山东大学耳鼻喉眼学报 ›› 2019, Vol. 33 ›› Issue (4): 169-174.doi: 10.6040/j.issn.1673-3770.0.2018.369

• 护理园地 • 上一篇    下一篇

连续性院外管理对喉癌患者术后生活质量的影响

张小平1,杨登权1,王少新2,黄小明3   

  1. 1.宜宾市第二人民医院耳鼻咽喉头颈外科, 四川 宜宾 644000;
    2.四川省肿瘤医院头颈外科, 四川 成都 610041;
    3.西南医科大学公共卫生学院营养与食品卫生教研室, 四川 泸州 646000
  • 出版日期:2019-07-20 发布日期:2019-07-22
  • 基金资助:
    宜宾市科技局重点项目(2015YY081)

Effects of continuous out-of-hospital administration on the quality of life in patients with laryngeal cancer

ZHANG Xiaoping1, YANG Dengquan1, WANG Shaoxin2, HUANG Xiaoming3   

  1. 2 People′s Hospital of Yibin, Yibin 644000, Sichuan, China;
    2. Department of Head and Neck Surgery, Sichuan Cancer Hospital, Chengdu 610041, Sichuan, China;
    3. Department of Nutrition and Food Hygiene, School of Public Health, Southwest Medical University, Luzhou 646000, Sichuan, China
  • Online:2019-07-20 Published:2019-07-22

PDF (PC)

234

摘要： 目的 探讨连续性院外管理对喉癌患者术后生活质量的影响。 方法 选择2016年1月至2017年6月于宜宾市第二人民医院进行手术治疗的喉癌患者82例,采用分层随机化方法随机分为对照组38例和干预组44例,对照组给予常规性院外随访,干预组进行连续性院外管理,采用焦虑自评量表(SAS)、抑郁自评量表(SDS)、成人希望特质量表(ADHS)、一般健康状况量表(SF-36)、癌症病人生活质量问卷(QLQ-C30)及癌症功能评价专用头颈量表(FACT-HN)评估患者生活质量,分析两组患者情绪、认知和生活质量的差异。 结果 出院6个月后对照组与干预组焦虑发生率分别为42.1%、15.9%,两组比较差异有统计学意义(χ2=6.933, P=0.013);对照组与干预组抑郁发生率分别为39.5%、9.1%,两组比较差异有统计学意义(χ2=10.573, P=0.001)。出院后6个月对照组与干预组SAS评分分别为(49.2±10.3)、(41.3±8.7)分,SDS评分分别为(47.4±9.2)、(40.5±7.0)分,ADHS评分分别为(27.1±7.8)、(34.7±6.9)分,两组比较差异均有统计学意义(t分别为3.77、3.85、4.68, P均<0.01)。在SF-36量表中,除一般健康状况(GH)和精力(VT)2个维度差异无统计学意义外,其余6个维度(生理机能、生理职能、躯体疼痛、社会功能、情感职能、精神健康)差异均有统计学意义,干预组高于对照组(t分别为2.31、2.54、4.15、2.66、3.59、2.59, P分别为0.02、0.01、<0.001、0.01、<0.001、0.01)。在QLQ-C30量表中,两组患者整体健康状况评分(t=2.42, P=0.02)、5个功能量表(躯体、认知、角色、情绪和社会)评分(t分别为3.06、3.95、2.27、2.23和0.01, P分别为<0.001、<0.001、0.03、0.03和0.01)和“失眠”和“食欲下降”2单项评分(t分别为2.69和2.33, P分别为0.01和0.02)差异有统计学意义。两组患者癌FACT-HN总分和3个维度(社会/家庭状况、情感状况和附加关注)差异有统计学意义(t分别为2.89、2.55、3.07和2.14, P分别为0.01、0.01、<0.001和0.04)。 结论 连续性院外管理能一定程度纠正喉癌患者心理问题,提高患者获得感和生存质量。

