目的:探讨乳腺癌化疗患者癌性疲乏、应对方式与生活质量之间的相关性。方法:本研究是横断面研究,采用方便抽样法选择乳腺癌改良根治术后行药物化疗的女性患者120例,用癌性疲乏自评量表(the Revised Piper Fatigue Scale,PFS)、Jalowiec...目的:探讨乳腺癌化疗患者癌性疲乏、应对方式与生活质量之间的相关性。方法:本研究是横断面研究,采用方便抽样法选择乳腺癌改良根治术后行药物化疗的女性患者120例,用癌性疲乏自评量表(the Revised Piper Fatigue Scale,PFS)、Jalowiec的应对量表(Jalowiec Coping Scale,JCS)和欧洲癌症研究与治疗组织开发的癌症患者生命质量测定系列量表的核心问卷[Quality of Life Questionnaire-Core30,QLQ-C30(V3.0)]和针对乳腺癌人群的特异性问卷(Quality of Life Questionnaire-Breast23,QLQ-BR23),分别测评患者的癌性疲乏水平、应对方式和生活质量状况。采用Spearman相关分析患者癌性疲乏状况、应对方式以及生活质量三者之间的相关性。结果:乳腺癌化疗患者的癌性疲乏总分与QLQ-C30的功能和总体健康状况呈负相关(r=-0.24,-0.39;均P<0.01);积极的应对方式如勇敢面对、乐观与PFS的感知维度呈负相关(r=-0.25,-0.18;均P<0.05),与QLQ-BR23的功能维度呈正相关(r=0.35,0.21;均P<0.05);消极应对方式如情感、听天由命与PFS的认知维度呈正相关(r=0.33,0.18;均P<0.05),与QLQ-BR23的功能维度呈负相关(r=-0.40,-0.32;均P<0.05),与QLQ-BR23症状维度呈正相关(r=0.40,0.28;均P<0.05)。结论:乳腺癌化疗患者所经历的癌性疲乏状况、采取的应对方式及其生活质量三者间存在一定程度的关联,此发现对临床护理有指导意义。展开更多
Methodological quality(risk of bias)assessment is an important step before study initiation usage.Therefore,accurately judging study type is the first priority,and the choosing proper tool is also important.In this re...Methodological quality(risk of bias)assessment is an important step before study initiation usage.Therefore,accurately judging study type is the first priority,and the choosing proper tool is also important.In this review,we introduced methodological quality assessment tools for randomized controlled trial(including individual and cluster),animal study,non-randomized interventional studies(including follow-up study,controlled before-and-after study,before-after/pre-post study,uncontrolled longitudinal study,interrupted time series study),cohort study,case-control study,cross-sectional study(including analytical and descriptive),observational case series and case reports,comparative effectiveness research,diagnostic study,health economic evaluation,prediction study(including predictor finding study,prediction model impact study,prognostic prediction model study),qualitative study,outcome measurement instruments(including patient-reported outcome measure development,content validity,structural validity,internal consistency,cross-cultural validity/measurement invariance,reliability,measurement error,criterion validity,hypotheses testing for construct validity,and responsiveness),systematic review and meta-analysis,and clinical practice guideline.The readers of our review can distinguish the types of medical studies and choose appropriate tools.In one word,comprehensively mastering relevant knowledge and implementing more practices are basic requirements for correctly assessing the methodological quality.展开更多
文摘目的:探讨乳腺癌化疗患者癌性疲乏、应对方式与生活质量之间的相关性。方法:本研究是横断面研究,采用方便抽样法选择乳腺癌改良根治术后行药物化疗的女性患者120例,用癌性疲乏自评量表(the Revised Piper Fatigue Scale,PFS)、Jalowiec的应对量表(Jalowiec Coping Scale,JCS)和欧洲癌症研究与治疗组织开发的癌症患者生命质量测定系列量表的核心问卷[Quality of Life Questionnaire-Core30,QLQ-C30(V3.0)]和针对乳腺癌人群的特异性问卷(Quality of Life Questionnaire-Breast23,QLQ-BR23),分别测评患者的癌性疲乏水平、应对方式和生活质量状况。采用Spearman相关分析患者癌性疲乏状况、应对方式以及生活质量三者之间的相关性。结果:乳腺癌化疗患者的癌性疲乏总分与QLQ-C30的功能和总体健康状况呈负相关(r=-0.24,-0.39;均P<0.01);积极的应对方式如勇敢面对、乐观与PFS的感知维度呈负相关(r=-0.25,-0.18;均P<0.05),与QLQ-BR23的功能维度呈正相关(r=0.35,0.21;均P<0.05);消极应对方式如情感、听天由命与PFS的认知维度呈正相关(r=0.33,0.18;均P<0.05),与QLQ-BR23的功能维度呈负相关(r=-0.40,-0.32;均P<0.05),与QLQ-BR23症状维度呈正相关(r=0.40,0.28;均P<0.05)。结论:乳腺癌化疗患者所经历的癌性疲乏状况、采取的应对方式及其生活质量三者间存在一定程度的关联,此发现对临床护理有指导意义。
基金supported(in part)by the Entrusted Project of National commission on health and health of China(No.2019099)the National Key Research and Development Plan of China(2016YFC0106300)the Nature Science Foundation of Hubei Province(2019FFB03902)。
文摘Methodological quality(risk of bias)assessment is an important step before study initiation usage.Therefore,accurately judging study type is the first priority,and the choosing proper tool is also important.In this review,we introduced methodological quality assessment tools for randomized controlled trial(including individual and cluster),animal study,non-randomized interventional studies(including follow-up study,controlled before-and-after study,before-after/pre-post study,uncontrolled longitudinal study,interrupted time series study),cohort study,case-control study,cross-sectional study(including analytical and descriptive),observational case series and case reports,comparative effectiveness research,diagnostic study,health economic evaluation,prediction study(including predictor finding study,prediction model impact study,prognostic prediction model study),qualitative study,outcome measurement instruments(including patient-reported outcome measure development,content validity,structural validity,internal consistency,cross-cultural validity/measurement invariance,reliability,measurement error,criterion validity,hypotheses testing for construct validity,and responsiveness),systematic review and meta-analysis,and clinical practice guideline.The readers of our review can distinguish the types of medical studies and choose appropriate tools.In one word,comprehensively mastering relevant knowledge and implementing more practices are basic requirements for correctly assessing the methodological quality.
