护理干预在淋巴瘤化疗期间对患者不良反应与生存质量的影响探讨
|
摘要
目的探讨护理干预在淋巴瘤化疗期间对患者不良反应与生存质量的影响。方法选取2018年1～6月在我院进行化疗的淋巴瘤患者300例,采用随机数字表法将其均分为观察组(n=150)和对照组(n=150)。对照组患者采用常规护理,观察组患者在对照组基础上采用心理等护理干预,对比两组患者不良反应发生率及生存质量评分差异。结果观察组患者不良反应发生率(3.33%)明显低于对照组(10.00%),两组比较差异有统计学意义(P<0.05)。观察组患者护理后生活质量各项评分高于对照组,两组比较差异有统计学意义(P<0.05)。结论在患者淋巴瘤化疗期间予护理干预配合,能降低患者不良反应发生率,显著提高患者生存质量,临床效果显著,值得推广和应用。
Objective To investigate the effects of nursing intervention on adverse reactions and quality of life in patients during lymphoma chemotherapy. Methods A total of 300 patients with lymphoma who underwent chemotherapy in our hospital from January to June 2018 were randomly divided into observation group(n=150) and control group(n=150) according to random number table method. The patients in the control group were treated with routine nursing.The patients in the observation group were treated with psychological and other nursing interventions based on the treatment of the control group, the difference in the incidence of adverse reactions and the quality of life scores of the two groups were compared. Results The adverse reaction rate(3.33%) in the observation group was significantly lower than that in the control group(10.00%). The difference between the two groups was statistically significant(P<0.05). The scores of quality of life in the observation group were higher than those in the control group, and the difference between the two groups was statistically significant(P<0.05). Conclusion The nursing intervention during chemotherapy of patients with lymphoma can reduce the adverse reaction rate of patients and significantly improve the quality of life of patients, with significant clinical effect and is worthy of promotion and application.
Objective To investigate the effects of nursing intervention on adverse reactions and quality of life in patients during lymphoma chemotherapy. Methods A total of 300 patients with lymphoma who underwent chemotherapy in our hospital from January to June 2018 were randomly divided into observation group(n=150) and control group(n=150) according to random number table method. The patients in the control group were treated with routine nursing.The patients in the observation group were treated with psychological and other nursing interventions based on the treatment of the control group, the difference in the incidence of adverse reactions and the quality of life scores of the two groups were compared. Results The adverse reaction rate(3.33%) in the observation group was significantly lower than that in the control group(10.00%). The difference between the two groups was statistically significant(P<0.05). The scores of quality of life in the observation group were higher than those in the control group, and the difference between the two groups was statistically significant(P<0.05). Conclusion The nursing intervention during chemotherapy of patients with lymphoma can reduce the adverse reaction rate of patients and significantly improve the quality of life of patients, with significant clinical effect and is worthy of promotion and application.
引文
[1]曹红春,李娜,龚新月,等.恶性淋巴瘤中医辨证及治疗思路探讨[J].亚太传统医药,2016,12(2):53-55.
[2]李莉,赫晓磊,李月娴,等.原发性胃恶性淋巴瘤内镜及病理特点分析[J].中华实用诊断与治疗杂志,2016,30(10):1014-1015.
[3]杨凯,何学鹏,楼金星,等.不同化疗方案治疗鼻腔NK/T细胞淋巴瘤的临床疗效对比分析[J].实用癌症杂志,2015,30(11):1625-1628.
[4]范洋,张玥伟,杨志,等.化疗早期(18)F-FDGPET/CT评价弥漫性大B细胞淋巴瘤的疗效及预后预测[J].肿瘤,2015,35(9):1013-1020.
[5]李喆,谭晓虹,岑洪.局限期侵袭性非霍奇金淋巴瘤联合放化疗临床意义Meta分析[J].中华肿瘤防治杂志,2015,22(11):885-890.
[6]苏鹏飞,李颖璐,金哲.放化疗治疗原发纵隔大B细胞淋巴瘤的临床效果[J].中国实验血液学杂志,2015,23(3):684-688.
[7]吴雅荣.化疗后沙利度胺维持治疗中高危高危弥漫性大B细胞淋巴瘤的疗效观察[J].河北医学,2015,21(12):2017-2019.
[8]胡彩平,林毅,李秋萍.SF-36量表与QLQ-C30量表在老年癌症病人生活质量评估中的应用及其相关性研究[J].护理研究,2015,29(24):2968-2972.
[9]罗颖婉,佟红艳.霍奇金淋巴瘤诊治进展[J].中国实用内科杂志,2015,35(2):89-95.
