- 1、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。。
- 2、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。
- 3、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
整形手术男性乳腺发育症患者心理的研究
刘晨 栾杰 丛中 柳春明 李桂珍
[摘要] 目的 了解整形的心理状态,探讨整形手术心理状态的。方法 采用焦虑自评量表、抑郁自评量表、自尊量表、体像障碍自评量表及艾森克人格问卷,对名者手术前后的心理状态进行问卷调查,分析调查结果。 结果 在名者中,术前焦虑、抑郁状态分别为5%%;手术前33.685±6.543、34.338±5.414和23.487±7.441,术后分别为26.442±4.278(P0.05)、27.968±7.112(P0.05)和16.184±8.544(P0.05)。患者术后分值较术前上升5.869±6.197 (P0.01)中的和量表的分值在常态范围之内,L表的分值超出常态标准结论[关键词] 整形美容手术 心理The preliminary research on the influence of the plastic and aesthetic surgery on the psychology of the patients with gynaecomastia Liu Chen, Luan Jie, Cong Zhong, et al. Department of plastic surgery of 301 Hospital and Postgraduate Medical College of P.L.A., Beijing,100853, China; Plastic Surgery Hospital of Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences, Beijing 100041, China; Department of Psychology, Beijing University, Beijing 100083, China.
[Abstract] Objective: The aim of this research was to identify the psychology of the patients with gynaecomastia, to study the influence of the plastic and aesthetic surgery on their psychology. Method: The self-rating anxiety scale(SAS), the self-rating depression scale(SDS), the self-esteem scale(SES),the self- rating body dysmorphic disorder(BDD) scale, and the Eysenck Personality Questionnaire (EPQ) were used to determine the psychology of the 65 patients with gynaecomastia. These patients were tested preoperatively and postoperatively, respectively, and then the results were analyzed. Results: Of the 65 patients with gynaecomastia who completed these tests, it was found that the 54 percent were in anxiety preoperatively, 57 percent were in depression, and 14 percent were in BDD preoperatively. The scores in SAS, SDS, and self- rating BDD scale were 33.685±6.543, 34.338±5.414, and 23.487±7.441 preoperatively, respectively; and those were 26.442±4.278 (P0.05), 27.968±7.112 (P0.05), and 16.184±8.544 (P0.05). The scores in SES increased by 5.869±6.197 (P0.01) postoperatively. The scores in E scale, P scale, and N scale of EPQ were normal, and those in L scale were abnormal. The differences betw
您可能关注的文档
最近下载
- (完整版)《建筑给水排水及采暖工程施工质量验收规范》(GB50242-2002).docx
- 品牌活动线上活动方案策划.docx VIP
- TB 10308-2020 铁路电力、电力牵引供电工程施工安全技术规程(附条文).pdf VIP
- 2025年公路检测工程师《水运结构与地基》试题及答案(最新).docx VIP
- 自考公务员制度.ppt VIP
- 2025年-2025年中级银行从业资格之中级个人贷款真题精选附完整答案详解【名校卷】.docx VIP
- 食品安全培训课件模板.pptx VIP
- 房屋安全鉴定理论考试复习题及答案.doc VIP
- 人教版六年级上册数学《圆的认识》(作业设计课件).pptx VIP
- GB50367-2013 混凝土结构加固设计规范_7993.doc VIP
文档评论(0)