论文部分内容阅读
目的:探讨基于“刺激—机体—响应”模型的家庭肠内营养干预方案在头颈部肿瘤患者中的应用效果。方法:采用便利抽样法，选取2019年1—12月在温州医科大学附属第一医院口腔/耳鼻咽喉科接受治疗的84例头颈部肿瘤患者为研究对象。采用随机数字表法将患者分为对照组和试验组，每组42例，对照组实施常规肠内营养护理，试验组实施基于“刺激—机体—响应”模型的家庭肠内营养支持干预。比较两组患者家庭肠内营养认知调查问卷得分、营养指标、营养状况、肿瘤患者满意度调查表得分。结果:试验组患者干预后家庭肠内营养认知调查问卷得分，体重、白蛋白、前白蛋白、转铁蛋白、视黄醇结合蛋白、球蛋白、淋巴细胞水平均高于对照组[（26.04±3.12）vs.（23.76±3.61）分、（60.24±5.35）vs.（57.25±5.54）kg、（37.34±3.24）vs.（35.22±3.45）g/L、（0.26±0.04）vs.（0.20±0.05）g/L、（2.62±0.08）vs.（2.37±0.10）g/L、（36.74±7.12）vs.（33.45±6.92）mg/L、（28.87±3.68）vs.（26.67±4.23）g/L、（1.72±0.30）vs.（1.49±0.33）×10n 9/L]，差异有统计学意义（n P<0.05）。两组患者干预后营养状况比较，差异有统计学意义（n P<0.05）。试验组患者干预后肿瘤患者满意度调查表的健康教育、护理技能、病情监测、沟通交流维度得分高于对照组[（4.25±0.65）vs.（3.21±0.78）、（4.15±0.77）vs.（3.76±0.64）、（4.17±0.70）vs.（3.82±0.68）、（4.27±0.54）vs.（3.65±0.82）分]，差异有统计学意义（n P<0.05）。n 结论:基于“刺激—机体—响应”模型的家庭肠内营养干预方案应用于头颈部肿瘤患者中，可提高患者的营养认知水平，改善营养指标和营养状况，提高护理满意度，值得临床推广。“,”Objective:To explore the application effect of a home enteral nutrition intervention program based on the “Stimulus-Organism-Response” model in patients with head and neck neoplasms.Methods:Using the convenient sampling method, a total of 84 patients with head and neck neoplasms who were treated in the Oral/Otolaryngology Department of the First Affiliated Hospital of Wenzhou Medical University from January to December 2019 were selected as the research objects. The patients were divided into the control group and the experimental group by random number table method, with 42 cases in each group. The control group received routine enteral nutrition nursing, while the experimental group implemented a home enteral nutrition interventions program based on the “Stimulus-Organism-Response” model. The score of the Home Enteral Nutrition Cognition Questionnaire, nutritional indexes, nutritional status and the score of the Tumor Patient Satisfaction Questionnaire were compared between the two groups.Results:After intervention, the score of Home Enteral Nutrition Cognition Questionnaire, body weight, albumin, prealbumin, transferrin, retinol binding protein, globulin and lymphocyte level of patients in the experimental group were all higher than those of the control group [ (26.04±3.12) vs. (23.76±3.61) , (60.24±5.35) vs. (57.25±5.54) kg, (37.34±3.24) vs. (35.22±3.45) g/L, (0.26±0.04) vs. (0.20±0.05) g/L, (2.62±0.08) vs. (2.37±0.10) g/L, (36.74±7.12) vs. (33.45±6.92) mg/L, (28.87±3.68) vs. (26.67±4.23) g/L, (1.72±0.30) vs. (1.49±0.33) ×10n 9/L], and the differences were statistically significant (n P<0.05) . The nutritional status of patients of the two groups after intervention was compared, and the difference was statistically significant (n P<0.05) . After intervention, the scores of health education, nursing skills, condition monitoring and communication dimensions of Tumor Patient Satisfaction Questionnaire in the experimental group were higher than those in the control group [ (4.25±0.65) vs. (3.21±0.78) , (4.15±0.77) vs. (3.76±0.64) , (4.17±0.70) vs. (3.82±0.68) , (4.27±0.54) vs. (3.65±0.82) ], and the differences were statistically significant (n P<0.05) .n Conclusions:Application of home enteral nutrition intervention program based on the “Stimulus-Body-Response” model in patients with head and neck neoplasms can improve nutritional awareness, improve nutritional indicators and nutritional status, and increase nursing satisfaction of patients, which is worthy of clinical promotion.