关键词: 喉肿瘤, 院外管理, 情绪, 生活质量

Abstract: Objective To discuss the effects of continuous out-of-hospital administration on the quality of life in patients with laryngeal cancer. Methods From January 2016 to June 2017, 82 patients with laryngeal cancer were selected from No.2 Hospital of Yibin and divided randomly into control and intervention groups using a stratified randomization method. Patients in the control and intervention groups underwent routine out-of-hospital follow-up and continuous out-of-hospital administration, respectively. Finally, the scores of the self-ranking anxiety scale(SAS), self-ranking depression scale(SDS), adult dispositional hope scale(ADHS), normal health status scale(SF-36), quality-of-life questionnaire for cancer patients(QLQ-C30), and functional assessment of cancer therapy-head and neck(FACT-HN)were evaluated and compared. Results The incidences of anxiety and depression were significantly different between the control and intervention groups(anxiety: 42.1% vs. 15.9% with χ2=6.933, P=0.013; depression: 39.5% vs. 9.1% with χ2=10.573, P=0.001). The scores of the SAS, SDS, and ADHS had significant differences in the two groups based on dependent t-tests(SAS: 49.2±10.3 vs. 41.3±8.7 with t=3.77, P<0.001; SDS: 47.4±9.2 vs. 40.5±7.0 with t=3.85, P<0.001; ADHS: 27.1±7.8 vs. 34.7±6.9 with t=4.68, P<0.001). In the SF-36 scale, besides general health and vitality, the other six dimensions including physical functioning, role-physical, bodily pain, social functioning, role-emotional, and mental health in the intervention group were significantly higher than those in the control group(t=2.31, 2.54, 4.15, 2.66, 3.59, and 2.59, respectively; P=0.02, =0.01, <0.001, =0.01, <0.001, and =0.01, respectively). In the QLQ-C30 scale, significant differences in overall health status, five functioning scales(including body, cognition, role, emotions, and social function), and two single items(including insomnia and anorexia)were observed between the two groups(overall health status: t=2.42, P=0.02; five functioning scales: t=3.06, 3.95, 2.27, 2.23, and 0.01, respectively; P<0.001, <0.001, =0.03, =0.03, and =0.01, respectively; two single items: t=2.69 and 2.33, respectively; P=0.01 and 0.02, respectively). The total scores of FACT-HN and three dimensions(including social/family status, emotional well-being, and additional attention)were significantly different between the two groups(FACT-HN scores: 110.3±12.2 vs. 118.6±13.6, t=2.89, P=0.01; three dimensions: t=2.55, 3.07, and 2.14, respectively, P=0.01, <0.01, and =0.04, respectively). Conclusion Continuous out-of-hospital administration has certain positive significance in correcting psychological problems and promotes a sense of gain and quality of life in patients with laryngeal cancer.

Key words: Laryngeal neoplasms, Out-of-hospital administration, Emotions, Quality of life

中图分类号: 

