4.3 Article

Effects of the Heart to Heart Card Game for Patients with Advanced Cancer Receiving Home-Based Palliative Care: A Clinical Randomized Controlled Trial

出版社

MDPI
DOI: 10.3390/ijerph19106115

关键词

cancer; Heart to Heart Card Game; palliative care; home care; quality of life; randomized controlled trial

资金

  1. Health Commission of Hubei Province Scientific Research Project [WJ2021M136]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The Heart to Heart Card Game improves psychological health outcomes in hospitalized patients with advanced cancer, and this randomized controlled study found that it is also effective for patients receiving home-based palliative care.
The Heart to Heart Card Game improves psychological health outcomes in hospitalized patients with advanced cancer, but effectiveness studies for patients at home are rare. This randomized controlled study was conducted to determine the effectiveness of the Heart to Heart Card Game on patients with advanced cancer receiving home-based palliative care. Sixty-six participants were randomly assigned to the intervention group (n = 34) and control group (n = 32). The quality of life, dignity, and psychological distress were considered as outcomes, which were assessed pre-intervention and six weeks after the intervention. There was a statistical difference in the quality of life (global health statues) between the intervention group and the control group after intervention (z = 2.017, p < 0.05). A significant difference was found in the quality of life (emotional, social function), dignity (symptom distress dimension), and psychological distress in the intervention group through intragroup comparison before and after the intervention. This randomized trial showed that the Heart to Heart Card Game likely alleviates barriers to end-of-life conversations and helps patients with advanced cancer maintain a more stable mental state. This trial has been registered at the Chinese Clinical Trial Registry (registration number: ChiCTR2100049933).

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

4.3
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