| Literature DB >> 35915490 |
Tingting Liao1, Liyan Qiu1, Jingwen Zhu1, Jiayan Li1, Yanxin Zhang1, Li Yang2.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Nasopharyngeal carcinoma (NPC) is one of the most common head and neck malignancies, having a high incidence in Guangxi, China. Although chemoradiotherapy offers more effective cancer treatment, it also causes a variety of acute and chronic side effects, seriously affecting the quality of life. NPC has evolved into a chronic disease with most patients opting for home-based rehabilitation. Therefore, efforts on improving the home-based extended care services to improve the quality of life of patients are booming. The Chinese government encourages the use of internet technology for expanding the prospect of nursing. This study aimed to evaluate the impact of a mHealth-based care model on the health outcomes of discharged patients with nasopharyngeal carcinoma.Entities:
Keywords: Health outcomes; Nasopharyngeal carcinoma; Nursing model; mHealth
Year: 2022 PMID: 35915490 PMCID: PMC9344690 DOI: 10.1186/s12912-022-00993-0
Source DB: PubMed Journal: BMC Nurs ISSN: 1472-6955
Fig. 1Patient side
Fig. 2Medical service terminal
Fig. 3System management platform
Fig. 4Access platform flow chart
Fig. 5CONSORT
Baseline characteristics (n 114)
| General situation | Control group | Intervention group | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1.090 | 0.580 | |||
| 18- | 28 (49.1) | 25 (43.9) | ||
| 45- | 28 (49.1) | 30 (52.6) | ||
| 60- | 1 (1.8) | 2 (3.5) | ||
| 2.090 | 0.148 | |||
| Male | 44 (77.2) | 37 (64.9) | ||
| Female | 13 (22.8) | 20 (35.1) | ||
| 0.704 | 0.402 | |||
| Unmarried | 4 (7.0) | 2 (3.5) | ||
| Married | 53 (93.0) | 55 (96.5) | ||
| Education level | 1.880 | 0.598 | ||
| Primary school and below | 12 (21.1) | 17 (29.8) | ||
| Junior high school | 28 (49.1) | 27 (47.4) | ||
| High school/technical secondary school | 7 (12.3) | 7 (12.3) | ||
| College or above | 10 (17.5) | 6 (10.5) | ||
| 0.799 | 0.671 | |||
| <3000 yuan | 37 (64.9) | 40 (70.2) | ||
| 3000–5000 yuan | 16 (28.1) | 12 (21.0) | ||
| >5000 yuan | 4 (7.0) | 5 (8.8) | ||
| 1.614 | 0.204 | |||
| New rural cooperative medical system (NCMS) | 43 (75.4) | 42 (73.7) | ||
| Urban medical insurance (URBMI) | 14 (24.6) | 15 (26.3) | 0.046 | 0.830 |
| No | 8 (14.0) | 6 (10.5) | 0.326 | 0.568 |
| Yes | 49 (86.0) | 51 (89.5) | ||
| Disease staging | 2.527 | 0.112 | ||
| Phase II and below | 6 (10.5) | 6 (10.5) | ||
| Phase III | 21 (36.9) | 25 (43.9) | ||
| Phase IV | 30 (52.6) | 26 (45.6) | ||
| Chemotherapy cycle () | 3.58 ± 0.96 | 3.28 ± 0.86 | 1.7441) | 0.084 |
| Treatment plan | 0.049 | 0.862 | ||
| Induction chemotherapy + concurrent chemoradiotherapy | 14 (24.6) | 13 (22.8) | ||
| concurrent chemoradiotherapy | 43 (75.4) | 44 (77.2) | ||
Comparison of toxicity and side effects of radiotherapy between the two groups before intervention (n = 114)
| General situation | Before the intervention | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Control group ( | Intervention group ( | |||
| Nasal congestion | −1.382 | 0.167 | ||
| Grade 0 | 23 (40.4) | 19 (33.3) | ||
| Grade 1 | 18 (31.6) | 10 (17.5) | ||
| Grade 2 | 6 (10.5) | 17 (29.8) | ||
| Grade 3 | 10 (17.5) | 11 (19.3) | ||
| Dry mouth | − 0.137 | 0.891 | ||