[10]杜建伟,魏旭东.非霍奇金淋巴瘤治疗现状[J].临床荟萃,2015,30(10):1110-1119.
[11]倪鸣,顾海波,李佳婕,等.化疗药物所致疼痛发病机制的研究进展[J].中国疼痛医学杂志,2015,21(12):934-937,941
[12]于春芳,曾凝,梁鑫,等.全程化疗药物标识在恶性血液病患者中的应用及效果评价[J].中华护理杂志,2016,51(9):1072-1075.
[13]周元,蒋秀美,顾则娟,等化疗药物相关指甲毒性及护理策略的研究进展[J].中华护理杂志,2015,50(9):1121-1124.
[14]冯羽飞.个性化护理干预对恶性淋巴瘤患者化疗后生活质量的影响[J].中国医学创新,2015,12(7):93-95.
[15]Carr ER.Oncology nursing essentials:Then and now[J].Clin J Oncol Nurs,2015,19(2):223-225.
[16]孙立文,赵曙.综合护理干预对恶性淋巴瘤患儿化疗疗效的影响[J].中国肿瘤临床与康复,2017,24(9):1108-1111.
[17]黄丹丹,盛莉,杨平,等.护理干预在颈部淋巴瘤患者合并化脓性感染中的效果观察[J].广东医学,2018,39(17):2695-2699.
[18]Hronek J,Reed M.Nursing roles in cardiac safety:Romidepsin in patients with T-cell lymphoma[J].Oncol Nurs Forum,2016,43(2):227-234.
[2]李莉,赫晓磊,李月娴,等.原发性胃恶性淋巴瘤内镜及病理特点分析[J].中华实用诊断与治疗杂志,2016,30(10):1014-1015.
[3]杨凯,何学鹏,楼金星,等.不同化疗方案治疗鼻腔NK/T细胞淋巴瘤的临床疗效对比分析[J].实用癌症杂志,2015,30(11):1625-1628.
[4]范洋,张玥伟,杨志,等.化疗早期(18)F-FDGPET/CT评价弥漫性大B细胞淋巴瘤的疗效及预后预测[J].肿瘤,2015,35(9):1013-1020.
[5]李喆,谭晓虹,岑洪.局限期侵袭性非霍奇金淋巴瘤联合放化疗临床意义Meta分析[J].中华肿瘤防治杂志,2015,22(11):885-890.
[6]苏鹏飞,李颖璐,金哲.放化疗治疗原发纵隔大B细胞淋巴瘤的临床效果[J].中国实验血液学杂志,2015,23(3):684-688.
[7]吴雅荣.化疗后沙利度胺维持治疗中高危高危弥漫性大B细胞淋巴瘤的疗效观察[J].河北医学,2015,21(12):2017-2019.
[8]胡彩平,林毅,李秋萍.SF-36量表与QLQ-C30量表在老年癌症病人生活质量评估中的应用及其相关性研究[J].护理研究,2015,29(24):2968-2972.
[9]罗颖婉,佟红艳.霍奇金淋巴瘤诊治进展[J].中国实用内科杂志,2015,35(2):89-95.
[10]杜建伟,魏旭东.非霍奇金淋巴瘤治疗现状[J].临床荟萃,2015,30(10):1110-1119.
[11]倪鸣,顾海波,李佳婕,等.化疗药物所致疼痛发病机制的研究进展[J].中国疼痛医学杂志,2015,21(12):934-937,941
[12]于春芳,曾凝,梁鑫,等.全程化疗药物标识在恶性血液病患者中的应用及效果评价[J].中华护理杂志,2016,51(9):1072-1075.
[13]周元,蒋秀美,顾则娟,等化疗药物相关指甲毒性及护理策略的研究进展[J].中华护理杂志,2015,50(9):1121-1124.
[14]冯羽飞.个性化护理干预对恶性淋巴瘤患者化疗后生活质量的影响[J].中国医学创新,2015,12(7):93-95.
[15]Carr ER.Oncology nursing essentials:Then and now[J].Clin J Oncol Nurs,2015,19(2):223-225.
[16]孙立文,赵曙.综合护理干预对恶性淋巴瘤患儿化疗疗效的影响[J].中国肿瘤临床与康复,2017,24(9):1108-1111.
[17]黄丹丹,盛莉,杨平,等.护理干预在颈部淋巴瘤患者合并化脓性感染中的效果观察[J].广东医学,2018,39(17):2695-2699.
[18]Hronek J,Reed M.Nursing roles in cardiac safety:Romidepsin in patients with T-cell lymphoma[J].Oncol Nurs Forum,2016,43(2):227-234.