论文部分内容阅读
目的探讨心理干预对围术期乳腺癌患者心理状态及生活质量的影响。方法选取2014年6月—2016年5月收治的乳腺癌患者100例,随机分为干预组与对照组,每组50例。对照组围术期给予常规护理,干预组在对照组基础上给予针对性心理干预。分别于术前及出院时采用汉密尔顿焦虑量表(Hamilton anxiety scale,HAMA)、汉密尔顿抑郁量表(Hamilton depression scale,HAMD)对患者进行评估;术后6个月采用乳腺癌生活质量量表(quality of life scale of breast cancer,QLSBC)评定患者生活质量。计量资料比较采用t检验,P<0.05为差异有统计学意义。结果两组术前HAMA、HAMD评分比较差异无统计学意义(均P>0.05);出院时两组HAMA、HAMD评分[干预组(27.16±3.38)、(20.13±2.09)分,对照组(37.06±5.16)、(35.06±3.38)分]均较术前降低[干预组(50.27±8.03)、(53.06±7.95)分,对照组(51.09±7.91)、(52.66±8.13)分],比较差异有统计学意义(均P<0.05),且干预组为著(均P<0.05)。干预组心理因子、躯体因子评分及总分[(118.70±30.56)、(60.13±8.47)、(233.51±44.09)分]均高于对照组[(92.03±22.47)、(46.18±7.75)、(187.64±40.35)分],比较差异有统计学意义(均P<0.05);两组社会因子评分比较差异无统计学意义(均P>0.05)。结论心理干预可改善围术期乳腺癌患者的心理状态,提高其生活质量。
Objective To investigate the effect of psychological intervention on psychological status and quality of life in patients with breast cancer during perioperative period. Methods 100 patients with breast cancer who were admitted from June 2014 to May 2016 were randomly divided into intervention group and control group, with 50 cases in each group. The control group was given routine nursing during the perioperative period. The intervention group was given psychological intervention on the basis of the control group. The patients were evaluated by Hamilton anxiety scale (HAMA) and Hamilton depression scale (HAMD) before and during discharge respectively. Six months after operation, the quality of life of breast cancer patients of life scale of breast cancer, QLSBC). Measurement data were compared using t test, P <0.05 for the difference was statistically significant. Results There was no significant difference in HAMA and HAMD scores between the two groups (all P> 0.05). The HAMA and HAMD scores at the time of discharge were 27.16 ± 3.38 and 20.13 ± 2.09 in the intervention group and 37.06 ± 5.16), (35.06 ± 3.38) points respectively compared with those before operation (50.27 ± 8.03, 53.06 ± 7.95, 51.09 ± 7.91, 52.66 ± 8.13, respectively) There was statistical significance (all P <0.05), and the intervention group was (all P <0.05). The score of psychological factor, somatological factor and total score [(118.70 ± 30.56), (60.13 ± 8.47) and (233.51 ± 44.09) points in the intervention group were significantly higher than those in the control group [(92.03 ± 22.47), (46.18 ± 7.75, 187.64 ± 40.35). There was significant difference between the two groups (all P <0.05). There was no significant difference between the two groups in the scores of social factors (all P> 0.05). Conclusion Psychological intervention can improve the psychological status of patients with perioperative breast cancer and improve their quality of life.