Objective: To assess effects of treatment environment and intensive nursing intervention on gynecological oncology patients. Methods: 108 patients diagnosed as gynecological oncology from July 2015 to July 2018. They were randomly assigned to control group and intervention group, the participant had the different nursing measure and new treatment environment in two groups. We collected the result that included quality of life, pain level, immune function and participants characteristics by completing questionnaires, collecting medical records and flow cytometer. In addition, the participants were asked to complete the questionnaires, such as Short Form-36 (SF-36) and Self-report questionnaires. We use flow cytometer (FCM) to assess immunity function of patient. Result: The participants of intervention group had higher increasing in CD8+ (19.88±2.40 vs 17.32±2.88). Additionally, most participants had mild pain in treatment process [30 (50.66%) & 42 (73.24%)] and few participants had severe pain. In addition, few participants had severe pain, very few participants had very pain experience and painless experience in treatment process. In four domains of quality of life, all participants were improved in all domains. Conclusion: Treatment environment and intensive nursing intervention improve the outcome of gynecologic cancer treatment. But the improvement was not significant in the treatment process.
| Published in | Journal of Gynecology and Obstetrics (Volume 8, Issue 1) |
| DOI | 10.11648/j.jgo.20200801.17 |
| Page(s) | 28-31 |
| Creative Commons |
This is an Open Access article, distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, provided the original work is properly cited. |
| Copyright |
Copyright © The Author(s), 2024. Published by Science Publishing Group |
Gynecological Oncology, Treatment Environment, Nursing
| [1] | Cancer Australia & The Royal Australian College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists. National Gynaecological Cancer Service Delivery and Resource Framework. Cancer Australia, Canberra, Australia. 2011. |
| [2] | National Gynaecological Cancer Tumour Standards Working Group. Standards of Service Provision for Gynaecological Cancer Patients in New Zealand. New Zealand Ministry of Health, Wellington. 2013. |
| [3] | Fung-Kee-Fung, M., Kennedy, E. B., Biagi, J., Colgan, T., D'Souza, D., Elit, L. M., et al. An organizational guideline for gynecologic oncology services. Int. J. Gynecol. Cancer. 2015; 25 (4): 551–558. |
| [4] | NHS Commissioning Board. NHS Contract for Complex Gynaecology-Specialist Gynaecologocial Cancers. Service Specifications. NHS Commissioning Board. 2013. |
| [5] | Wright A. A., Zhang B., Ray A., Mack J. W., Trice E., Balboni T., et al., Associations between end-of-life discussions, patient mental health, medical care near death, and caregiver bereavement adjustment, JAMA. 2008; (14): 1665–1673. |
| [6] | Mack J. W., Weeks J. C., Wright A. A., Block S. D., Prigerson H. G. End-of-life discussions, goal attainment, and distress at the end of life: predictors and outcomes of receipt of care consistent with preferences, J. Clin. Oncol. Off. J. Am. Soc. Clin. Oncol. 2010; 28 (7): 1203–1208. |
| [7] | Fader A. N., Weise R. M., Sinno A. K., Tanner E. J., Borah B. J., Moriarty J. P., Bristow R. E., Makary M. A., Pronovost P. J., Hutfless S., Dowdy S. C., Utilization of minimally invasive surgery in endometrial cancer care: a quality and cost disparity, Obstet. Gynecol. 2016; 127 (1): 91–100. |
| [8] | Clark R. M., Lee M. S., Rauh-Hain J. A., Hall T., Boruta D. M., del Carmen M. G., A. K. Goodman, J. O. Schorge, W. B. Growdon, Surgical Apgar score and prediction of morbidity in women undergoing hysterectomy for malignancy, Gynecol. Oncol. 2015; 136: 516–520. |
| [9] | Dessources K., Hou J. Y., Tergas A. I., Burke W. M., Ananth C. V., Prendergast E., Chen L., Neugut A. I., Hersham D. L., Wright J. D. Factors associated with 30-day hospital readmission after hysterectomy, Obstet. Gynecol. 2015; 2: 461–470. |
| [10] | Doll K. M., Snavely A. C., Kalinowski A., Irwin D. E., Bensen J. T., Bae-Jump V., Boggess J. F., Soper J. T., Brewster W. R., Gehrig P. A. Preoperative quality of life and surgical outcomes in gynecologic oncology patients: a new predictor of operative risk, Gynecol. Oncol. 2015; 133: 546–551. |
| [11] | Henretta M. S., Scalici J. M., Engelhard C. L., Duska L. R. The revolving door: hospital readmissions of gynecologic oncology patients, Gynecol. Oncol. 2011; 122: 479–483. |
| [12] | Ware JE. SF-36 health survey update. Spine. 2000, 25, 3130–3139. |
| [13] | Brunner E, Dankaerts W, Meichtry A, O’Sullivan K, Probst M: Physical therapists’ ability to identify psychological factors and their self-reported competence to manage chronic low back pain. Phys Ther. 2018; 98: 471-479. |
| [14] | Siegel RL, Miller KD, Jemal A. Cancer statistics, 2019. CA Cancer J Clin. 2019; 69: 7-34. |
| [15] | Jayson GC, Kohn EC, Kitchener HC, Ledermann JA. Ovarian cancer. Lancet. 2014; 384: 1376-1388. |
| [16] | Makker V, Green AK, Wenham RM, Mutch D, Davidson B, Miller DS. New therapies for advanced, recurrent, and metastatic endometrial cancers. Gynecol Oncol Res Pract. 2017; 4: 19. |
