| Literature DB >> 36072734 |
Chunlan Feng1, Caixia Lv2, Xia Zhang2, Yumei Guo1, Xiaojun Li2.
Abstract
To many hospitals' management as well as to patients, the nursing service is one of the most important aspects. Many diseases like sugar, blood pressure, urine passage, and gas are a little bit dangerous to handle by patients themselves. The earlier stage models are unable to give good services to patients; therefore, an advanced JHE: Effect of 1 + N extended nursing service is necessary to crossover the above limitations. Colostomy and colorectal cancers are very dangerous syndromes thus, disease monitoring is so difficult. In this research work, an extended JHE: Effect of 1 + N extended nursing service modeling is discussed with experimental modeling. Apart from conventional nursing care provided by the observation group, it was given online training as well as service providing. Self-efficacy and self-care competence were assessed in both groups 6 months after the discharge. Quality of life and mental health were also assessed. Besides, their dimensional and total self-care ability scores, and the observation group's self-efficacy ratings were substantially higher than those of the control group (P 0.05) after the intervention. It was observed that the intervention group's 6-month adjustment to the stoma was statistically more favorable than the control group's (P 0.001), and only the intervention group showed a significantly major change (P 0.001) between their two evaluations. This proposed methodology can improve the accuracy rate by 93.23%, and succussive treatment rate of 92.14% had been attained.Entities:
Mesh:
Year: 2022 PMID: 36072734 PMCID: PMC9444352 DOI: 10.1155/2022/2645528
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Comput Intell Neurosci
Figure 1Colorectal cancer (CRC).
Figure 2Representation of colostomy bag.
Clinical materials comparison between two groups.
| Medical data | Identification module | Controlling factor |
|
|
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Male | 037 | 031 | 00.339 | 00.560 |
| Female | 025 | 026 | ||
| Age | 045.82 ± 7.02 | 046.18 ± 8.12 | 00.259 | 00.796 |
| Married | 048 | 041 | 00.475 | 00.491 |
| Single | 014 | 016 | ||
| Jr. high school or below | 017 | 015 | 00.018 | 00.829 |
| High school and above | 045 | 042 | ||
| Private treatment | 021 | 023 | 00.535 | 00.465 |
| By social security or public expense | 041 | 034 |
Self-efficiency score.
| Before intervention | After intervention | |
|---|---|---|
| Observation group | 19 | 23 |
| Control group | 19 | 21 |
Figure 3Assessment of the two groups' efficacy before and after the intervention.
Self-efficiency comparison between two groups before and after intervention ().
| Cluster | Count of cases | Past interposition | Later interposition |
|
|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Opinion set | 63 | 19.83 ± 1.62 | 22.17 ± 2.01 | 13.713 | 0.001 |
| Switch cluster | 58 | 19.21 ± 1.72 | 20.06 ± 1.93 | 6.513 | 0.002 |
|
| — | 0.621 | 6.621 | — | — |
|
| — | 0.515 | 0.0007 | — | — |
Self-efficiency comparison between two groups before and after the intervention.
| Metrics | Identification model | Control model | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Count of cases | Past interposition |
|
| Count of cases | Past interposition |
|
| |
| Self-caring models | 21.07 ± 2.71 | 26.75 ± 3.22a | 8.744 | ≤0.001 | 21.75 ± 3.22 | 25.03± | 4.335 | ≤0.001 |
| 0.000 knowledge of self-care | 28.97 ± 3.74 | 39.10 ± 5.70a | 11.654 | ≤0.001 | 29.19 ± 5.300 | 33.66 ± 5.33 | 5.330 | ≤0.001 |
| Responsibility of self-care | 22.37 ± 2.36 | 28.29 ± 3.12a | 13.500 | ≤0.001 | 25.39 ± 2.80 | 25.34 ± 2.30 | 6.281 | ≤0.001 |
| Self-care skills | 28.06 ± 4.24 | 42.01 ± 7.23a | 12.990 | ≤0.001 | 33.56 ± 6.33 | 33.55 ± 6.30 | 5.098 | ≤0.001 |
| Total score | 98.93 ± 15.28 | 140.74 ± 21.33a | 12.096 | ≤0.001 | 99.78117.29 ± 17.99 | 117.29 ± 17.99 | 5.521 | ≤0.001 |
Quality of life comparison among 2 groups.
