4.1 Article

Knowledge Difference of Tumor Nutrition Risk Among Thoracic Cancer Patients, Their Family Members, Physicians, and Nurses

期刊

JOURNAL OF CANCER EDUCATION
卷 37, 期 3, 页码 524-531

出版社

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s13187-020-01841-y

关键词

Thoracic neoplasms; Nutritional support; Surveys and questionnaires

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The study investigated the ability of patients, family members, physicians, and nurses to identify malnutrition risk in patients with thoracic cancer. Nurses had the highest accuracy in nutritional risk assessment, while patients had the lowest accuracy.
To investigate the difference among patients, family members, physicians, and nurses in their ability to identify malnutrition risk in patients with thoracic cancer. The enrolled patients were evaluated by the NRS2002 nutritional risk scale. The patient-centered groups, including the patient, the primary caretaker, the physician, and the nurse, were given a questionnaire on their knowledge and understanding of nutrition therapy in cancer treatment. The incidence rate of nutritional risk in hospitalized patients with thoracic cancer was 13.8%. There were significant differences in the accuracy rate of nutritional risk assessment among the four groups (P < 0.001), in which the nurses' was 70.3%, 55.1% for the physician, 38.7% for family members, and 33.0% for patients, which was the poorest accuracy rate. No significant correlation was found between the accuracy of nutritional risk assessment and the education level and personal monthly income of each population (P > 0.05). Nearly all four groups considered it necessary to learn more about cancer nutrition therapy. For patients and their families, the main way to understand the knowledge of tumor nutrition was consultation with medical staff and information exchange between patients; for doctors, new media; and for nurses, classroom training. Nurses' assessment of nutritional risk in cancer patients achieved the highest accuracy, while the poorest accuracy originated from the patients.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.1
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据