不同如厕训练方法对控制肠道和膀胱的效果。

Terry P Klassen, Darcie Kiddoo, Mia E Lang, Carol Friesen, Kelly Russell, Carol Spooner, Ben Vandermeer
{"title":"不同如厕训练方法对控制肠道和膀胱的效果。","authors":"Terry P Klassen,&nbsp;Darcie Kiddoo,&nbsp;Mia E Lang,&nbsp;Carol Friesen,&nbsp;Kelly Russell,&nbsp;Carol Spooner,&nbsp;Ben Vandermeer","doi":"","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objectives: </strong>The objectives of this report are to determine the following: (1) the effectiveness of the toilet training methods, (2) which factors modify the effectiveness of toilet training, (3) if the toilet training methods are risk factor for adverse outcomes, and (4) the optimal toilet training method for achieving bowel and bladder control among patients with special needs.</p><p><strong>Data sources: </strong>MEDLINE, Ovid MEDLINE In-Process & Other Non-Indexed Citations, Ovid OLDMEDLINE, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, EMBASE, CINAHL, PsycINFO, ERIC, EBM Reviews, HealthSTAR, AMED, Web of Science, Biological Abstracts, Sociological Abstracts, OCLC ProceedingsFirst, OCLC PapersFirst, Dissertation Abstracts, Index to Theses, National Research Register's Projects Database, and trials registers.</p><p><strong>Review methods: </strong>Two reviewers assessed the studies for inclusion. Studies were included if they met the following criteria:</p><p><strong>Study design: </strong>RCT, CCT, prospective or retrospective cohort, case-control, cross-sectional or case-series;</p><p><strong>Population: </strong>infants, toddlers, or children with or without co-morbidities, neuromuscular, cognitive, or behavioral handicaps disabilities;</p><p><strong>Intervention: </strong>at least one toilet training method; and</p><p><strong>Outcome: </strong>bladder and/or bowel control, successes, failures, adverse outcomes. Methodological quality was assessed independently by two reviewers. Data were extracted by one reviewer and a second checked for accuracy and completeness. Due to substantial heterogeneity, meta-analysis was not possible.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Twenty-six observational studies and eight controlled trials were included. Approximately half of the studies examined healthy children while the remaining studies assessed toilet training of mentally or physically handicapped children. For healthy children, the Azrin and Foxx method performed better than the Spock method, while child-oriented combined with negative term avoidance proved better than without. For mentally handicapped children, individual training was superior to group methods; relaxation techniques proved more efficacious than standard methods; operant conditioning was better than conventional treatment, and the Azrin and Foxx and a behavior modification method fared better than no training. The child-oriented approach was not assessed among mentally handicapped children. For children with Hirschsprung's disease or anal atresia, a multi-disciplinary behavior treatment was more efficacious than no treatment.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Both the Azrin and Foxx method and the child-oriented approach resulted in quick, successful toilet training, but there was limited information about the sustainability of the training. The two methods were not directly compared, thus it is difficult to draw definitive conclusions regarding the superiority of one method over the other. In general, both programs may be used to teach toilet training to healthy children. The Azrin and Foxx method and operant conditioning methods were consistently effective for toilet training mentally handicapped children. Programs that were adapted to physically handicapped children also resulted in successful toilet training. A lack of data precluded conclusions regarding the development of adverse outcomes.</p>","PeriodicalId":72991,"journal":{"name":"Evidence report/technology assessment","volume":" 147","pages":"1-57"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2006-12-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4781561/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"The effectiveness of different methods of toilet training for bowel and bladder control.\",\"authors\":\"Terry P Klassen,&nbsp;Darcie Kiddoo,&nbsp;Mia E Lang,&nbsp;Carol Friesen,&nbsp;Kelly Russell,&nbsp;Carol Spooner,&nbsp;Ben Vandermeer\",\"doi\":\"\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Objectives: </strong>The objectives of this report are to determine the following: (1) the effectiveness of the toilet training methods, (2) which factors modify the effectiveness of toilet training, (3) if the toilet training methods are risk factor for adverse outcomes, and (4) the optimal toilet training method for achieving bowel and bladder control among patients with special needs.</p><p><strong>Data sources: </strong>MEDLINE, Ovid MEDLINE In-Process & Other Non-Indexed Citations, Ovid OLDMEDLINE, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, EMBASE, CINAHL, PsycINFO, ERIC, EBM Reviews, HealthSTAR, AMED, Web of Science, Biological Abstracts, Sociological Abstracts, OCLC ProceedingsFirst, OCLC PapersFirst, Dissertation Abstracts, Index to Theses, National Research Register's Projects Database, and trials registers.</p><p><strong>Review methods: </strong>Two reviewers assessed the studies for inclusion. Studies were included if they met the following criteria:</p><p><strong>Study design: </strong>RCT, CCT, prospective or retrospective cohort, case-control, cross-sectional or case-series;</p><p><strong>Population: </strong>infants, toddlers, or children with or without co-morbidities, neuromuscular, cognitive, or behavioral handicaps disabilities;</p><p><strong>Intervention: </strong>at least one toilet training method; and</p><p><strong>Outcome: </strong>bladder and/or bowel control, successes, failures, adverse outcomes. Methodological quality was assessed independently by two reviewers. Data were extracted by one reviewer and a second checked for accuracy and completeness. Due to substantial heterogeneity, meta-analysis was not possible.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Twenty-six observational studies and eight controlled trials were included. Approximately half of the studies examined healthy children while the remaining studies assessed toilet training of mentally or physically handicapped children. For healthy children, the Azrin and Foxx method performed better than the Spock method, while child-oriented combined with negative term avoidance proved better than without. For mentally handicapped children, individual training was superior to group methods; relaxation techniques proved more efficacious than standard methods; operant conditioning was better than conventional treatment, and the Azrin and Foxx and a behavior modification method fared better than no training. The child-oriented approach was not assessed among mentally handicapped children. For children with Hirschsprung's disease or anal atresia, a multi-disciplinary behavior treatment was more efficacious than no treatment.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Both the Azrin and Foxx method and the child-oriented approach resulted in quick, successful toilet training, but there was limited information about the sustainability of the training. The two methods were not directly compared, thus it is difficult to draw definitive conclusions regarding the superiority of one method over the other. In general, both programs may be used to teach toilet training to healthy children. The Azrin and Foxx method and operant conditioning methods were consistently effective for toilet training mentally handicapped children. Programs that were adapted to physically handicapped children also resulted in successful toilet training. A lack of data precluded conclusions regarding the development of adverse outcomes.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":72991,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Evidence report/technology assessment\",\"volume\":\" 147\",\"pages\":\"1-57\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2006-12-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4781561/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Evidence report/technology assessment\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Evidence report/technology assessment","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