| [17] | Henley SJ, Miller JW, Dowling NF, Benard VB, Richardson LC. Uterine Cancer Incidence and Mortality - United States, 1999-2016. MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep. 2018; 67: 1333-1338. |
| [18] | Jemal A, Ward EM, Johnson CJ, Cronin KA, Ma J, Ryerson AB, Mariotto A, Lake AJ, Wilson R, Sherman RL, Anderson RN, Henley SJ, Kohler BA, Penberthy L, Feuer EJ, Weir HK. Annual Report to the Nation on the Status of Cancer, 1975–2014, Featuring Survival. JNCI: Journal of the National Cancer Institute. 2017; 109. |
APA Style
Qiufang Zhang, Xinke Huang, Xuefeng Jiang, Manli Huang. (2020). Effects of Treatment Environment and Intensive Nursing Intervention on Gynecological Oncology Patients. Journal of Gynecology and Obstetrics, 8(1), 28-31. https://doi.org/10.11648/j.jgo.20200801.17
ACS Style
Qiufang Zhang; Xinke Huang; Xuefeng Jiang; Manli Huang. Effects of Treatment Environment and Intensive Nursing Intervention on Gynecological Oncology Patients. J. Gynecol. Obstet. 2020, 8(1), 28-31. doi: 10.11648/j.jgo.20200801.17
AMA Style
Qiufang Zhang, Xinke Huang, Xuefeng Jiang, Manli Huang. Effects of Treatment Environment and Intensive Nursing Intervention on Gynecological Oncology Patients. J Gynecol Obstet. 2020;8(1):28-31. doi: 10.11648/j.jgo.20200801.17
Share This Article
Twitter
Linked In
Facebook
Copy
Download@article{10.11648/j.jgo.20200801.17,
author = {Qiufang Zhang and Xinke Huang and Xuefeng Jiang and Manli Huang},
title = {Effects of Treatment Environment and Intensive Nursing Intervention on Gynecological Oncology Patients},
journal = {Journal of Gynecology and Obstetrics},
volume = {8},
number = {1},
pages = {28-31},
doi = {10.11648/j.jgo.20200801.17},
url = {https://doi.org/10.11648/j.jgo.20200801.17},
eprint = {https://article.sciencepublishinggroup.com/pdf/10.11648.j.jgo.20200801.17},
abstract = {Objective: To assess effects of treatment environment and intensive nursing intervention on gynecological oncology patients. Methods: 108 patients diagnosed as gynecological oncology from July 2015 to July 2018. They were randomly assigned to control group and intervention group, the participant had the different nursing measure and new treatment environment in two groups. We collected the result that included quality of life, pain level, immune function and participants characteristics by completing questionnaires, collecting medical records and flow cytometer. In addition, the participants were asked to complete the questionnaires, such as Short Form-36 (SF-36) and Self-report questionnaires. We use flow cytometer (FCM) to assess immunity function of patient. Result: The participants of intervention group had higher increasing in CD8+ (19.88±2.40 vs 17.32±2.88). Additionally, most participants had mild pain in treatment process [30 (50.66%) & 42 (73.24%)] and few participants had severe pain. In addition, few participants had severe pain, very few participants had very pain experience and painless experience in treatment process. In four domains of quality of life, all participants were improved in all domains. Conclusion: Treatment environment and intensive nursing intervention improve the outcome of gynecologic cancer treatment. But the improvement was not significant in the treatment process.},
year = {2020}
}
TY - JOUR T1 - Effects of Treatment Environment and Intensive Nursing Intervention on Gynecological Oncology Patients AU - Qiufang Zhang AU - Xinke Huang AU - Xuefeng Jiang AU - Manli Huang Y1 - 2020/02/21 PY - 2020 N1 - https://doi.org/10.11648/j.jgo.20200801.17 DO - 10.11648/j.jgo.20200801.17 T2 - Journal of Gynecology and Obstetrics JF - Journal of Gynecology and Obstetrics JO - Journal of Gynecology and Obstetrics SP - 28 EP - 31 PB - Science Publishing Group SN - 2376-7820 UR - https://doi.org/10.11648/j.jgo.20200801.17 AB - Objective: To assess effects of treatment environment and intensive nursing intervention on gynecological oncology patients. Methods: 108 patients diagnosed as gynecological oncology from July 2015 to July 2018. They were randomly assigned to control group and intervention group, the participant had the different nursing measure and new treatment environment in two groups. We collected the result that included quality of life, pain level, immune function and participants characteristics by completing questionnaires, collecting medical records and flow cytometer. In addition, the participants were asked to complete the questionnaires, such as Short Form-36 (SF-36) and Self-report questionnaires. We use flow cytometer (FCM) to assess immunity function of patient. Result: The participants of intervention group had higher increasing in CD8+ (19.88±2.40 vs 17.32±2.88). Additionally, most participants had mild pain in treatment process [30 (50.66%) & 42 (73.24%)] and few participants had severe pain. In addition, few participants had severe pain, very few participants had very pain experience and painless experience in treatment process. In four domains of quality of life, all participants were improved in all domains. Conclusion: Treatment environment and intensive nursing intervention improve the outcome of gynecologic cancer treatment. But the improvement was not significant in the treatment process. VL - 8 IS - 1 ER -
Information
Email: