| Literature DB >> 34814908 |
Yi Peng1, Xiaoyan Hao2, Yuan Guo3, Xueqin Zhang3, Yang Li3, Yanmei Ma3, Juan Wang3.
Abstract
PURPOSE: The aim of this study was to assess the effect of high-quality nursing based on the concept of childlike interest in children with cleft lip and palate following operation on healing time, degree of pain, psychological state, quality of life, and the occurrence of complications.Entities:
Keywords: Application value; Children with cleft lip and palate after operation; High quality nursing based childlike interest
Mesh:
Year: 2021 PMID: 34814908 PMCID: PMC8609788 DOI: 10.1186/s12903-021-01893-6
Source DB: PubMed Journal: BMC Oral Health ISSN: 1472-6831 Impact factor: 2.757
Comparison of healing time and hospital stay between the two groups ( ± s, d)
| Group (n) | Healing time | Hospital stay |
|---|---|---|
| Study group (31) | 25.02 ± 2.93 | 9.68 ± 1.02 |
| Control group (31) | 33.12 ± 2.76 | 14.67 ± 1.23 |
| t value | − 11.204 | − 17.387 |
| P value | < 0.001 | < 0.001 |
#P < 0.05: the comparison of the control group after the intervention
Comparison of pain degree between the two groups ( ± s, points)
| Group (n) | Before intervention | After intervention |
|---|---|---|
| Study group (31) | 7.67 ± 0.23 | 2.07 ± 0.23* |
| Control group (31) | 7.62 ± 0.21 | 5.32 ± 0.27* |
| t value | 0.894 | − 50.018 |
| P value | 0.375 | < 0.001 |
*P < 0.05: the comparison of the same group before treatment; #P < 0.05: the comparison of the control group after treatment
Comparison of psychological state between the two groups ( ± s, points)
| Items | Study group (n = 31) | Control group (n = 31) | t value | P value |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Before intervention | 56.11 ± 3.49 | 55.83 ± 3.53 | 0.314 | 0.755 |
| After intervention | 31.82 ± 3.08* | 45.82 ± 3.83* | − 15.860 | < 0.001 |
| Before intervention | 58.76 ± 3.23 | 57.76 ± 4.48 | 1.008 | 0.317 |
| After intervention | 31.56 ± 3.02* | 43.29 ± 3.07* | − 15.166 | < 0.001 |
*P < 0.05: the comparison of the same group before treatment; #P < 0.05: the comparison of the control group after treatment
Comparison of quality of life between the two groups ( ± s, points)
| Items | Study group (n = 31) | Control group (n = 31) | t value | P value |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Before intervention | 16.87 ± 1.23 | 16.86 ± 1.25 | 0.032 | 0.975 |
| After intervention | 26.98 ± 1.32* | 18.76 ± 1.26* | 25.080 | < 0.001 |
| Before intervention | 10.92 ± 1.26 | 10.87 ± 1.23 | 0.158 | 0.875 |
| After intervention | 17.02 ± 1.27* | 12.14 ± 1.07* | 16.361 | < 0.001 |
| Before intervention | 8.87 ± 1.02 | 8.83 ± 1.05 | 0.152 | 0.880 |
| After intervention | 16.82 ± 1.09* | 11.98 ± 1.01* | 18.135 | < 0.001 |
| Before intervention | 8.76 ± 1.01 | 8.71 ± 0.98 | 0.198 | 0.844 |
| After intervention | 16.91 ± 1.13* | 12.34 ± 1.06* | 16.423 | < 0.001 |
*P < 0.05: the comparison of the same group before treatment; #P < 0.05: the comparison of the control group after treatment
Comparison of complications between the two groups
| Group (n) | Infection | Laryngeal edema | Cleft relapse | Aspiration | Fever | Total incidence |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Study group (31) | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 (3.23) |
| Control group (31) | 1 | 3 | 0 | 2 | 1 | 7 (22.58) |
| t value | 5.167 | |||||
| P value | 0.023 |
#P < 0.05: the comparison of the control group after the intervention