网站大量收购闲置独家精品文档,联系QQ:2885784924

个体化音乐干预对预期性恶心呕吐患者不良情绪及应对方式的影响.doc

个体化音乐干预对预期性恶心呕吐患者不良情绪及应对方式的影响.doc

  1. 1、本文档共7页,可阅读全部内容。
  2. 2、原创力文档(book118)网站文档一经付费(服务费),不意味着购买了该文档的版权,仅供个人/单位学习、研究之用,不得用于商业用途,未经授权,严禁复制、发行、汇编、翻译或者网络传播等,侵权必究。
  3. 3、本站所有内容均由合作方或网友上传,本站不对文档的完整性、权威性及其观点立场正确性做任何保证或承诺!文档内容仅供研究参考,付费前请自行鉴别。如您付费,意味着您自己接受本站规则且自行承担风险,本站不退款、不进行额外附加服务;查看《如何避免下载的几个坑》。如果您已付费下载过本站文档,您可以点击 这里二次下载
  4. 4、如文档侵犯商业秘密、侵犯著作权、侵犯人身权等,请点击“版权申诉”(推荐),也可以打举报电话:400-050-0827(电话支持时间:9:00-18:30)。
查看更多
个体化音乐干预对预期性恶心呕吐患者不良情绪及应对方式的影响个体化音乐干预对预期性恶心呕吐患者不良情绪及应对方式的影响

个体化音乐干预对预期性恶心呕吐患者不良情绪及应对方式的影响 【摘 要】目的 评价个体化音乐干预对预期性恶心呕吐患者不良情绪及应对方式的影响。方法 选择60例发生预期性恶心呕吐的患者,按入院顺序分为实验组与对照组各30例。两组均接受常规护理,实验组在常规护理的基础上运用个体化音乐进行干预,时间为21天,在第2、3周期化疗前测定患者恶心呕吐程度程度、焦虑自评量表(SAS)、抑郁自评量表(SDS)、简易应对方式评分。结果 两组患者在干预前恶心呕吐程度差异无统计学意义(χ2=0.067,P﹥0.05);干预后两组恶心呕吐程度差异有统计学意义(χ2=6.399,P﹤0.01);实验组在干预前后比较有统计学意义(χ2=8.297,P﹤0.01);干预前两组SAS、SDS评分差异无统计学意义((t=0.390,P﹥0.05;t=0.431,P﹥0.05);干预后两组SAS、SDS评分差异有统计学意义(t=7.13,P0.01;t=2.57, P﹤0.05); =5.554,P﹤0.05)。结论 个体化音乐干预可以改善ANV患者患者的应对方式,缓解患者焦虑、抑郁,减轻患者预期性恶心呕吐的程度,提高患者的生活质量。 【关键词】音乐干预;肿瘤;预期性恶心呕吐;影响 Application of emotional bank account in patients with anticipatory nausea and vomiting WANG Yun;DU Chun-ling;WANG Xue-mei Abstract Objective To observe the effect of emotional bank account in patients with anticipatory nausea and vomiting. Methods 60 patients suffered with ANV were selected and equally divided into the experimental group and control group according to the order of admission. In intervention time including two chemotherapy cycles, the control group accepted conventional care and the experimental group applied emotional bank account on the basis of conventional care from second chemotherapeutic cycle. Self-rating anxiety scale (SAS), self-rating depression scale (SDS), simplified coping style questionnaire and patient satisfaction were all evaluated before the second and forth chemotherapy respectively. Results The difference of nausea and vomiting in the control group and experimental group were not showed before intervention (x2=0.067,P0.05), but showed after intervention (x2=6.399,P0.01). The difference of SAS and SDS scores in two groups were not showed before intervention(t=0.390,P0.05; t=0.431,P0.05), but showed after intervention (t=7.13,P0.01; t=2.57,P0.05). Positive copying and negative copying scores of two groups weren’t different before intervention (t=0.542,P0.05; t=0.912,P0.05), but different after intervention (t=2.096,P0.05; t=2.753,P0.01). The difference of positive copying and negative copying scores were

文档评论(0)

cxiongxchunj + 关注
实名认证
内容提供者

该用户很懒,什么也没介绍

1亿VIP精品文档

相关文档