Value of Roy adaptation model in perioperative period of patients with Stanford B aortic dissection

doi:10.3877/cma.j.issn.1674-0785.2022.08.006

Abstract

Abstract:

Objective

To evaluate the value of Roy adaptation model in the perioperative period of patients with Stanford B aortic dissection.

Methods

A total of 100 patients with Stanford type B aortic dissection who were admitted to the Department of Cardiovascular Surgery of Jiangsu Province Hospital from February 2019 to February 2021 were selected and randomly divided into a control group (n=50) and an observation group (n=50). The control group received routine nursing care, and the observation group followed the Roy adaptation model on this basis. The two groups were compared for anxiety self-rating scale (SAS), depression self-rating scale (SDS), and self-efficacy (GSES) scores, as well as the quality of life (SF-36), ability of daily living (ADL), and health behavior ability score (SRAHP) before and after nursing. The satisfaction with nursing was also recorded in the two groups.

Results

SAS and SDS scores after nursing were lower than those before nursing in both groups (P＜0.05), while GSES scores were higher than before nursing (P＜0.05); SAS and SDS scores of the observation group were lower than those of the control group after nursing (P＜0.05), but the GSES score was higher than that of the control group (P＜0.05). The SF-36 and ADL scores after nursing were higher than those before nursing (P＜0.05); the SF-36 and ADL scores of the observation group were higher than those of the control group after nursing (P＜0.05). The total score of SRAHP and the scores of nutrition management, health responsibility, exercise management, and psychological well-being after nursing were higher than those before nursing in both groups (P＜0.05); the total score of SRAHP and the scores of health responsibility and psychological well-being of the observation group after nursing were higher than those of the control group (P＜0.05), though there was no significant difference in the scores of nutrition management and exercise management between the two groups (P＞0.05). The nursing satisfaction of the observation group was 96.00%, which was higher than that (84.00%) of the control group (P＜0.05).

Conclusion

The Roy adaptation model has a significant effect in the care of patients with Stanford B aortic dissection. It can reduce depression, anxiety, and other negative emotions, improve self-management ability and daily life ability, and improve the quality of life by improving the patient's self-healthy behavior ability. The Roy adaptation model also improve patients' satisfaction with nursing care satisfaction.

Key words: Roy adaptation model, Stanford B aortic dissection, Perioperative period, Self-efficacy

Rui Xu, Changhong Liu, Weiyun Wang, Yingying Gao, Hong Liu. Value of Roy adaptation model in perioperative period of patients with Stanford B aortic dissection[J]. Chinese Journal of Clinicians(Electronic Edition), 2022, 16(08): 738-743.