目的:本报告的目的是确定:(1)如厕训练方法的有效性;(2)哪些因素会影响如厕训练的有效性;(3)如厕训练方法是否为不良后果的风险因素;(4)如厕训练方法在有特殊需要的患者中实现肠道和膀胱控制的最佳方法。数据来源:MEDLINE, Ovid MEDLINE In-Process & Other Non-Indexed citation, Ovid OLDMEDLINE, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, EMBASE, CINAHL, PsycINFO, ERIC, EBM Reviews, HealthSTAR, AMED, Web of Science, Biological Abstracts, Sociological Abstracts, OCLC ProceedingsFirst, OCLC PapersFirst, Dissertation摘要,论文索引,National Research Register’s Projects Database, Trials registers。综述方法:两名综述者评估纳入研究。符合以下标准的研究被纳入:研究设计:RCT、CCT、前瞻性或回顾性队列、病例对照、横断面或病例系列;人群:婴儿、幼儿或有或无合并症、神经肌肉、认知或行为障碍的儿童;干预:至少一种如厕训练方法;结果:膀胱和/或肠道控制,成功,失败,不良结果。方法学质量由两名审稿人独立评估。数据由一名审稿人提取,另一名审稿人检查其准确性和完整性。由于存在大量异质性,无法进行meta分析。结果:纳入26项观察性研究和8项对照试验。大约一半的研究调查了健康儿童,其余的研究评估了智力或身体残疾儿童的如厕训练。对于健康儿童,Azrin和Foxx方法的效果优于Spock方法,而以儿童为导向结合负面术语回避的效果优于不结合。对于弱智儿童,个别训练优于团体训练;放松技巧被证明比标准方法更有效;操作性条件反射优于常规治疗,Azrin和Foxx以及行为矫正方法比不进行训练效果更好。以儿童为中心的方法没有在弱智儿童中进行评估。对于患有先天性巨结肠或肛门闭锁的儿童,多学科行为治疗比不治疗更有效。结论:Azrin和Foxx方法以及以儿童为导向的方法都能快速、成功地进行如厕训练,但关于训练的可持续性的信息有限。这两种方法没有直接比较,因此很难得出关于一种方法优于另一种方法的明确结论。总的来说,这两个项目都可以用来教健康儿童如何上厕所。Azrin - Foxx法和操作性条件反射法对弱智儿童如厕训练效果一致。针对身体残疾儿童的项目也导致了成功的如厕训练。由于缺乏数据,无法得出有关不良后果发展的结论。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
The effectiveness of different methods of toilet training for bowel and bladder control.

