CAJ | 학술논문

目的探讨癌性疲乏(CRF)护理干预对乳腺癌术后患者生存质量的效果.方法采用随机数字表法将70例乳腺癌术后患者随机分为干预组35例、对照组35例.对照组接受常规护理,观察组在接受常规护理的基础上行系统的癌性疲乏护理干预,即CRF评估、循证、提供情感和信息支持、认知干预、建立自护模式及对乳腺癌患者实施个性化的护理,应用疲乏自评量表与生活质量测定表分析干预前后两组患者的癌性疲乏与生存质量.结果干预组患者出院当日Piper疲乏量表(PFS)评分总分为(4.66±1.12)分,对照组为(5.52±1.61)分,组间比较差异具有统计学意义(t=2.928,P＜0.05).干预组患者出院当日总体健康评分得分为(60.82±9.12)分,对照组为(54.05±6.77)分,差异具有统计学意义(t=-3.545,P＜0.01).结论按照科学的护理程序,评估CRF,根据患者的CRF原因与信息反馈情况,制定具体的癌性疲乏护理范围,做到有针对性、有计划地对每位患者建立个体化的癌性疲乏干预,可以减轻乳腺癌术后患者CRF程度,提高患者的生存质量.
목적 탐토암성피핍(CRF)호리간예대유선암술후환자생존질량적효과.방법 채용수궤수자표법장70례유선암술후환자수궤분위간예조35례、대조조35례.대조조접수상규호리,관찰조재접수상규호리적기출상행계통적암성피핍호리간예,즉CRF평고、순증、제공정감화신식지지、인지간예、건립자호모식급대유선암환자실시개성화적호리,응용피핍자평량표여생활질량측정표분석간예전후량조환자적암성피핍여생존질량.결과 간예조환자출원당일Piper피핍량표(PFS)평분총분위(4.66±1.12)분,대조조위(5.52±1.61)분,조간비교차이구유통계학의의(t=2.928,P＜0.05).간예조환자출원당일총체건강평분득분위(60.82±9.12)분,대조조위(54.05±6.77)분,차이구유통계학의의(t=-3.545,P＜0.01).결론 안조과학적호리정서,평고CRF,근거환자적CRF원인여신식반궤정황,제정구체적암성피핍호리범위,주도유침대성、유계화지대매위환자건립개체화적암성피핍간예,가이감경유선암술후환자CRF정도,제고환자적생존질량.
Objective To explore the effects of cancer-related fatigue (CRF) intervention on improving the quality of life in post-operative patients with breast cancer.Methods Seventy post-operative breast cancer patients were equally divided into the interventional group and the control group. Both groups received conventional nursing service,and the former one received additional cancer-related fatigue nursing intervention,including the CRF valuation,evidence-based nursing,emotion and information support,cognitive intervention,self-care mode and personalized care.Then cancer related fatigue and quality of life between both group patients before and after intervention were analyzed by applying simple fatigue rating scale and quality of life questionnaire.Results There was no significant difference between the score of PFS and QOL before the intervention (4.59 ± 1.66 vs 4.61 ± 1.70,P ＞0.05 ).After intervention,the score of PFS of the interventional group was significantly lower than that in the control group (4.66 ± 1.12 vs 5.52 ± 1.61 ; t =2.928,P ＜0.05).After intervention,the QOL of the interventional group including general health (60.82 ± 9.12 vs 54.05 ± 6.77 ),body function (66.76 ± 9.82 vs 60.58 ± 11.89 ),role function ( 64.39 ± 12.59 vs 58.24 ±12.09),motion function (65.62 ±8.31 vs 60.13 ±9.56),the cognition function(71.91 ±9.14 vs 65.30 ±11.92) and social function (66.75 ± 12.76 vs 60.82 ± 13.59) were significantly better than that of the control group (P ＜ 0.05 ).Conclusions According to the nursing procedure,cancer-related fatigue intervention including the CRF valuation,analyze the CRF reasons and building up individuation intervention could alleviate CRF and improve the patients' QOL.