  • R739.65
[1] Liu YQ, Zhao Q, Ding GH, et al. Incidence and mortality of laryngeal cancer in China, 2008-2012[J]. Chin J Cancer Res, 2018, 30(3):299-306.
[2] 刘萱,冯俊伟,刘华,等.喉癌术后患者的生活质量及影响因素[J].中国老年学杂志,2015,35(4):1953-1954. LIU Xuan, FENG Junwei, LIU Hua, et al. Quality of life and its' influencing factors in patients with laryngeal cancer after operation[J]. Chin J Gerontol, 2015, 35(4):1953-1954.
[3] 王红爱,曹枫林,李洁,等.肺癌患者积极心理品质、社会支持与生活质量的关系研究[J].护理学杂志,2015,30(17):23-25. WANG Hongai, CAO Fenglin, LI Jie, et al. Relationship between positive psychological trait, social supports and quality of life in patients with lung cancer[J]. J Nurs Sci, 2015, 30(17):23-25.
[4] Dunstan DA, Scott N, Todd AK. Screening for anxiety and depression: reassessing the utility of the Zung scales[J]. BMC Psychiatry, 2017, 17(1):329.
[5] Zang H, He L, Chen Y, et al. The association of depression status with menopause symptoms among rural midlife women in China[J]. Afr Health Sci, 2016, 16(1):97-104.
[6] 王山,樊文洁,俞婉琦,等.SF-36量表应用于城市化居民生命质量评价的信度和效度分析[J].中华流行病学杂志,2016,37(3):344-347. WANG Shan, FAN Wenjie, YU Wanqi, et al. Analysis on reliability and validity of SF-36 scale in urban residents[J]. Chin J Epidemiol, 2016, 37(3):344-347.
[7] Kim SG, Ji SM, Lee NR, et al. Quality of Life after Endoscopic Submucosal Dissection for Early Gastric Cancer: A Prospective Multicenter Cohort Study[J]. Gut Liver, 2017, 11(1):87-92.
[8] Megwalu UC, Panossian H. Survival Outcomes in Early Stage Laryngeal Cancer[J]. Anticancer Res, 2016, 36(6):2903-2907.
[9] Jin JH, Lin FM, Liao SY, et al. Effects of SNPs(CYP1B1*2 G355T, CYP1B1*3 C4326G, and CYP2E1*5 G-1293C), Smoking, and Drinking on Susceptibility to Laryngeal Cancer among Han Chinese[J]. PLoS One, 2014, 9(10):e106580.
[10] Mcneil BJ, Weichselbaum R, Pauker SG. Speech and survival: tradeoffs between quality and quantity of life in laryngeal cancer[J]. N Engl J Med, 1981, 305(17):982-987.
[11] Bergström L, Ward EC, Finizia C. Voice rehabilitation for laryngeal cancer patients: Functional outcomes and patient perceptions[J]. Laryngoscope, 2016, 126(9):2029-2035.
[12] Bergström L, Ward EC, Finizia C. Voice rehabilitation after laryngeal cancer: Associated effects on psychological well-being[J]. Supportive Care Cancer, 2017, 25(9):1-8.
[13] Pitman A, Suleman S, Hyde N, et al. Depression and anxiety in patients with cancer[J]. BMJ, 2018, 361: k1415.
[14] Park SA, Chung SH, Lee Y. Factors Associated with Suicide Risk in Advanced Cancer Patients: A Cross-Sectional Study[J]. Asian Pac J Cancer Prev, 2016, 17(11):4831-4836.
[15] Osazuwa-Peters N, Adjei BE, Walker RJ, et al. Suicide: A Major Threat to Head and Neck Cancer Survivorship[J]. J Clin Oncol, 2016, 34(10):1151.
[16] Ringash J. Survivorship and Quality of Life in Head and Neck Cancer[J]. J Clin Oncol, 2015, 33(29):3322-3327.
[17] 高刚,钱茂华,季超.喉癌患者术后抑郁和焦虑的发病因素分析及其对喉癌患者预后和生活质量的影响[J].中国耳鼻咽喉头颈外科,2018,25(4):195-198. GAO Gang, QIAN Maohua, JI Chao, et al. Analysis of the etiological factors of depression and anxiety in postoperative laryngeal cancer patients and its influence on prognosis and quality of life of the patients[J]. Chin Arch Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg, 2018, 25(4):195-198.
[18] 庄丽萍,许玉,柯水燕,等.喉癌患者焦虑、抑郁情绪及其参与临床决策的状况分析[J].现代临床护理,2017,16(2):22-25. ZHUANG Liping, XU Yu, KE Shuiyan, et al. Status of anxiety and depression on clinical decision-making participation of laryngeal cancer patients[J]. Mod Clin Nurs, 2017, 16(2):22-25.
[19] 韩晶,徐锐,王超.喉癌术后患者焦虑与抑郁情绪的影响因素分析[J].中华全科医学,2018,16(2):313-315. HAN Jing, XU Rui, WANG Chao. Influencing factors of anxiety and depression in postoperative patients with laryngeal carcinoma[J]. Chin J Gen Prac, 2018, 16(2):313-315.
[20] 陈玲.喉癌术后患者社会支持与生活质量的相关性研究[J].实用肿瘤杂志,2013,28(6):615-618. CHEN Ling. Study of relationship between social support and quality of life in patients with laryngeal cancer after operation[J]. J Prac Oncol, 2013, 28(6):615-618.
[21] 李泉清,何开莲,龙霖,等.喉癌术后患者希望水平与焦虑、抑郁情绪的相关性[J].中国医药导报,2014,11(21):21-23,27. LI Quanqing, HE Kailian, LONG Lin, et al. Correlation between the level of hope and patients' anxiety and depression after laryngeal cancer surgery[J]. Chin Med Herald, 2014, 11(21):21-23,27.
[22] 李国红.延续性护理干预对喉癌患者术后生存质量及不良情绪的影响研究[J].中国全科医学,2016,19:464-466. LI Guohong. Impact of continuity nursing intervention on the quality of life and adverse mood of postoperative patients with laryngeal cancer[J]. Chin Gen Prac, 2016, 19:464-466.
[23] Griffiths RR, Johnson MW, Carducci MA, et al. Psilocybin produces substantial and sustained decreases in depression and anxiety in patients with life-threatening cancer: a randomized double-blind trial[J]. J Psychopharmacol, 2016, 30(12):1181-1197.
[1] 李晓明. 喉癌治疗中喉功能保留的历史、现状和未来[J]. 山东大学耳鼻喉眼学报, 2019, 33(4): 1-5.
[2] 刘鸣. 早期声门癌的内镜治疗[J]. 山东大学耳鼻喉眼学报, 2019, 33(4): 6-9.
[3] 孙笑晗,李娜. 喉保留策略在喉癌治疗中的应用——美国临床肿瘤学会临床实践指南更新(2017)介绍[J]. 山东大学耳鼻喉眼学报, 2019, 33(4): 40-42.
[4] 丁洁,孙彦. 142例喉癌术后患者整体睡眠质量状况调查分析[J]. 山东大学耳鼻喉眼学报, 2019, 33(4): 76-81.
[5] 童巧珍,赵艳,程四华. 突发性聋患者负性情绪知信行模式构建及应用效果[J]. 山东大学耳鼻喉眼学报, 2019, 33(4): 162-164.
[6] 陈慧君,宋圣花,周涵,董伟达,乔明哲,陈曦,徐进,林子萍,邢光前. 血小板与淋巴细胞比值对喉癌复发的预测价值[J]. 山东大学耳鼻喉眼学报, 2019, 33(3): 106-110.
[7] 冯剑,周涵,董伟达. 喉癌内镜诊断技术研究进展[J]. 山东大学耳鼻喉眼学报, 2019, 33(3): 129-133.
[8] 姚慧,万文锦. 同伴支持教育在全喉切除术后患者延续护理中的应用效果分析[J]. 山东大学耳鼻喉眼学报, 2019, 33(3): 138-142.
[9] 王俊,邢奋丽,朱萍,孙亚萍,汤翠菊. 鼻咽癌放疗期间两种鼻腔冲洗方法的应用效果比较[J]. 山东大学耳鼻喉眼学报, 2019, 33(2): 60-63.
[10] 邹良玉,李连贺,岳文慧,韩志鹏,张子惠. MIF、GSK-3β在喉鳞状细胞癌中表达的临床意义及相关性研究[J]. 山东大学耳鼻喉眼学报, 2019, 33(2): 76-80.
[11] 陈立晓,蒋锐,於子卫. 窄带成像技术在咽喉肿瘤诊治中的应用[J]. 山东大学耳鼻喉眼学报, 2018, 32(6): 104-108.
[12] 吴喜福, 孔维封, 王玮豪, 徐惠清, 戚敏, 杨钦泰. QoR-15在加速康复外科改善慢性鼻-鼻窦炎伴鼻息肉围手术期生活质量评估中的应用[J]. 山东大学耳鼻喉眼学报, 2018, 32(5): 5-8.
[13] 王钟颖,王珮华. 上颌骨Le Fort I型截骨手术后鼻腔通气质量调查[J]. 山东大学耳鼻喉眼学报, 2018, 32(1): 26-27.
[14] 张明德,张祖平,于学民,魏燕红,袁英. RASSF2A基因甲基化在喉癌组织中的表达及意义[J]. 山东大学耳鼻喉眼学报, 2017, 31(4): 64-67.
[15] 付玉贵,王海兰,孙德重,杨佩珍,陈彦林,陈志鹏. 保留部分环状软骨环的喉全切除术[J]. 山东大学耳鼻喉眼学报, 2017, 31(4): 73-75.
Viewed
Full text