Objectives: The objectives of this report are to determine the following: (1) the effectiveness of the toilet training methods, (2) which factors modify the effectiveness of toilet training, (3) if the toilet training methods are risk factor for adverse outcomes, and (4) the optimal toilet training method for achieving bowel and bladder control among patients with special needs.

Data sources: MEDLINE, Ovid MEDLINE In-Process & Other Non-Indexed Citations, Ovid OLDMEDLINE, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, EMBASE, CINAHL, PsycINFO, ERIC, EBM Reviews, HealthSTAR, AMED, Web of Science, Biological Abstracts, Sociological Abstracts, OCLC ProceedingsFirst, OCLC PapersFirst, Dissertation Abstracts, Index to Theses, National Research Register's Projects Database, and trials registers.

Review methods: Two reviewers assessed the studies for inclusion. Studies were included if they met the following criteria:

Study design: RCT, CCT, prospective or retrospective cohort, case-control, cross-sectional or case-series;

Population: infants, toddlers, or children with or without co-morbidities, neuromuscular, cognitive, or behavioral handicaps disabilities;

Intervention: at least one toilet training method; and

Outcome: bladder and/or bowel control, successes, failures, adverse outcomes. Methodological quality was assessed independently by two reviewers. Data were extracted by one reviewer and a second checked for accuracy and completeness. Due to substantial heterogeneity, meta-analysis was not possible.

Results: Twenty-six observational studies and eight controlled trials were included. Approximately half of the studies examined healthy children while the remaining studies assessed toilet training of mentally or physically handicapped children. For healthy children, the Azrin and Foxx method performed better than the Spock method, while child-oriented combined with negative term avoidance proved better than without. For mentally handicapped children, individual training was superior to group methods; relaxation techniques proved more efficacious than standard methods; operant conditioning was better than conventional treatment, and the Azrin and Foxx and a behavior modification method fared better than no training. The child-oriented approach was not assessed among mentally handicapped children. For children with Hirschsprung's disease or anal atresia, a multi-disciplinary behavior treatment was more efficacious than no treatment.

Conclusions: Both the Azrin and Foxx method and the child-oriented approach resulted in quick, successful toilet training, but there was limited information about the sustainability of the training. The two methods were not directly compared, thus it is difficult to draw definitive conclusions regarding the superiority of one method over the other. In general, both programs may be used to teach toilet training to healthy children. The Azrin and Foxx method and operant conditioning methods were consistently effective for toilet training mentally handicapped children. Programs that were adapted to physically handicapped children also resulted in successful toilet training. A lack of data precluded conclusions regarding the development of adverse outcomes.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Omega-3 Fatty Acids and Maternal and Child Health: An Updated Systematic Review. Data Linkage Strategies to Advance Youth Suicide Prevention. Omega-3 Fatty Acids and Cardiovascular Disease: An Updated Systematic Review. Health Information Exchange. Diagnosis and Treatment of Myalgic Encephalomyelitis/Chronic Fatigue Syndrome.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1