convenient and the feasibility is strong. The evaluation results are basically consistent with the actual improvement of patients. It is suggested to add objective evaluation indexes to the scoring method of joint dysfunction index.