Evaluation of an educational programme for people who have difficulty decluttering and organising: A randomised controlled trial in Japan
Evaluation of an educational programme for people who have difficulty decluttering and organising: A randomised controlled trial in Japan
复制标题
DOI：
10.1111/hsc.13693
复制
发表时间：
2021-12-22
影响因子：
2.4
通讯作者：
Yamaoka，Kazue
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Aso，Yasuko;Suzuki，Asuka;Yamaoka，Kazue
家庭杂乱会对工作表现，健康和福祉产生不利影响。临床水平的囤积障碍通常在青春期早期出现，因此早期发现和预防亚临床囤积倾向至关重要。这项研究旨在评估一项以社区为基础的计划，该计划针对组织和整理技能较差的个人，他们自愿接受如何组织家庭的教育。我们于2016年1月开始在东京进行了一项开放标签随机对照试验。我们招募了61名年龄在12-55岁之间的志愿者，他们有组织和整理问题。一个工作坊和家访小组（n= 30）参加了四个工作坊的组织技巧，并收到了来自家庭组织者的访问。仅家庭访视组（n= 31）仅接受家庭组织者访视。主要结局是保存库存-修订版（SI-R;日语版）评分。次要结局为杂乱图像评定量表和Rosenberg自尊量表（日文版）评分。使用一般线性模型分析从基线至7个月的组间变化。随访时，两组的SI-R评分均有所改善。在车间组、家庭访视组和仅家庭访视组中，SI-R评分较基线的平均变化分别为−20.8（标准差= 9.8）和−13.1（标准差= 14.3）。SI-R评分较基线变化的估计组间差异（根据基线SI-R评分调整）不显著，为-5.7（95%置信区间，-12.4至0.9;p= 0.089）。然而，在单变量模型中差异显著：-7.2（95%置信区间，-13.7至-0.8;p= 0.029）。虽然两组都有所改善，但在调整基线值和参与者特征后，两组之间没有显着差异。我们的研究结果表明，研讨会式的教育干预以及专业组织者的帮助和建议可能有助于改善有囤积倾向的人的生活条件。
Home clutter can adversely affect work performance, health and well‐being. Clinical‐level hoarding disorders usually manifest during early adolescence, so early detection and prevention of subclinical hoarding tendencies are essential. This study aimed to evaluate a community‐based programme for individuals with poor organising and decluttering skills who volunteered to receive education on how to organise their homes. We conducted an open‐label randomised controlled trial beginning in January 2016 in Tokyo. We enrolled 61 volunteers aged 12–55 years with problems with organising and decluttering. A workshop and home visit group (n= 30) attended four workshop sessions on organising skills and received a visit from a home organiser. The home visit only group (n= 31) only received the home organiser visit. The primary outcome was Saving Inventory‐Revised (SI‐R; Japanese version) scores. The secondary outcomes were Clutter Image Rating Scale and Rosenberg Self‐Esteem Scale (Japanese version) scores. Between‐group changes from baseline to 7 months were analysed using a general linear model. At follow‐up, the SI‐R scores of both groups had improved. The mean change from baseline in SI‐R scores was −20.8 (standard deviation = 9.8) and −13.1 (standard deviation = 14.3) in the workshop and home visit and home visit only groups, respectively. The estimated between‐group difference in SI‐R score changes from baseline (adjusted for baseline SI‐R score) was non‐significant at −5.7 (95% confidence interval, −12.4 to 0.9;p= .089). However, the difference was significant in the univariate model: −7.2 (95% confidence interval, −13.7 to −0.8;p= .029). Although both groups improved, after adjusting for baseline values and participant characteristics, there was no significant difference between the groups. Our results suggest that a workshop‐style educational intervention and assistance and advice from professional organisers may help to improve the living conditions of people with hoarding tendencies.