| Literature DB >> 35186225 |
Abstract
Chemotherapy, the main treatment method of AL, can produce varying degrees of toxic and side effects on patients while killing tumor cells, resulting in decreased immune function of patients. We aim to explore the application effect of high-quality nursing intervention based on humanistic care combined with the project teaching method on patients with acute leukemia (AL) undergoing chemotherapy and its effect on their psychological state and satisfaction. 114 AL patients undergoing chemotherapy in the Department of Hematology of our hospital from July 2018 to July 2020 were chosen as the research objects and equally randomized into the experimental group (EG) and control group (CG). CG received routine nursing during chemotherapy, while EG received high-quality nursing intervention based on humanistic care combined with the project teaching method. Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale (HAD) was adopted to evaluate the psychological state of patients in both groups after intervention, and the self-made nursing satisfaction questionnaire in our hospital was applied to evaluate the clinical nursing satisfaction. The HAD-A and HAD-D scores in the CG (P < 0.001) were significantly higher than the HAD-A and HAD-D scores in the EG after intervention. The scores of various coping styles in the EG after intervention were better than those in the CG (P < 0.05). Compared with the CG, the total nursing satisfaction after intervention was remarkably higher in the EG (P < 0.001), while the total incidence of adverse reactions during intervention was notably lower (P < 0.05). High-quality nursing intervention based on humanistic care combined with the project teaching method for AL patients undergoing chemotherapy can effectively relieve negative emotions, improve clinical nursing satisfaction, and reduce adverse reactions during chemotherapy.Entities:
Mesh:
Year: 2022 PMID: 35186225 PMCID: PMC8849799 DOI: 10.1155/2022/2972037
Source DB: PubMed Journal: J Healthc Eng ISSN: 2040-2295 Impact factor: 2.682
Comparison of baseline data (n (%)).
| Items | EG ( | CG ( |
|
|
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Gender | 0.141 | 0.708 | ||
| Male | 31 (54.39%) | 29 (50.88%) | ||
| Female | 26 (45.61%) | 28 (49.12%) | ||
| Average age ( | 32.67 ± 2.76 | 32.83 ± 2.69 | 0.313 | 0.755 |
| BMI (kg/m2) | 21.46 ± 1.64 | 21.48 ± 1.59 | 0.066 | 0.947 |
| Average course of the disease (weeks) | 3.46 ± 0.35 | 3.51 ± 0.28 | 0.842 | 0.402 |
| Severity of the disease | ||||
| High risk | 31 (54.39%) | 29 (50.88%) | 0.141 | 0.708 |
| Medium risk | 22 (38.60%) | 23 (40.35%) | 0.037 | 0.848 |
| Low risk | 4 (7.02%) | 5 (8.77%) | 0.121 | 0.728 |
| Disease types | 0.035 | 0.851 | ||
| AML | 27 (47.37%) | 28 (49.12%) | ||
| ALL | 30 (52.63%) | 29 (50.88%) | ||
| Marital status | ||||
| Unmarried | 9 (15.79%) | 11 (19.30%) | 0.243 | 0.622 |
| Married | 43 (75.44%) | 42 (73.68%) | 0.046 | 0.830 |
| Divorced | 5 (8.77%) | 4 (7.02%) | 0.121 | 0.728 |
| Residence | 0.141 | 0.708 | ||
| Urban area | 26 (45.61%) | 28 (49.12%) | ||
| Rural area | 31 (54.39%) | 29 (50.88%) | ||
| Education | ||||
| College and above | 17 (29.82%) | 19 (33.33%) | 0.162 | 0.687 |
| High school | 33 (57.89%) | 29 (50.88%) | 0.566 | 0.452 |
| Middle school and below | 7 (12.28%) | 9 (15.79%) | 0.291 | 0.590 |
Figure 1Comparison of HAD scores before and after intervention (). (a) Comparison of HAD-A scores before and after intervention. The abscissa described before and after intervention, and the ordinate described the HAD-A score (points). The HAD-A scores of the EG before and after treatment were 7.21 ± 1.83 and 4.62 ± 0.81, while those of the CG were 7.24 ± 1.92 and 6.94 ± 1.32. A notable difference in the HAD-A scores of the EG before and after intervention (t = 9.771, P < 0.001); a significant dissimilarity in the HAD-A scores after intervention (t = 7.827, P < 0.001). (b) Comparison of HAD-D scores before and after intervention. The abscissa described before and after intervention, and the ordinate described the HAD-D score (points). The HAD-D scores of the EG were 7.28 ± 1.83 before treatment and 5.13 ± 1.45 after treatment, while those of the CG were 7.23 ± 1.54 and 6.92 ± 1.36. A notable difference in the HAD-D scores of the EG before and after intervention (t = 6.952, P < 0.001); a notable difference in the HAD-D scores after intervention (t = 6.798, P < 0.001).
Comparison of coping style scores before and after intervention (, points).
| Group | Facing | Surrender | Avoidance | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Before intervention | After intervention | Before intervention | After intervention | Before intervention | After intervention | |
| EG ( | 14.28 ± 3.18 | 22.16 ± 3.14 | 21.16 ± 2.18 | 14.28 ± 1.87 | 13.28 ± 2.23 | 7.59 ± 1.58 |
| CG ( | 14.31 ± 3.09 | 16.25 ± 2.78 | 21.19 ± 2.11 | 17.26 ± 2.18 | 13.32 ± 2.35 | 11.02 ± 1.47 |
|
| 0.051 | 10.639 | 0.075 | 7.833 | 0.093 | 11.100 |
|
| 0.959 | <0.001 | 0.941 | <0.001 | 0.926 | <0.001 |
Comparison of clinical satisfaction (n (%)).
| Group |
| Fully satisfied | Satisfied | Dissatisfied | Total satisfaction |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| EG | 57 | 19 (33.33%) | 36 (63.16%) | 2 (3.51%) | 96.49% (55/57) |
| CG | 57 | 20 (35.09%) | 28 (49.12%) | 9 (15.79%) | 84.21% (48/57) |
|
| 4.930 | ||||
|
| <0.05 |
Comparison of the occurrence of unfavorable reactions during chemotherapy (n (%)).
| Group |
| Myelosuppression | Gastrointestinal discomfort | Cardiotoxicity | Respiratory tract infection | Total incidence |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| EG | 57 | 1 (1.75) | 2 (3.51) | 0 (0.00) | 1 (1.75) | 7.02% (4/57) |
| CG | 57 | 3 (5.26) | 4 (7.02) | 3 (5.26) | 3 (5.26) | 22.81% (13/57) |
|
| 5.600 | |||||
|
| 0.018 |