机构地区:[1]郑州大学第一附属医院血液科造血干细胞移植中心,河南郑州450000
出 处:《海南医学》2024年第8期1174-1179,共6页Hainan Medical Journal
基 金:河南省自然科学基金(编号:222300420121)。
摘 要:目的探讨综合性优质护理在行造血干细胞移植治疗的重型再生障碍性贫血(SAA)患者中的应用效果。方法前瞻性选取2019年1月至2023年1月郑州大学第一附属医院收治的86例均行造血干细胞移植治疗的SAA患者为研究对象,按随机数表法分为综合干预组和常规干预组各43例。常规干预组患者给予常规的护理干预,综合干预组患者在常规干预基础上给予综合性优质护理干预,均干预3个月。比较两组患者干预前后的心理状态[焦虑自评量表(SAS评分)、抑郁自评量表(SDS评分)]、应对方式、睡眠质量[匹兹堡睡眠质量量表(PSQI评分)]和生活质量[生活质量综合评定问卷-74(GQOL-74评分)],同时比较两组干预后治疗依从性及干预期间的并发症发生率。结果干预后,综合干预组患者的SAS评分、SDS评分、消极应对评分、PSQI评分分别为(45.82±1.42)分、(43.87±1.14)分、(10.32±0.76)分、(7.46±1.14)分,明显低于常规干预组的(54.38±2.28)分、(53.16±1.25)分、(14.15±0.83)分、(10.18±1.21)分,积极应对评分为(27.41±1.03)分,明显高于常规干预组的(22.96±0.75)分,差异均有统计学意义(P<0.05);干预后,综合干预组患者的社会功能评分、躯体功能评分、心理功能评分及GQOL-74总分分别为(89.14±2.25)分、(85.67±2.59)分、(87.79±1.25)分、(262.60±3.11)分,明显高于常规干预组的(80.34±1.36)分、(78.45±1.43)分、(82.34±1.08)分、(241.13±2.85)分,差异均有统计学意义(P<0.05);综合干预组患者的总治疗依从率为95.35%,明显高于常规干预组的79.07%,差异有统计学意义(P<0.05);干预期间,综合干预组患者的口腔感染、肺部感染、呕吐、腹泻发生率分别为4.65%、4.65%、18.60%、18.60%,明显低于常规干预组的23.26%、20.93%、39.53%、44.19%,差异均有统计学意义(P<0.05)。结论综合性优质护理可改善采用造血干细胞移植治疗的SAA患者的负性情绪,调节其应对方式,提升其治疗�Objective To explore the application effect of comprehensive high-quality nursing in patients with severe aplastic anemia(SAA)undergoing hematopoietic stem cell transplantation.Methods A total of 86 SAA patients treated in the First Affiliated Hospital of Zhengzhou University from January 2019 to January 2023 were prospectively selected.They were divided into comprehensive intervention group(n=43)and conventional intervention group(n=43)by random number table method.The patients in the conventional intervention group were given routine nursing inter-vention,and the patients in the comprehensive intervention group were given comprehensive high-quality nursing inter-vention on the basis of routine nursing intervention,for 3 months.The psychological status[Self-rating Anxiety Scale(SAS),Self-rating Depression Scale(SDS)],coping style,sleep quality[pittsburgh sleep quality scale(PSQI)],quality of life[comprehensive quality of life assessment questionnaire-74(GQOL-74)]before and after intervention were com-pared between the two groups,as well as treatment compliance after intervention and complication rate during interven-tion period.Results After intervention,the SAS score,SDS score,negative coping score,and PSQI score in the compre-hensive intervention group were(45.82±1.42)points,(43.87±1.14)points,(10.32±0.76)points,and(7.46±1.14)points,re-spectively,which were significantly lower than(54.38±2.28)points,(53.16±1.25)points,(14.15±0.83)points,and(10.18±1.21)points in the conventional intervention group,and the positive coping score was(27.41±1.03)points,significantly higher than(22.96±0.75)points in the conventional intervention group,with statistically significant differences(P<0.05).After intervention,the social function score,physical function score,psychological function score,and GQOL-74 total score in the comprehensive intervention group were(89.14±2.25)points,(85.67±2.59)points,(87.79±1.25)points,and(262.60±3.11)points,respectively,which were significantly higher than(80.34±1.36)points,(78.45±
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...