| Literature DB >> 36203676 |
Xin Huang1, Meilian Xie1, Shan Zhao1, Yingtong Chen1, Liying Wu1, Xiuqun Zeng1.
Abstract
Background: Asymptomatic peripherally inserted central catheter-related thrombosis (PICC-RT) is one of the most common and dangerous complications caused by peripherally inserted central catheter (PICC) insertion. A variety of factors might lead to huge psychological pressures on patients and markedly affect their quality of life. The aim of this study was to evaluate the benefits of an online multimodal nursing program on the quality of life and psychological resilience of asymptomatic PICC-RT patients with ovarian cancer.Entities:
Keywords: asymptomatic thrombosis; nursing; peripherally inserted central catheter; psychological resilience; quality of life
Mesh:
Year: 2022 PMID: 36203676 PMCID: PMC9531013 DOI: 10.3389/fpubh.2022.971363
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Front Public Health ISSN: 2296-2565
The procedures for the control and intervention groups.
|
|
|
|
|
|---|---|---|---|
| Control group | • General information | Routine nursing care | • Thrombosis status evaluated by color Doppler ultrasound |
| Intervention group | • General information | Routine nursing care | • Thrombosis status evaluated by color Doppler ultrasound |
Figure 1Flow diagram of the study.
General characteristics of the intervention and control groups.
|
| |||
|---|---|---|---|
|
| 50.85 ± 2.23 | 54.15 ± 2.03 | 0.648 a |
|
| 21.29 ± 3.20 | 21.93 ± 3.27 | 0.785 a |
| Unmarried | 6 (18.18%) | 4 (12.12%) | 0.625 b |
| Married | 24 (72.73%) | 25 (75.76%) | |
| Divorced | 2 (6.06%) | 1 (3.03%) | |
| Widowed | 1 (3.03%) | 3 (9.09%) | |
| High school or lower | 22 (66.67%) | 27 (75.51%) | 0.159 b |
| University degree or higher | 11 (33.33%) | 6 (24.49%) | |
| Yes | 17(51.52%) | 14 (42.42%) | 0.459 b |
| No | 16 (48.48%) | 19 (57.58%) | |
| Serous adenocarcinoma | 24 (72.73%) | 25 (75.76%) | 0.767 b |
| Mucinous adenocarcinoma | 2 (6.06%) | 1 (3.03%) | |
| Endometrioid adenocarcinoma | 1 (3.03%) | 2 (6.06%) | |
| Clear cell carcinoma | 3 (9.09%) | 1 (3.03%) | |
| Other | 3 (9.09%) | 4 (12.12%) | |
| I | 5 (15.15%) | 8 (24.24%) | 0.246 c |
| II | 1 (3.03%) | 3 (9.09%) | |
| III | 18 (54.55%) | 15 (45.46%) | |
| IV | 9 (27.27%) | 7 (21.21%) | |
| Yes | 13 (39.39%) | 10 (30.30%) | 0.438 b |
| No | 20 (60.61%) | 23 (69.70%) | |
| Yes | 12 (36.36%) | 6 (18.18%) | 0.097 b |
| No | 21 (63.64%) | 27 (81.82%) | |
| 28.33 ± 2.70 | 26.42 ± 2.48 | 0.690 a |
aStudent's t-test; bPearson's χ2 test; cMann-Whitney U test; M ± SD, mean ± standard deviation; BMI body mass index.
Figure 2The coagulation indices of patients at the 3-month follow-up. There were no statistically significant differences in the expression levels of D-dimer (A), fibrinogen (B), prothrombin time (C), activated partial thromboplastin time (D), thrombin time (E) or PT-INR (F) between the intervention group and the control group.
SF-36 and CD-RISC scores of the intervention and control groups at baseline (T0) and three-month follow-up (T3).
|
|
|
|
| |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|
|
|
| |||
| Physical functioning score | 67.42 ± 2.14 | 80.15 ± 1.48 |
| 65.91 ± 2.36 | 71.97 ± 1.75 |
|
| Role-physical score | 34.09 ± 3.90 | 64.39 ± 3.77 |
| 37.12 ± 3.94 | 48.48 ± 3.25 |
|
| Bodily pain score | 52.91 ± 2.18 | 76.39 ± 2.72 |
| 47.00 ± 2.32 | 65.09 ± 2.42 |
|
| General health score | 30.36 ± 1.62 | 62.21 ± 1.76 |
| 34.70 ± 1.94 | 49.76 ± 2.01 |
|
| Vitality score | 43.94 ± 1.86 | 64.55 ± 1.40 |
| 40.46 ± 1.66 | 47.43 ± 1.66 |
|
| Social functioning score | 38.64 ± 1.99 | 71.21 ± 1.49 |
| 32.95 ± 2.36 | 56.06 ± 1.55 |
|
| Role-emotional score | 53.54 ± 4.57 | 76.77 ± 3.40 |
| 48.48 ± 4.61 | 58.59 ± 4.11 | 0.085b |
| Mental health score | 47.40 ± 1.85 | 65.58 ± 1.31 |
| 48.36 ± 1.32 | 57.33 ± 1.38 |
|
| Health transition score | 15.91 ± 3.23 | 68.94 ± 3.27 |
| 20.45 ± 3.16 | 43.18 ± 3.49 |
|
| CD-RISC score | 40.00 ± 6.61 | 65.12 ± 5.21 |
| 42.03 ± 4.42 | 50.36 ± 4.70 |
|
aMatched samples t-test; bWilcoxon signed-rank test; CD-RISC, Connor- Davidson resilience scale; Significant p values are shown in bold type.
Figure 3Comparison of SF-36 scale scores between T0 and T3 in paired samples. (A) Physical functioning; (B) Role physical; (C) Bodily pain; (D) General health; (E) Vitality; (F) Social functioning; (G) Role emotional; (H) Mental health; (I) Health transition.
Figure 4Comparison of SF-36 scale scores between the intervention group and the control group. (A) Physical functioning; (B) Role physical; (C) Bodily pain; (D) General health; (E) Vitality; (F) Social functioning; (G) Role emotional; (H) Mental health; (I) Health transition.
Figure 5The CD-RISC scores of patients. (A) Comparison of CD-RISC scores between T0 and T3 in paired samples. (B) Comparison of CD-RISC scores between the intervention group and the control group.