Application value of self-efficacy management during perioperative period in patients with inguinal hernia

doi:10.3877/cma.j.issn.1674-392X.2023.06.024

Abstract

Abstract:

Objective

To explore the application value of self-efficacy management combined with rational emotion regulation in patients with indirect inguinal hernia during perioperative period of transabdominal preperitoneal hernia repair (TAPP).

Methods

In the prospective study, 100 patients with indirect inguinal hernia undergoing TAPP in the Second Affiliated Hospital of Soochow University (General Hospital of Nuclear Industry ) were enrolled between January 2020 and June 2022. According to admission order and comparability of basic data between groups, they were divided into control group (between January 2020 and September 2021, given routine surgical nursing) and observation group (between October 2021 and June 2022, given self-efficacy management combined with rational emotion regulation), 50 cases in each group. The changes of self-efficacy, coping styles and emotions in the two groups were observed. The degree of postoperative pain, recovery and complications was compared between the two groups.

Results

After intervention, scores of General Self-Efficacy Scale (GSES) and Simple Coping style Questionnaire (SCSQ)-positive in observation group were higher than those in control group, while score of SCSQ-negative was lower than that in control group (P<0.05). The scores of Hospital Anxiety and Depression Assessment Scale (HADS) in observation group were lower than those in control group (P<0.05). Scores of numerical rating scale (NRS) 6h and 24h after surgery in observation group were lower than those in control group (P<0.05). The postoperative exhaust time, leaving bed time and hospitalization time in observation group were shorter than those in control group (P<0.05). There was no significant difference in the incidence of postoperative complications between observation group and control group (4.00% vs 10.00%, P>0.05).

Conclusion

Self-efficacy management combined with rational emotion regulation can effectively improve self-efficacy, change coping styles, improve negative emotions and promote postoperative recovery in patients with indirect inguinal hernia.

Key words: Self-efficacy management, Rational emotion regulation, Hernia, inguinal, Indirect hernia, Laparoscopes, Herniorrhaphy, Perioperative period, Nursing

Qingqing Zhu, Zhenqi Wei. Application value of self-efficacy management during perioperative period in patients with inguinal hernia[J]. Chinese Journal of Hernia and Abdominal Wall Surgery(Electronic Edition), 2023, 17(06): 773-777.

/ / Recommend

Add to citation manager EndNote|Ris|BibTeX

URL: https://zhshfbwkzz.cma-cmc.com.cn/EN/10.3877/cma.j.issn.1674-392X.2023.06.024

https://zhshfbwkzz.cma-cmc.com.cn/EN/Y2023/V17/I06/773

Figures/Tables 5

References 21

[1]	朱立军, 戴旭东, 庄海文, 等. 腹腔镜疝修补术治疗单侧腹股沟斜疝的临床效果[J]. 腹腔镜外科杂志, 2022, 27(9): 659-662.
[2]	窦梦, 罗彩红, 魏群英. 音乐点播干预联合精细化护理对腹腔镜腹膜前腹股沟疝修补术患者的影响[J]. 齐鲁护理杂志, 2021, 27(6): 99-101.
[3]	王云, 张艳珂, 桂文虎, 等. 术前焦虑对术后疼痛的影响研究进展[J]. 新乡医学院学报, 2022, 39(10): 996-1000.
[4]	俞蕾蕾, 阮洪, 夏滴, 等. 自我效能理论主导的居家康复方案在颞下颌关节盘复位术后的应用效果[J]. 上海交通大学学报(医学版), 2023, 43(5): 532-539.
[5]	黄彩娟, 赵小强. 理性情绪治疗联合微课教育对髓系白血病患者负面情绪的影响[J]. 国际精神病学杂志, 2022, 49(1): 172-174, 190.
[6]	唐健雄, 李航宇. 老年腹股沟疝诊断和治疗中国专家共识(2019版)解读[J]. 临床外科杂志, 2020, 28(1): 12-15.
[7]	中华医学会外科学分会疝与腹壁外科学组. 青年腹股沟疝诊断和治疗中国专家共识(2020版)[J]. 中国实用外科杂志, 2020, 40(7): 754-757.
[8]	胡象岭, 田春凤, 孙方尽. 中文版一般自我效能量表的信度和效度检验[J]. 心理学探新, 2014, 34(1): 53-56.
[9]	朱宇航, 郭继志, 罗盛, 等. 简易应对方式问卷在老年人群体中的修订及信效度检验[J]. 中国卫生统计, 2016, 33(4): 660-664.
[10]	Zigmond AS, Snaith RP. The hospital anxiety and depression scale[J]. Acta Psychiatr Scand, 1983, 67(6): 361-370.
[11]	Young IA PT, DSc, Dunning J PT, et al. Reliability, construct validity, and responsiveness of the neck disability index and numeric pain rating scale in patients with mechanical neck pain without upper extremity symptoms[J]. Physiother Theory Pract, 2019, 35(12): 1328-1335.
[12]	Simons MP, Aufenacker T, Bay-Nielsen M, et al. European Hernia Society guidelines on the treatment of inguinal hernia in adult patients[J]. Hernia, 2009, 13(4): 343-403.
[13]	高金海, 郭邦振. TAPP术对腹股沟疝患者术后疼痛及生活质量的影响[J]. 贵州医药, 2022, 46(12): 1875-1877.
[14]	王刚, 杜强, 樊林. TAPP术和开放式无张力疝修补术在腹股沟疝治疗中的应用价值[J]. 检验医学与临床, 2022, 19(7): 913-917.
[15]	王刘曼, 刘星, 付波. 基于循证的围术期管理在腹腔镜全腹膜外腹股沟疝修补术中的应用[J]. 中国现代普通外科进展, 2021, 24(8): 617-620, 625.
[16]	邓雁, 余琼, 武福姣, 等. 基于自我效能理论的护理干预对食管癌根治术后患者的影响[J]. 中华护理杂志, 2022, 57(9): 1042-1048.
[17]	刘杨, 付伟, 李倩, 等. 理性情绪行为疗法对胸外科术后阻塞性睡眠呼吸暂停患者不良情绪及预后的影响[J]. 中华现代护理杂志, 2021, 27(27): 3736-3740.
[18]	宋涛. 手术室综合护理对缓解急性阑尾炎患者疼痛感舒适度及满意度的影响[J]. 山西医药杂志, 2021, 50(3): 471-473.
[19]	倪荔, 张伟英, 汤舟青, 等. 快速康复理念对行腹股沟疝腹腔镜手术患者自我效能的影响[J/OL]. 中华疝和腹壁外科杂志(电子版), 2020, 14(6): 665-668.
[20]	刘铮, 孙雪峰, 吴成四, 等. 快速康复理念对腹腔镜腹股沟疝手术效果影响研究[J]. 临床军医杂志, 2020, 48(7): 817-818.
[21]	吴敏芝, 潘艳芳, 邓金桃, 等. 快速康复外科护理对腹股沟疝患者术后胃肠道功能恢复和疼痛程度的影响[J]. 中西医结合护理(中英文), 2021, 7(5): 133-135.