| Metrics | Identification model | Control model | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Count of cases | Past inter position |
| Count of cases | Past inter position | After intervention | Count of cases | Past inter position | |
| Physical functioning | 58.55 ± 6.22 | 72.83 ± 5.89 | 13.133 | 0.000 | 0.75 ± 3.22 | 65.03 ± 92.00 | 4.789 | 0.000 |
| Physical role | 52.14 ± 4.20 | 26.75 ± 3.22a | 11.315 | 0.000 | 50.19 ± 5.300 | 56.66 ± 5.33 | 6.587 | 0.000 |
| Bodily pain | 45.12 ± 3.58 | 39.10 ± 5.70a | 18.148 | 0.000 | 44.39 ± 2.80 | 55.34 ± 2.30 | 9.587 | 0.000 |
| Social functioning | 46.88 ± 6.20 | 28.29 ± 3.12a | 11.322 | 0.000 | 46.56 ± 6.33 | 61.55 ± 6.30 | 4.687 | 0.000 |
| Mental health | 53.62 ± 6.20 | 42.01 ± 7.23a | 14.352 | 0.000 | 52.254 ± 17.99 | 63.29 ± 17.99 | 10.478 | 0.000 |
| Emotional role | 55.62 ± 6.99 | 140.74 ± 21.33a | 12.235 | 0.000 | 55.75 ± 3.22 | 45.03 ± 5.145 | 7.315 | 0.000 |
| Validity | 55.20 ± 6.99 | 26.75 ± 3.22a | 12.740 | 0.000 | 39.19 ± 5.300 | 56.66 ± 5.33 | 6.350 | 0.000 |
| General health | 40.20 ± 4.75 | 39.10 ± 5.70a | 14.025 | 0.000 | 44.39 ± 2.80 | 57.34 ± 2.30 | 5.614 | 0.000 |
Figure 4Preintervention and postintervention comparison of SAS scores. When compared to the control group, a P 0.05 was found for the difference between the two groups. As shown in Table 6.
Figure 5The SDS scores of the two groups before and after the intervention are compared.
SDS analysis.
| Before intervention | After intervention | |
|---|---|---|
| Observation group | 59 | 43 |
| Control group | 60 | 51 |
Physical states comparison between two groups.
| Group | No. of cases | SASDS | SDSDS |
|---|---|---|---|
| Identification model | Past interposition | 61.88 ± 6.33 | 60.21 ± 6.55 |
| Earlier interposition | 49.88 ± 5.45 | 47.99 ± 4.79 | |
|
| 11.446 | 11.698 | |
|
| 0.00 | 0.000 | |
|
| |||
| Control model | Past interposition | 61.22 ± 7.55 | 60.55 ± 7.23 |
| Earlier interposition | 55.21 ± 6.23 | 52.44 ± 4.33 | |
|
| 5.247 | 7.422 | |
|
| 0.000 | 0.000 | |
Complication rates among 2 groups.
| Group | No. of elements | Colostomy injury | Colostomy attack | Colostomy refutation | Contact | Total |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Identification model | 63 | 0 1 (0.000) | 01 (0.000) | 2 (1.62) | 3 (3.23) | 3 (4.85) |
| Control model | 58 | 02 (3.57) | 02 (1.75) | 3 (3.52) | 5 (7.03) | 9 (14.78) |
|
| — | — | — | — | — | 3.928 |
|
| — | — | — | — | — | 0.048 |
SAS score analysis.
| Before intervention | After intervention | |
|---|---|---|
| Observation group | 60 | 45 |
| Control group | 60 | 54 |