| Literature DB >> 36237579 |
Tingting Zou1, Jing Liu1, Liping Tan1.
Abstract
In order to evaluate the effect of the hope theory combined with psychological intervention on patients with intracranial aneurysms after surgical treatment, a total of 98 patients with intracranial aneurysm surgery admitted to our hospital from March 2019 to January 2021 were analyzed. According to the random number table method, all patients are divided into two groups: the traditional group and the experimental group. After intracranial aneurysm surgery, the patients of the traditional group and of the joint group are treated with conventional nursing and hope theory combined with psychological intervention nursing mode, respectively. The results demonstrate that the hope theory combined with psychological intervention can improve the level of postoperative patients with intracranial aneurysm life hope, self-efficacy, and postoperative quality of life.Entities:
Mesh:
Year: 2022 PMID: 36237579 PMCID: PMC9529487 DOI: 10.1155/2022/1153071
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Contrast Media Mol Imaging ISSN: 1555-4309 Impact factor: 3.009
Changes in hope levels at different time points (‾x ± s).
| Group | Time point | A positive attitude towards the reality and the future | Affirmative active | Keep close relationships with others |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Joint group ( | T1 | 8.23 ± 1.11 | 5.13 ± 1.02 | 7.13 ± 1.02 |
| T2 | 11.63 ± 1.22 | 9.32 ± 1.22 | 10.32 ± 1.11 | |
| T3 | 13.43 ± 1.35 | 11.26 ± 2.11 | 13.26 ± 1.13 | |
| T4 | 15.55 ± 2.12 | 13.34 ± 2.22 | 16.34 ± 1.82 | |
|
| ||||
| Traditional group ( | T1 | 8.19 ± 1.09 | 5.19 ± 1.03 | 7.12 ± 1.03 |
| T2 | 10.33 ± 1.11 | 7.23 ± 1.02 | 9.13 ± 1.04 | |
| T3 | 12.23 ± 1.10 | 9.23 ± 1.70 | 11.11 ± 1.09 | |
| T4 | 14.24 ± 1.63 | 11.33 ± 2.03 | 14.22 ± 1.32 | |
|
| ||||
|
| 413.321 | 435.131 | 423.541 | |
|
| <0.001 | <0.001 | <0.001 | |
|
| 503.122 | 531.532 | 401.244 | |
|
| <0.001 | <0.001 | <0.001 | |
Figure 1Changes in hope levels at different time points: (a) Positive attitude towards the reality and the future; (b) affirmative active; and (c) keep close relationships with others.
Changes in self-efficacy scores at different time points (‾x ± s).
| Group | Time point | GSES |
|---|---|---|
| Joint group ( | T1 | 10.23 ± 1.01 |
| T2 | 19.63 ± 1.12 | |
| T3 | 29.43 ± 1.25 | |
| T4 | 37.55 ± 2.02 | |
|
| ||
| Traditional group ( | T1 | 10.19 ± 1.21 |
| T2 | 16.43 ± 1.02 | |
| T3 | 22.43 ± 1.15 | |
| T4 | 32.55 ± 1.62 | |
|
| ||
|
| 455.768 | |
|
| <0.001 | |
|
| 517.105 | |
|
| <0.001 | |
Figure 2Changes in self-efficacy scores at different time points.
Differences in the hospital stay and postoperative complications between the two groups after intervention.
| Group | The aneurysms are ruptured and bled (%) | Increased intracranial pressure (%) | Cerebral angiospasm (%) | Length of stay (d) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Traditional group ( | 4(8.20) | 5(1.02) | 3(0.06) | 25.31 ± 2.32 |
| Joint group ( | 0(0.00) | 2(0.04) | 0(0.00) | 19.23 ± 3.11 |
|
| 1.337 | 2.411 | 1.159 | 7.123 |
|
| 0.014 | 0.024 | 0.039 | 0.033 |
Changes in quality of life at different time points (‾x ± s).
| Group | Time point | Stand-alone capability | Psychology | Life comfort |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Joint group ( | T1 | 9.12 ± 1.01 | 20.23 ± 1.01 | 9.33 ± 1.01 |
| T2 | 18.52 ± 1.11 | 49.63 ± 3.12 | 19.63 ± 1.14 | |
| T3 | 26.31 ± 1.24 | 57.43 ± 5.25 | 24.43 ± 1.23 | |
| T4 | 36.44 ± 2.04 | 77.55 ± 6.02 | 32.55 ± 1.32 | |
|
| ||||
| Traditional group ( | T1 | 9.09 ± 1.11 | 20.19 ± 1.21 | 9.23 ± 1.01 |
| T2 | 15.23 ± 1.24 | 36.43 ± 3.02 | 14.63 ± 1.12 | |
| T3 | 21.33 ± 1.23 | 44.43 ± 4.15 | 19.43 ± 1.17 | |
| T4 | 30.45 ± 1.55 | 62.55 ± 5.62 | 24.55 ± 1.21 | |
|
| ||||
|
| 455.768 | 325.438 | 295.548 | |
|
| <0.001 | <0.001 | <0.001 | |
|
| 517.105 | 477.122 | 647.335 | |
|
| <0.001 | <0.001 | <0.001 | |
Figure 3Changes in monks' quality of life at different time points: (a) Stand-alone capability; (b) psychology; and (c) life comfort.