机构地区:[1]四川省肿瘤临床医学研究中心,四川省肿瘤医院·研究所,四川省癌症防治中心,电子科技大学附属肿瘤医院、淋巴瘤综合病区,成都610041
出 处:《肿瘤预防与治疗》2023年第4期311-320,共10页Journal of Cancer Control And Treatment
基 金:四川省卫生健康委员会科研课题(编号:19PJ143)。
摘 要:目的:了解淋巴瘤患者照顾者创伤后成长(post-traumatic growth,PTG)水平现状及影响因素,为提高淋巴瘤患者照顾者PTG水平提供依据。方法:通过便利抽样法选取2022年1~5月在四川省肿瘤医院淋巴瘤病区202名淋巴瘤患者照顾者作为调查对象,采用一般资料调查表、中文版创伤后成长量表(Post-traumatic Growth Inventory,PTGI)、Herth希望量表(Herth Hope Index,HHI)、心理弹性量表(Connor-Davidson Resilience Scale,CD-RISC)进行横断面调查。采用单因素和多元线性回归分析淋巴瘤患者照顾者PTG的影响因素。结果:淋巴瘤患者照顾者PTGI总分得分为(72.6±17.0)分,CD-RISC总分为(67.4±16.0)分,HHI总分(38.1±4.8)分。淋巴瘤患者照顾者PTGI得分单因素分析显示,患者照顾者年龄≥30岁得分为(74.4±13.8)分,高于年龄<30岁的(65.6±24.7)分;婚姻状态得分从高到低依次是离异(77.7±13.6)分、寡居(75.7±21.1)分、已婚(74.4±14.5)分、未婚(63.7±23.9)分;工作状况得分从高到低依次是半职或兼职(78.8±17.7)分、退休(78.4±10.5)分、其他(75.5±17.3)分、全职(67.6±17.6)分、失业(67.6±16.2)分;与患者的关系得分从高到低依次是配偶(76.2±12.7)分、父母(75.2±13.7)分、子女(72.5±18.6)分、其他(62.4±21.3)分;淋巴瘤患者年龄≥30岁其患者照顾者得分为(73.8±15.3)分,高于患者年龄<30岁的患者照顾者得分(66.3±23.3)分、患者不同婚姻状态其照顾者得分从高到低依次是寡居(78.3±10.2)分、已婚(73.8±15.7)分、离异(70.4±17.7)分、未婚(60.1±24.0)分,以上均是影响淋巴瘤患者照顾者PTG的因素(P<0.05);多元线性回归分析结果显示,患者照顾者HHI总分、患者照顾者CD-RISC总分是影响患者照顾者PTG的主要因素(P<0.001),可联合解释淋巴瘤患者照顾者变异程度的52.0%。结论:淋巴瘤患者照顾者PTG处于中高等水平,仍有较大的提升空间,受到诸多因素的影响,临床医务人员可以通过针对性措施增�Objective:To investigate the current situation and influencing factors of post-traumatic growth of caregivers of lymphoma patients,and provide evidence for improving the post-traumatic growth level of caregivers of lymphoma patients.Methods:202 caregivers of lymphoma patients in the lymphoma ward in a level A tertiary cancer hospital in Sichuan Province from January 2022 to May 2022 were selected by convenient sampling.A cross-sectional survey was conducted by using a general information questionnaire,the Chinese version of Post-traumatic Growth Inventory(PTGI),the Herth Hope index(HHI)and the Connor-Davidson Resilience Scale(CD-RISC).Univariate and multiple linear regression analyses were performed to analyze the influencing factors of post-traumatic growth of caregivers of lymphoma patients.Results:The total scores of PTGI,CD-RISC and HHI were(72.6±17.0)point,(67.4±16.0)point and(38.1±4.8)point,respectively.Univariate analysis showed that the score of caregivers aged≥30years was(74.4±13.8)point,higher than that of caregivers aged<30 years[(65.6±24.7)point];the PTGI scores of caregivers with different marital status were(77.7±13.6)point(divorced),(75.7±21.1)point(widowed),(74.4±14.5)point(married)and(63.7±23.9)point(single);the PTGI scores of caregivers with different employment were(78.8±17.7)point(half-or part-time),(78.4±10.5)point(retired),(75.5±17.3)point(others),(67.6±17.6)point(full-time)and(67.6±16.2)point(laid-off);the PTGI scores of caregivers of different relations to patients were(76.2±12.7)point(spouse),(75.2±13.7)point(parent),(72.5±18.6)point(child)and(62.4±21.3)point(others);the score of caregivers of patients not less than<30 years was(73.8±15.3)points,higher than that of patients less than<30 years[(66.3±23.3)points];the PTGI scores of caregivers of patients with different marital status were(78.3±10.2)points(widowed),(73.8±15.7)points(married),(70.4±17.7)points(divorced)and(60.1±24.0)points(single);and the differences were all statistically significant(P<0.05).Multipl
正在载入数据...
正在载入数据...
正在载入数据...
正在载入数据...
正在载入数据...
正在载入数据...
正在载入数据...