| Literature DB >> 32149053 |
Ying-Jie Hao1, Hui-Bo Sun1, Hong-Wei Li1, Bing-Jie Chen2, Xiu-Li Chen2, Lin Ma2, Ying-Li Li3.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: As a radical treatment, breast cancer surgery has a positive psychological impact on most patients. However, some patients do not have a clear understanding of the disease, which requires a more scientific and comprehensive consideration during clinical intervention and are based on cognition. The positive behavior management model is based on this kind of background-derived new interventions, which can better serve the clinical rehabilitation process of patients. The positive behavior management model based on cognitive architecture is a new type of intervention derived from this background, which can better serve the clinical rehabilitation process of patients. AIM: To analyze the influence of a positive behavior management model based on cognitive framework on the degree of hope and self-efficacy of patients with breast cancer surgery.Entities:
Keywords: Breast cancer; Cognitive intervention; Degree of hope; Negative emotions; Quality of life; Self-efficacy
Year: 2020 PMID: 32149053 PMCID: PMC7052560 DOI: 10.12998/wjcc.v8.i4.689
Source DB: PubMed Journal: World J Clin Cases ISSN: 2307-8960 Impact factor: 1.337
Basic patient data
| Gender | ||||
| Male | 20 | 19 | 0.368 | > 0.05 |
| Female | 22 | 23 | ||
| Age (yr) | 63.5 ± 4.1 | 63.8 ± 4.2 | 0.987 | > 0.05 |
| Education | ||||
| Junior high and below | 10 | 11 | 0.785 | > 0.05 |
| High school | 8 | 7 | ||
| College | 13 | 12 | ||
| Bachelor and above | 11 | 12 | ||
| Pathology | ||||
| Noninvasive | 12 | 10 | 1.236 | > 0.05 |
| Early invasive | 8 | 10 | ||
| Invasive special | 22 | 22 | ||
| Clinical stage | ||||
| Phase I | 8 | 10 | 0.910 | > 0.05 |
| Phase II | 12 | 11 | ||
| Phase III | 10 | 10 | ||
| Phase IV | 12 | 11 | ||
| Income (RMB Yuan) | ||||
| < 3000 | 12 | 11 | 0.368 | > 0.05 |
| 3000–5000 | 10 | 9 | ||
| > 5001 | 20 | 22 |
Self-efficacy before and after intervention in the two groups of patients (cases)
| Experiment | 42 | 15 | 13 | 8 | 6 | 3 | 8 | 17 | 14 |
| Control | 42 | 17 | 12 | 8 | 5 | 7 | 18 | 10 | 7 |
| Statistics | - | 0.672 | 17.821 | ||||||
| - | > 0.05 | < 0.05 | |||||||
Level of hope before and after intervention in the two groups of patients (points)
| Experiment | 42 | 7.3 ± 1.8 | 8.1 ± 2.0 | 7.6 ± 1.9 | 15.0 ± 2.4 | 14.5 ± 2.9 | 14.8 ± 2.2 |
| Control | 42 | 7.4 ± 1.9 | 8.0 ± 1.9 | 7.4 ± 1.8 | 8.7 ± 2.3 | 10.4 ± 2.6 | 9.5 ± 2.0 |
| Statistics | - | 0.901 | 1.027 | 0.674 | 15.272 | 16.268 | 13.232 |
| - | > 0.05 | > 0.05 | > 0.05 | < 0.05 | < 0.05 | < 0.05 | |
A: Positive attitude towards the present and future; B: Practicing positive action; C: Keeping close relationships with others.
Negative emotion scores before and after intervention in the two groups (points)
| Experiment | 42 | 63.5 ± 4.1 | 62.7 ± 3.8 | 51.7 ± 2.2 | 52.8 ± 2.4 |
| Control | 42 | 63.7 ± 4.2 | 62.9 ± 3.9 | 59.8 ± 3.7 | 58.6 ± 3.7 |
| Statistics | - | 0.784 | 1.209 | 14.324 | 17.263 |
| - | > 0.05 | > 0.05 | < 0.05 | < 0.05 | |
SAS: Self-Rating Anxiety Scale; SDS: Self-Rating Depression Scale.
Quality of life before intervention in the two groups of patients (cases)
| Experiment | 42 | 68.3 ± 3.2 | 62.1 ± 2.9 | 64.5 ± 3.3 | 57.4 ± 2.7 | 60.2 ± 3.0 |
| Control | 42 | 68.5 ± 3.3 | 62.4 ± 3.0 | 64.7 ± 3.5 | 58.0 ± 3.0 | 60.4 ± 3.1 |
| Statistics | - | 0.899 | 1.027 | 0.931 | 0.764 | 0.883 |
| - | > 0.05 | > 0.05 | > 0.05 | > 0.05 | > 0.05 |
Quality of life after intervention in two groups of patients (cases)
| Experiment | 42 | 85.1 ± 4.4 | 88.4 ± 4.8 | 87.5 ± 4.9 | 83.2 ± 3.9 | 83.5 ± 4.5 |
| Control | 42 | 72.4 ± 3.6 | 73.2 ± 3.5 | 71.3 ± 4.0 | 68.7 ± 3.3 | 71.3 ± 3.4 |
| Statistics | - | 17.872 | 13.290 | 16.534 | 12.381 | 16.788 |
| - | < 0.05 | < 0.05 | < 0.05 | < 0.05 | < 0.05 |