| Literature DB >> 35783518 |
Yue Shi1, Zhongye Wu1, Hong Wang1, Wufan Kong1, Xiaowan Zhuansun1.
Abstract
Objective. The incidence of cervical cancer is high, which seriously threatens the life and health of women. At present, there were few studies on the application of family-oriented enabling psychological nursing in patients with cervical cancer. So, the purpose of this study was to explore the effect of family-oriented enabling psychological nursing on posttraumatic stress and fear of recurrence in patients with cervical cancer. The clinical data of 236 patients with cervical cancer treated in our hospital from January 2020 to December 2021 was retrospectively analyzed. According to different nursing methods, they were assigned to convention group (105 cases accepted the conventional nursing) and psychology group (131 cases accepted the family-oriented enabling psychological nursing). The PTSD Checklist-Civilian Version (PCL-C) scores, Fear of Progression Questionnaire-Short Form (FoP-Q-SF) scores, Cancer Rehabilitation Evaluation System-Short Form (CARES-SF) scores, and satisfaction rates of the two groups were compared. It turned out that the PCL-C score, FoP-Q-SF score, and CARES-SF score decreased in the psychology group and the convention group (P < 0.05) and the decreases of those three scores were more obvious in the psychology group. In comparison with the convention group, the nursing satisfaction rate of psychology group was higher (96.18% vs. 76.19%, P < 0.05). It could be concluded that family-oriented enabling psychological nursing had definite clinical application value in patients with cervical cancer, which could alleviate the symptoms of posttraumatic stress disorder and reduce the fear of recurrence, stabilize the perioperative psychological state, facilitate treatment, and improve the quality of life and satisfaction rate of patients and was worthy of promotion and application.Entities:
Year: 2022 PMID: 35783518 PMCID: PMC9249470 DOI: 10.1155/2022/6720287
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Evid Based Complement Alternat Med ISSN: 1741-427X Impact factor: 2.650
Basic information of the patients (, n (%)).
| Group | Age (year) | Clinical stages | Pathological classification | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Stage Ib | Stage IIa | Stage IIb | Stage IIIa | Squamous cell carcinoma | Adenocarcinoma | Carcinoma in situ | ||
| Convention group ( | 39.15 ± 6.68 | 35 (33.33) | 30 (28.57) | 32 (30.48) | 8 (7.62) | 82 (78.10) | 16 (15.24) | 7 (6.67) |
| Psychology group ( | 38.85 ± 7.03 | 47 (35.88) | 30 (22.90) | 38 (29.01) | 16 (12.21) | 105 (80.15) | 22 (16.79) | 4 (3.05) |
|
| 0.333 | −0.507 | −0.279 | |||||
|
| 0.739 | 0.612 | 0.780 | |||||
Figure 1The flow chart of this study. Note. PCL-CPTSD = Checklist-Civilian Version, FoP-Q-SF = Fear of Progression Questionnaire-Short Form, and CARES-SF = Cancer Rehabilitation Evaluation System-Short Form.
PCL-C score (point, ).
| Group | PCL-C score | FoP-Q-SF score | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Before nursing | After nursing | Before nursing | After nursing | |
| Convention group ( | 49.25 ± 12.16 | 41.26 ± 5.58 | 29.87 ± 6.24 | 26.57 ± 5.59 |
| Psychology group ( | 48.74 ± 13.25 | 35.72 ± 8.25 | 30.06 ± 5.83 | 22.47 ± 4.62 |
|
| 0.305 | 5.885 | 0.241 | 6.169 |
|
| 0.761 | <0.001 | 0.820 | <0.001 |
Note. Compared with the same group before nursing, P < 0.05.
Figure 2PCL-C score. Note. P < 0.05.
Figure 3FoP-Q-SF score. Note. P < 0.05.
CARES-SF score (point, ).
| Group | CARES-SF score | |
|---|---|---|
| Before nursing | After nursing | |
| Convention group ( | 75.19 ± 10.48 | 53.62 ± 7.54# |
| Psychology group ( | 73.22 ± 8.82 | 41.37 ± 6.62# |
|
| 1.568 | 13.280 |
|
| 0.118 | <0.001 |
Note. #Compared with the same group before nursing, P < 0.05.
Figure 4CARES-SF score. Note. P < 0.05.
Nursing satisfaction rate (n (%)).
| Group | Dissatisfaction | Satisfaction | Great satisfaction | Satisfaction rate |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Convention group ( | 25 (23.81) | 47 (44.76) | 33 (31.43) | 80 (76.19) |
| Psychology group ( | 5 (3.82) | 49 (37.40) | 77 (58.78) | 126 (96.18) |
|
| −5.006 | 20.996 | ||
|
| <0.001 | <0.001 |
Figure 5Nursing satisfaction rate.