| Grade 0 | 2 (3.5) | 1 (1.8) | ||
| Grade 1 | 6 (10.5) | 4 (7.0) | ||
| Grade 2 | 18 (31.6) | 19 (33.3) | ||
| Grade 3 | 26 (45.6) | 32 (56.1) | ||
| Grade 4 | 5 (8.8) | 1 (1.8) | ||
| Tinnitus | −0.804 | 0.421 | ||
| Grade 0 | 29 (50.9) | 23 (40.3) | ||
| Grade 1 | 7 (12.3) | 9 (15.8) | ||
| Grade 2 | 11 (19.3) | 16 (28.1) | ||
| Grade 3 | 10 (17.5) | 9 (15.8) | ||
| Trismus | −1.531 | 0.126 | ||
| Grade 0 | 45 (79.0) | 51 (89.4) | ||
| Grade 1 | 10 (17.5) | 5 (8.8) | ||
| Grade 2 | 2 (3.5) | 1 (1.8) | ||
| Neck fibrosis | −0.540 | 0.590 | ||
| Grade 0 | 46 (80.7) | 48 (84.2) | ||
| Grade 1 | 6 (10.5) | 6 (10.5) | ||
| Grade 2 | 5 (8.8) | 3 (5.3) | ||
Comparison of toxicity and side effects of radiotherapy between the two groups after intervention (n = 114)
| Project | grading | Three months after the intervention | Six months after the intervention | Twelve months after the intervention | |||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Control group | Intervention group | Control group | Intervention group | Control group | Intervention group | ||||||||
| Nasal congestion | Grade 0 | 18 (31.6) | 20 (35.1) | −0.310 | 0.757 | 22 (38.6) | 33 (57.9) | −2.510 | 0.012 | 24 (42.1) | 36 (63.2) | −2.735 | 0.006 |
| Grade 1 | 14 (24.6) | 14 (24.6) | 16 (28.1) | 16 (38.1) | 18 (31.6) | 17 (29.8) | |||||||
| Grade 2 | 20 (35.0) | 18 (31.6) | 17 (29.8) | 8 (14.0) | 13 (22.8) | 4 (1.0) | |||||||
| Grade 3 | 5 (8.8) | 5 (8.8) | 2 (3.5) | 0 (0.0) | 2 (3.5) | 0 (0.0) | |||||||
| Dry mouth | Grade 0 | 3 (5.3) | 4 (7.0) | −1.322 | 0.186 | 5 (8.8) | 8 (14.0) | −2.540 | 0.011 | 15 (26.3) | 20 (35.1) | −2.430 | 0.015 |
| Grade 1 | 9 (15.8) | 7 (12.3) | 17 (29.8) | 24 (42.1) | 22 (38.6) | 29 (50.9) | |||||||
| Grade 2 | 22 (38.6) | 33 (57.9) | 21 (36.8) | 23 (40.4) | 11 (19.3) | 6 (10.5) | |||||||
| Grade 3 | 23 (40.3) | 13 (22.8) | 14 (24.6) | 2 (3.5) | 9 (15.8) | 2 (3.5) | |||||||
| Grade 4 | 0 (0.0) | 0 (0.0) | 0 (0.0) | 0 (0.0) | 0 (0.0) | 0 (0.0) | |||||||
| Tinnitus | Grade 0 | 31 (54.4) | 25 (43.8) | −0.493 | 0.622 | 29 (50.9) | 40 (70.2) | − 2.116 | 0.034 | 32 (56.1) | 43 (75.4) | −2.080 | 0.037 |
| Grade 1 | 6 (10.5) | 13 (22.8) | 15 (26.3) | 11 (19.3) | 17 (29.8) | 13 (22.8) | |||||||
| Grade 2 | 15 (26.3) | 16 (28.1) | 11 (19.3) | 3 (5.2) | 6 (10.5) | 1 (1.8) | |||||||
| Grade 3 | 5 (8.8) | 3 (5.3) | 2 (2.5) | 3 (5.3) | 2 (3.5) | 0 (0.0) | |||||||
| Trismus | Grade 0 | 45 (78.9) | 51 (89.4) | −1.505 | 0.132 | 42 (73.7) | 52 (91.2) | −2.405 | 0.016 | 44 (77.2) | 53 (93.0) | −2.295 | 0.022 |
| Grade 1 | 11 (19.3) | 5 (8.8) | 14 (24.5) | 4 (7.0) | 13 (22.8) | 3 (5.2) | |||||||
| Grade 2 | 1 (1.8) | 1 (1.8) | 1 (1.8) | 1 (1.8) | 0 (0.0) | 1 (1.8) | |||||||
| Neck fibrosis | Grade 0 | 39 (68.4) | 47 (82.4) | −1.667 | 0.095 | 35 (61.4) | 47 (82.4) | −2.471 | 0.013 | 38 (66.7) | 50 (87.7) | −2.638 | 0.008 |
| Grade 1 | 14 (24.6) | 7 (12.3) | 20 (35.1) | 9 (15.8) | 17 (29.8) | 6 (10.5) | |||||||
| Grade 2 | 4 (7.0) | 3 (5.3) | 2 (3.5) | 1 (1.8) | 2 (3.5) | 1 (1.8) | |||||||
Comparison of cancer fatigue between the two groups before intervention (n = 114)
| Project | Before intervention | Six months after the intervention | Twelve months after the intervention | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| The total fatigue | |||||