/ / Recommend

Add to citation manager EndNote|Ris|BibTeX

URL: https://zhlcyszz.cma-cmc.com.cn/EN/10.3877/cma.j.issn.1674-0785.2022.08.006

https://zhlcyszz.cma-cmc.com.cn/EN/Y2022/V16/I08/738

Figures/Tables 4

References 22

1	管军, 曾骞, 邓超. 胸主动脉夹层动脉瘤腔内修复术联合药物对稳定型B型主动脉夹层患者疗效及安全性研究 [J]. 河北医学, 2019, 25(11): 1858-1861.
2	吴兴建, 李应菊, 尚中忍, 等. 胸主动脉腔内修复术治疗Stanford B型主动脉夹层的长期疗效 [J]. 临床和实验医学杂志, 2021, 20(7): 731-734.
3	姚媛, 金艳, 纪媛媛, 等. Stanford B型主动脉夹层介入手术围手术期综合护理 [J]. 西南国防医药, 2021, 31(4): 331-333.
4	王志华, 古彦, 王颜佶, 等. 基于罗伊适应模式的睡眠质量干预在脑血管病介入治疗患者中的应用效果 [J]. 中国医药导报, 2021, 18(16): 181-184.
5	王君芬, 王信娟, 董美媛, 等. 基于罗伊适应模式的护理在多发性骨髓瘤化疗患者中的应用 [J]. 中华现代护理杂志, 2020, 26(28): 3970-3973.
6	Flanagan NM. Persistent pain in older adults: roy's adaptation model [J]. Nurs Sci Q, 2018, 31(1): 25-28.
7	Kabu Hergül F, Özbayır T. I am as normal as everyone now. : examination of experiences of patients undergoing bariatric surgery according to roy's adaptation model: a qualitative study [J]. Clin Nurs Res, 2021, 30(4): 511-521.
8	Barone SH, Hanna D, Senesac PM, et al. Roy's adaptation model [J]. Nurs Sci Q, 2011, 24(4): 337-344.
9	段泉泉, 胜利. 焦虑及抑郁自评量表的临床效度 [J]. 中国心理卫生杂志, 2012, 26(9): 676-679.
10	Bosscher RJ, Smit JH. Confirmatory factor analysis of the general self-efficacy scale [J]. Behav Res Ther, 1998, 36(3): 339-343.
11	王才康, 胡中锋, 刘勇. 一般自我效能感量表的信度和效度研究 [J]. 应用心理学, 2001, 7(1): 37-40.
12	杨小湜, 王阳, 李秀君, 等. SF-36量表的信度和效度评价 [J]. 解剖科学进展, 2009, 15(4): 383-385.
13	郑彩娥, 潘克勤, 丁燕萍, 等. 康复护理日常生活活动评定量表的信度和效度研究 [J]. 中国临床康复, 2005, 9(1):178-179.
14	胡蕴绮, 周兰姝. 中文版健康行为能力自评量表的信效度研究 [J]. 中华护理杂志, 2012, 47(3): 261-262.
15	林可可, 宋春伟, 张颖. 住院患者基础护理工作满意度问卷的信效度分析 [J]. 护理学杂志, 2011, 26(7):6-8.
16	Meisenbacher K, Böckler D, Geisbüsch P, et al. Preliminary results of spot-stent grafting in Stanford type B aortic dissection and intramural haematoma [J]. Eur J Cardiothorac Surg, 2020, 58(5): 932-939.
17	Jang H , Kim MD, Kim GM, et al. Risk factors for stent graft-induced new entry after thoracic endovascular aortic repair for Stanford type Baortic dissection [J]. J Vasc Surg, 2017, 65(3): 676-685.
18	Jennings KM. The Roy adaptation model: a theoretical framework for nurses providing care to individuals with anorexia nervosa [J]. ANS Adv Nurs Sci, 2017, 40(4): 370-383.
19	Mustikasari, Pratiwi A, Hamid AYS, et al. Effectiveness of psychological adaptation model of mental health nursing for nurse survivors experiencing post-earthquake disaster post-traumatic stress syndrome [J]. Enferm Clin, 2018, 28(1): 289-294.
20	乔杰, 赵婵, 蔡华玲. 急性期A型主动脉夹层患者情绪反应及Roy适应模式临床管理效果分析 [J]. 中国医药, 2021, 16(5): 676-679.
21	曾晓红, 高薇, 张艳, 等. Roy适应模式对Stanford B型主动脉夹层瘤患者围术期焦虑心理的影响 [J]. 中国煤炭工业医学杂志, 2018, 21(1): 95-99.
22	顾森. Roy适应引导护理在主动脉夹层患者疼痛缓解中的应用 [J]. 国际护理学杂志, 2019, 38(14): 2266-2269.

组别	SAS（分）		SDS（分）		GSES（分）
组别	护理前	护理后	护理前	护理后	护理前	护理后
观察组（n=50）	69.87±12.14	43.21±8.72^a	67.39±12.52	45.71±12.71^a	15.68±4.41	22.11±1.14^a
对照组（n=50）	69.26±11.03	56.59±10.31^a	67.45±10.64	54.82±12.84^a	15.81±3.52	18.18±2.11^a
t值	0.262	7.006	0.025	3.565	0.162	11.587
P值	0.793	＜0.001	0.979	＜0.001	0.870	＜0.001

组别	SAS（分）		SDS（分）		GSES（分）
组别	护理前	护理后	护理前	护理后	护理前	护理后
观察组（n=50）	69.87±12.14	43.21±8.72^a	67.39±12.52	45.71±12.71^a	15.68±4.41	22.11±1.14^a
对照组（n=50）	69.26±11.03	56.59±10.31^a	67.45±10.64	54.82±12.84^a	15.81±3.52	18.18±2.11^a
t值	0.262	7.006	0.025	3.565	0.162	11.587
P值	0.793	＜0.001	0.979	＜0.001	0.870	＜0.001

组别	SF-36		ADL
组别	干预前	干预后	干预前	干预后
观察组（n=50）	70.26±10.31	89.79±13.28^a	32.15±5.32	79.71±7.14^a
对照组（n=50）	71.84±12.29	78.81±12.77^a	32.19±6.09	62.49±3.69^a
t值	0.696	4.214	0.034	15.150
P值	0.487	＜0.001	0.972	＜0.001

组别	SF-36		ADL
组别	干预前	干预后	干预前	干预后
观察组（n=50）	70.26±10.31	89.79±13.28^a	32.15±5.32	79.71±7.14^a
对照组（n=50）	71.84±12.29	78.81±12.77^a	32.19±6.09	62.49±3.69^a
t值	0.696	4.214	0.034	15.150
P值	0.487	＜0.001	0.972	＜0.001

组别	营养管理		健康责任		运动管理		心理安适		总分
组别	护理前	护理后	护理前	护理后	护理前	护理后	护理前	护理后	护理前	护理后
观察组（n=50）	16.71±5.22	26.49±5.33^a	17.11±6.23	26.29±4.08^a	17.06±3.08	23.11±4.18^a	17.33±3.52	28.63±6.19^a	68.21±3.42	104.52±1.21^a
对照组（n=50）	16.87±5.16	25.02±4.19^a	17.94±6.33	22.41±2.95^a	17.28±3.19	22.28±4.21^a	17.45±3.46	24.25±5.81^a	69.27±3.06	93.96±2.46^a
t值	0.154	1.533	0.684	5.449	0.350	0.989	0.171	3.648	1.633	27.237
P值	0.877	0.128	0.495	0.001	0.726	0.325	0.863	＜0.001	0.105	＜0.001

Please choose a citation manager

Content to export