Abstract

Cited
  Shared   
  Discussed   
[1] 林彬,王挥戈 . 功能性内镜鼻窦手术后鼻黏膜纤毛转归的研究[J]. 山东大学耳鼻喉眼学报, 2006, 20(6): 481 -487 .
[2] 张晗,黄一飞 . 抗角膜移植排斥的研究进展[J]. 山东大学耳鼻喉眼学报, 2006, 20(1): 84 -87 .
[3] 邓基波,孙奉乾,许安廷 . 大前庭导水管综合征[J]. 山东大学耳鼻喉眼学报, 2006, 20(2): 116 -118 .
[4] 周子宁,金国威 . 喉气管狭窄的预防和治疗进展[J]. 山东大学耳鼻喉眼学报, 2006, 20(5): 462 -465 .
[5] 公 蕾,孙 洁,薛子超,李敬华,薛卫国 . 鼻腔鼻窦恶性肿瘤细胞周期的DNA分析[J]. 山东大学耳鼻喉眼学报, 2008, 22(3): 193 -195 .
[6] 陈文文 . 1例T/NK淋巴瘤17年演进[J]. 山东大学耳鼻喉眼学报, 2006, 20(5): 472 -472 .
[7] 周斌,李滨 . 鼻内窥镜下鼻窦鼻息肉手术75例疗效观察[J]. 山东大学耳鼻喉眼学报, 2006, 20(1): 24 -26 .
[8] 杨长亮,黄治物,姚行齐,诸勇,孙艺 . 正常气骨导听性脑干反应及其应用[J]. 山东大学耳鼻喉眼学报, 2006, 20(1): 9 -13 .
[9] 曹忠良 . 颌面复合伤155例临床分析[J]. 山东大学耳鼻喉眼学报, 2006, 20(1): 89 -89 .
[10] 栾建刚,梁传余,文艳君,李炯 . 抑制表皮生长因子受体基因表达的pSIREN-ShuttleRNAi表达载体的构建[J]. 山东大学耳鼻喉眼学报, 2006, 20(1): 4 -8 .
网站版权所有 © 2018 《山东大学耳鼻喉眼学报》编辑部　
地址：山东省济南市山大南路27号（250100）电话：+86-0531-88366912 E-mail: ebhxb@sdu.edu.cn
本系统由北京玛格泰克科技发展有限公司设计开发