| Control group | 26.46 ± 4.21 | 24.09 ± 3.21 | 22.61 ± 2.91 | <0.001 | |
| Intervention group | 26.65 ± 3.51 | 19.86 ± 3.63 | 15.75 ± 3.08 | <0.001 | |
| | −0.266 | −6.586 | −12.247 | <0.001 | |
| | 0.791 | <0.001 | <0.001 | ||
| Physical fatigue | |||||
| Control group | 10.82 ± 3.10 | 9.91 ± 2.54 | 9.21 ± 2.45 | <0.001 | |
| Intervention group | 9.73 ± 3.18 | 7.63 ± 2.26 | 6.14 ± 1.90 | 0.015 | |
| | −1.848 | −5.055 | −7.476 | <0.001 | |
| | 0.067 | <0.001 | <0.001 | ||
| Emotional fatigue | |||||
| Control group | 8.94 ± 1.24 | 8.08 ± 1.53 | 7.684 ± 1.48 | <0.001 | |
| Intervention group | 9.28 ± 1.57 | 7.31 ± 1.66 | 6.070 ± 1.57 | 0.021 | |
| | 1.257 | −2.575 | −5.677 | <0.001 | |
| 0.211 | 0.011 | 0.003 | |||
| Cognitive fatigue | |||||
| Control group | 6.87 ± 1.56 | 5.67 ± 1.73 | 5.71 ± 1.44 | <0.001 | |
| Intervention group | 6.94 ± 1.65 | 4.91 ± 1.47 | 3.52 ± 1.50 | 0.004 | |
| 0.233 | −2.506 | −7.936 | <0.001 | ||
| 0.816 | 0.014 | <0.001 | |||
Note: F1 is the time effect, F2 is the intergroup effect, F3 is the interaction effect of time and grouping, P represents the result obtained using an independent sample t-test, P represents the result obtained by repeated ANOVA
Comparison of quality of life in various fields between the two groups before intervention (n = 114)
| Project | Before intervention | Six months after the intervention | Twelve months after the intervention | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Control group | 11.69 ± 5.19 | 8.91 ± 4.94 | 8.04 ± 4.86 | <0.001 | |
| Intervention group | 11.10 ± 6.16 | 6.72 ± 4.83 | 6.13 ± 4.86 | 0.001 | |
| | −0.548 | −2.393 | −2.063 | <0.001 | |
| | 0.585 | 0.018 | 0.041 | ||
| Control group | 24.26 ± 10.71 | 19.90 ± 8.12 | 18.58 ± 6.67 | 0.758 | |
| Intervention group | 20.90 ± 7.73 | 16.23 ± 7.93 | 14.33 ± 5.39 | 0.037 | |
| −1.921 | −2.437 | −3.745 | <0.001 | ||
| | 0.057 | 0.016 | <0.001 | ||
| Control group | 27.63 ± 15.03 | 25.15 ± 11.73 | 14.62 ± 6.91 | 0.120 | |
| Intervention group | 28.95 ± 15.51 | 15.93 ± 8.95 | 10.96 ± 5.02 | 0.030 | |
| | 0.460 | −4.713 | −3.230 | <0.001 | |
| | 0.647 | <0.001 | 0.002 | ||
| Control group | 18.27 ± 8.83 | 14.47 ± 7.96 | 15.20 ± 5.48 | 0.757 | |
| Intervention group | 16.67 ± 10.45 | 12.71 ± 6.12 | 10.09 ± 3.77 | 0.020 | |
| | −0.888 | −1.320 | −5.806 | <0.001 | |
| | 0.376 | 0.190 | <0.001 | ||
| Control group | 14.03 ± 8.54 | 12.86 ± 5.86 | 11.89 ± 4.63 | 0.402 | |
| Intervention group | 13.45 ± 7.78 | 9.74 ± 4.24 | 8.17 ± 4.94 | 0.549 | |
| | −0.382 | −3.257 | −4.132 | <0.001 | |
| | 0.703 | 0.001 | <0.001 | ||
| Control group | 11.57 ± 3.89 | 7.84 ± 3.12 | 11.11 ± 3.64 | 0.054 | |
| Intervention group | 11.11 ± 3.63 | 7.49 ± 3.58 | 7.48 ± 3.58 | 0.005 | |
| | −0.664 | − 0.557 | −4.184 | <0.001 | |
| | 0.508 | 0.579 | <0.001 | ||
| Control group | 35.67 ± 13.88 | 33.33 ± 15.43 | 31.58 ± 15.32 | 0.008 | |
| Intervention group | 36.25 ± 13.03 | 29.82 ± 13.26 | 21.05 ± 13.18 | 0.038 | |
| 0.232 | −1.302 | −3.930 | <0.001 | ||
| 0.817 | 0.196 | <0.001 | |||
Note: F1 is the time effect; F2 is the intergroup effect; F3 is the interaction effect of time and grouping; P represents the result obtained using an independent sample t-test; P represents the result obtained by repeated ANOVA