| Literature DB >> 35345513 |
Yanting Ji1, Buyong Zhang1, Xuan Zhang2, Lingbo Xue1, Qingfeng Shi1, Jie Li1.
Abstract
Objective: To evaluate the effect of high-quality nursing on thyroid tumor patients after bipolar coagulation and its impact on nursing satisfaction.Entities:
Year: 2022 PMID: 35345513 PMCID: PMC8957456 DOI: 10.1155/2022/1035971
Source DB: PubMed Journal: J Oncol ISSN: 1687-8450 Impact factor: 4.375
Comparison of general information of the two groups of patients.
| Experimental group ( | Control group ( |
|
| |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Age (year) | 45.75 ± 3.32 | 45.69 ± 3.29 | 0.100 | 0.920 |
| Gender (male/female) | 23/22 | 21/24 | 0.178 | 0.673 |
| BMI (kg/m2) | 26.27 ± 1.59 | 25.89 ± 1.63 | 1.119 | 0.266 |
| Disease course (year) | 1.51 ± 0.21 | 1.49 ± 0.25 | 0.411 | 0.682 |
| Disease type (malignancy/benign) | 28/17 | 27/18 | 0.047 | 0.829 |
| Smoking (yes/no) | 20/25 | 21/24 | 0.045 | 0.832 |
| Drinking (yes/no) | 22/23 | 24/21 | 0.178 | 0.673 |
| Hypertension (yes/no) | 29/16 | 22/23 | 2.217 | 0.068 |
| Diabetes (yes/no) | 24/21 | 19/26 | 1.113 | 0.146 |
| CAD ((yes/no)) | 11/34 | 15/30 | 0.865 | 0.176 |
| Place of residence (urban/rural) | 31/14 | 30/15 | 0.050 | 0.822 |
Comparison of postoperative complications between the two groups (n (%)).
| Groups |
| Hematoma | Incision infection | Hypothyroidism | Hoarse voice | Total incidence |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Experimental group | 45 | 2.22% (1/45) | 0.00% (0/45) | 4.44% (2/45) | 2.22% (1/45) | 11.11% (5/45) |
| Control group | 45 | 6.67% (3/45) | 6.67% (3/45) | 8.89% (4/45) | 11.11% (5/45) | 33.33% (15/45) |
|
| 6.429 | |||||
|
| <0.05 |
Comparison of nursing satisfaction between the two groups (n (%)).
| Groups |
| Satisfied | Moderately satisfied | Dissatisfied | Total satisfaction |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Experimental group | 45 | 68.89% (31/45) | 24.44% (11/45) | 8.89% (3/45) | 93.33% (42/45) |
| Control group | 45 | 48.89% (22/45) | 22.22% (10/45) | 28.89% (13/45) | 71.11% (32/45) |
|
| 7.601 | ||||
|
| <0.05 |
Comparison of ESCA scores between the two groups (−x ± s, points).
| Groups |
| Self-concept | Self-responsibility | Self-care skills | Health knowledge level |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Experimental group | 45 | 2.71 ± 0.82 | 2.32 ± 0.61 | 2.73 ± 0.45 | 3.13 ± 0.31 |
| Control group | 45 | 1.33 ± 0.52 | 1.15 ± 0.32 | 1.21 ± 0.12 | 1.52 ± 0.63 |
|
| 9.534 | 11.394 | 21.894 | 15.382 | |
|
| <0.001 | <0.001 | <0.001 | <0.001 |
Comparison of GQOLI-74 scores between the two groups (−x ± s, points).
| Groups |
| Mental function | Physical function | Social function | Material life state |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Experimental group | 45 | 82.35 ± 5.8 | 83.27 ± 5.9 | 83.56 ± 6.8 | 84.52 ± 7.9 |
| Control group | 45 | 63.32 ± 4.7 | 62.12 ± 4.9 | 65.32 ± 5.7 | 65.23 ± 5.8 |
|
| 17.908 | 18.499 | 13.789 | 13.203 | |
|
| <0.001 | <0.001 | <0.001 | <0.001 |
Figure 1Comparison of HAD scores between the two groups (−x ± s, points). Note: the abscissa represents before and after nursing, and the ordinate represents the HAD score, points; the HAD scores of the experimental group before and after the intervention were (35.12 ± 2.11) points and (4.65 ± 1.02) points, respectively; the HAD scores of the control group before and after the intervention were (35.15 ± 2.08) points and (14.62 ± 1.96) points, respectively; ∗ indicates that there was a significant difference in HAD scores before and after the nursing intervention in the experimental group (t = 87.216, P < 0.001); ∗∗ indicates that there was a significant difference in the HAD scores before and after the nursing intervention in the control group (t = 48.187, P < 0.001); ∗∗∗ indicates that there was a significant difference in the HAD scores of the two groups of patients after the nursing intervention (t = 30.269, P < 0.001).
Figure 2Comparison of NRS scores between the two groups (−x ± s, points). Note: the abscissa represents the T0, T1, and T2, and the ordinate represents the NRS score, points; the NRS scores of patients in the experimental group at T0, T1, and T2 were (8.74 ± 1.12, 4.33 ± 0.51, 1.05 ± 0.21) points, respectively; the NRS scores of patients in the control group at T0, T1, and T2 were (8.87 ± 1.05, 6.49 ± 0.83, 4.23 ± 0.52) points, respectively; ∗ indicates that there was a significant difference in the NRS score at T1 between the two groups (t = 14.874, P < 0.001); ∗∗ indicates that there was a significant difference in the NRS score at T2 between the two groups (t = 38.038, P < 0.001).