Effects of patient mutual help-oriented nursing in patients with radical resection of lung cancer
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective To explore the effects of patient mutual help-oriented nursing on hope and subjective well-being of patients with radical resection of lung cancer. Methods From June 2016 to October 2017, we selected 80 primary lung cancer patients with radical resection at Ningbo Yinzhou People's Hospital of Zhejiang Province as subjects. All of the patients were divided into control group and observation group with the method of random number table, 40 cases in each group. Control group carried out postoperative routine nursing. On the basis of that in control group, observation group implemented mutual help-oriented nursing. The investigation and analysis were carried out with the Herth Hope Index (HHI) , Memorial University of Newfoundland Scale of Happiness (MUNSH) , Self-Rating Depression Scale (SDS) , Self-Rating Anxiety Scale (SAS) and the self-designed satisfaction with nursing questionnaire before and after intervention. Results One month after intervention, the scores of HHI and MUNSH were (35.79±4.02) and (42.12±4.34) respectively higher than those in control group; the scores of SAS and SDS of observation group were (29.68±4.20) and (30.87±4.34) lower than those of control group; the differences were all statistical (P<0.01) . Patients satisfaction with nursing of observation group and control group was 97.50% and 85.00% with a statistical difference (Z=4.307, P<0.05) . Conclusions The application of patient mutual help-oriented nursing in patients with radical resection of lung cancer can improve the hope and subjective well-being, reduce negative emotions and improve satisfaction with nursing which is worth to be spread. Key words: Lung neoplasms; Radical resection of lung neoplasms; Patient mutual help-oriented nursing; Hope; Subjective well-being
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".