组别	例数	性别		年龄(岁,±s)	体重指数(kg/m²,±s)	疝分型^[12]			文化程度
组别	例数	男性	女性	年龄(岁,±s)	体重指数(kg/m²,±s)	Ⅰ	Ⅱ	Ⅲ	小学	初中	高中	大专及以上
观察组	50	46(92.00)	4(8.00)	45.98±10.16	23.54±2.32	15(30.00)	18(36.00)	17(34.00)	6(12.00)	15(30.00)	19(38.00)	10(20.00)
对照组	50	47(94.00)	3(6.00)	46.42±9.97	24.06±2.26	16(32.00)	17(34.00)	17(34.00)	5(10.00)	16(32.00)	18(36.00)	11(22.00)
t/χ²		-^△		0.219	1.135	0.061			0.198
P		1.000^*		0.827	0.259	0.970			0.978

组别	例数	性别		年龄(岁,±s)	体重指数(kg/m²,±s)	疝分型^[12]			文化程度
组别	例数	男性	女性	年龄(岁,±s)	体重指数(kg/m²,±s)	Ⅰ	Ⅱ	Ⅲ	小学	初中	高中	大专及以上
观察组	50	46(92.00)	4(8.00)	45.98±10.16	23.54±2.32	15(30.00)	18(36.00)	17(34.00)	6(12.00)	15(30.00)	19(38.00)	10(20.00)
对照组	50	47(94.00)	3(6.00)	46.42±9.97	24.06±2.26	16(32.00)	17(34.00)	17(34.00)	5(10.00)	16(32.00)	18(36.00)	11(22.00)
t/χ²		-^△		0.219	1.135	0.061			0.198
P		1.000^*		0.827	0.259	0.970			0.978

组别	例数	一般自我效能感量表			简易应对方式问卷-积极			简易应对方式问卷-消极
组别	例数	干预前	干预后	干预前后差值	干预前	干预后	干预前后差值	干预前	干预后	干预前后差值
观察组	50	21.36±1.12	25.18±1.31^*	3.78±0.98	9.18±1.26	16.32±2.23^*	7.21±1.12	10.89±1.23	8.16±1.14^*	2.69±0.67
对照组	50	21.24±1.29	23.63±1.14^*	2.41±0.87	8.92±1.17	13.24±2.19^*	4.29±0.95	11.17±2.21	9.36±1.21^*	1.86±0.34
t		0.810	6.311	7.392	1.069	6.968	14.059	0.783	5.104	7.811
P		0.420	<0.001	<0.001	0.288	<0.001	<0.001	0.436	<0.001	<0.001

组别	例数	一般自我效能感量表			简易应对方式问卷-积极			简易应对方式问卷-消极
组别	例数	干预前	干预后	干预前后差值	干预前	干预后	干预前后差值	干预前	干预后	干预前后差值
观察组	50	21.36±1.12	25.18±1.31^*	3.78±0.98	9.18±1.26	16.32±2.23^*	7.21±1.12	10.89±1.23	8.16±1.14^*	2.69±0.67
对照组	50	21.24±1.29	23.63±1.14^*	2.41±0.87	8.92±1.17	13.24±2.19^*	4.29±0.95	11.17±2.21	9.36±1.21^*	1.86±0.34
t		0.810	6.311	7.392	1.069	6.968	14.059	0.783	5.104	7.811
P		0.420	<0.001	<0.001	0.288	<0.001	<0.001	0.436	<0.001	<0.001

组别	例数	医院焦虑抑郁评估量表-A			医院焦虑抑郁评估量表-D
组别	例数	干预前	干预后	干预前后差值	干预前	干预后	干预前后差值
观察组	50	16.14±1.25	9.65±1.26^*	6.14±1.06	15.36±1.68	8.36±1.41^*	6.49±1.21
对照组	50	16.35±1.34	10.98±1.52^*	5.52±1.13	15.42±1.53	9.89±1.26^*	5.56±1.16
t		0.810	4.763	2.830	0.187	5.721	3.923
P		0.420	<0.001	0.006	0.852	<0.001	<0.001

Please choose a citation manager

Content to export