| Literature DB >> 35664947 |
Lihua Zhang1, Wei Zhang1, Yuping Jiang1, Kaifeng Yao1.
Abstract
Objective: To explore the effects and satisfaction of comfort nursing plus psychological nursing in the clinical nursing of neurology patients.Entities:
Year: 2022 PMID: 35664947 PMCID: PMC9159892 DOI: 10.1155/2022/8013787
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Evid Based Complement Alternat Med ISSN: 1741-427X Impact factor: 2.650
Comparison of general information of the two groups of patients.
| Experimental group ( | Control group ( |
|
| |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Age (year, | 0.086 | 0.932 | ||
| 55.75 ± 3.32 | 55.69 ± 3.29 | |||
| Sex ( | 0.178 | 0.673 | ||
| Male | 23 (51.11) | 21 (46.67) | ||
| Female | 22 (48.89) | 24 (53.33) | ||
| BMI (kg/m2, | 1.119 | 0.266 | ||
| 26.27 ± 1.59 | 25.89 ± 1.63 | |||
| Disease type ( | ||||
| Cerebral hemorrhage | 21 (46.67) | 20 (44.44) | 0.045 | 0.832 |
| Cerebral infarction | 10 (22.22) | 12 (26.67) | 0.241 | 0.624 |
| Cerebral thrombosis | 9 (20.00) | 8 (17.78) | 0.073 | 0.788 |
| Smoking [ | 0.045 | 0.832 | ||
| Yes | 20 (44.44) | 21 (46.67) | ||
| No | 25 (55.56) | 24 (53.33) | ||
| Drinking [ | 0.178 | 0.673 | ||
| Yes | 22 (48.89) | 24 (53.33) | ||
| No | 23 (51.11) | 21 (46.67) | ||
| Place of residence ( | 0.050 | 0.822 | ||
| Township | 31 (68.89) | 30 (66.67) | ||
| Rural area | 14 (31.11) | 15 (33.33) |
Comparison of comfort scores between the two groups (x ± s).
| Groups |
| Physiological comfort | Psychological comfort | Hospital comfort | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Before intervention | After intervention | Before intervention | After intervention | Before intervention | After intervention | ||
| Experimental group | 45 | 51.35 ± 3.35 | 91.35 ± 4.27 | 53.22 ± 3.58 | 92.36 ± 4.11 | 55.32 ± 2.36 | 94.33 ± 3.81 |
| Control group | 45 | 50.88 ± 3.72 | 72.36 ± 3.98 | 52.87 ± 3.67 | 73.25 ± 3.76 | 54.89 ± 2.93 | 75.26 ± 3.12 |
|
| 0.629 | 21.823 | 0.458 | 23.013 | 0.766 | 25.977 | |
|
| 0.531 | <0.001 | 0.648 | <0.001 | 0.445 | <0.001 | |
Comparison of nursing satisfaction between the two groups (% (n/n)).
| Groups | n | Satisfied | Relatively satisfied | Unsatisfied | 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 |
Figure 1Comparison of HAD and ESCA scores between the two groups (x ± s) A: the abscissa represents before and after nursing intervention, and the ordinate represents HAD score (points); the HAD scores of patients in the experimental group before and after intervention were (36.11 ± 2.15) points and (4.32 ± 1.05) points, respectively; the HAD scores of the control group before and after intervention were (36.02 ± 2.17) points and (15.11 ± 1.87) points, respectively; the HAD scores of the experimental group patients before and after nursing intervention are significantly different (t = 89.127, P > 0.05). There is a significant difference in the HAD scores of the control group patients before and after the nursing intervention (t = 48.967, P > 0.01); there is a significant difference in the HAD scores of the two groups of patients after nursing intervention (t = 33.750, P < 0.001). B: the abscissa represents before and after nursing intervention, and the ordinate represents ESCA score (points); the ESCA scores of patients in the experimental group before and after nursing intervention were (5.22 ± 0.27) points and (14.89 ± 0.37) points, respectively; the ESCA scores of patients in the control group before and after the nursing intervention were (5.19 ± 0.24) points and (8.36 ± 0.98) points, respectively; the ESCA scores of the experimental group patients before and after nursing intervention are significantly different (t = 141.622, P > 0.05); there is a significant difference in the ESCA scores of the control group patients before and after the nursing intervention (t = 21.076, P > 0.01); the ESCA scores of the two groups of patients after nursing intervention are significantly different (t = 41.817, P < 0.001).
Figure 2Comparison of BI index scores between the two groups (x ± s). The abscissa represents before and after nursing intervention, and the ordinate represents BI index score (points); the BI index scores of patients in the experimental group before and after nursing intervention were (50.11 ± 2.24) points and (90.11 ± 3.35) points, respectively; the BI index scores of patients in the control group before and after nursing intervention were (50.29 ± 2.21) points and (70.23 ± 3.01) points, respectively; there is a significant difference in the BI index scores in the experimental group before and after nursing intervention (t = 66.584, P > 0.05); there is a significant difference in the BI index scores before and after nursing intervention in the control group (t = 35.821, P > 0.01); there is a significant difference in the BI index scores between the two groups of patients after nursing intervention (t = 29.612, P > 0.001).