4.5 Article

A pilot retrospective study of comprehensive nursing care on psychological disorder in colorectal cancer undergoing chemotherapy

期刊

MEDICINE
卷 101, 期 28, 页码 -

出版社

LIPPINCOTT WILLIAMS & WILKINS
DOI: 10.1097/MD.0000000000029707

关键词

anxiety; colorectal cancer; depression; nursing care; quality of life

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This pilot retrospective study found promising effects of comprehensive nursing care on psychological disorders and quality of life in patients with colorectal cancer undergoing chemotherapy.
Background: This pilot study retrospectively evaluated the effects of comprehensive nursing care (CNC) on psychological disorders in patients with colorectal cancer (CC) undergoing chemotherapy. Methods: This study analyzed 70 eligible patients' case records of CC undergoing chemotherapy. These records were allocated to a treatment group (n = 35) or a control group (n = 35). All 70 patients in both groups received routine nursing care. In addition, 35 patients in the treatment group also received CNC. The primary outcomes were anxiety, as measured by Self-rating Anxiety Scale, and depression, as assessed by Self-rating Depression Scale. The secondary outcomes were quality of life, as measured by The 36-Item Short Form Health Survey, and adverse events. All outcome data were analyzed before and 3-month after treatment. Results: At 3-month after treatment, the patients in the treatment group had better outcomes in the Self-rating Anxiety Scale (P<0.01), Self-rating Depression Scale (P<0.01), and The 36-Item Short Form Health Survey (social function, P = .04; emotional role, P = 0.03) than those in the control group. With regard to safety, no treatment-related adverse events were recorded in either group. Conclusion: The findings of this pilot retrospective study showed promising effects of CNC on psychological disorders and quality of life in patients with CC undergoing chemotherapy. However, more high-quality clinical trials are required to confirm these findings.

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

4.5
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