Copyright
©The Author(s) 2025.
World J Gastrointest Surg. Aug 27, 2025; 17(8): 104784
Published online Aug 27, 2025. doi: 10.4240/wjgs.v17.i8.104784
Published online Aug 27, 2025. doi: 10.4240/wjgs.v17.i8.104784
Table 1 Comparison of psychological stress responses between the two groups (mean ± SD, score)
Group | Cases | Diligence | Self-improvement | Optimistic | ||||
Before | After | Before | After | Before | After | |||
Observation | 40 | 23.22 ± 1.08 | 30.14 ± 2.78 | 17.59 ± 1.11 | 23.42 ± 1.29 | 7.66 ± 0.74 | 12.78 ± 1.11 | |
Control | 40 | 23.57 ± 1.43 | 27.04 ± 2.15 | 17.36 ± 1.20 | 21.05 ± 1.34 | 7.59 ± 0.68 | 11.16 ± 1.04 | |
t | 1.235 | 5.579 | 0.890 | 8.059 | 0.441 | 6.736 | ||
P value | 0.220 | < 0.001 | 0.376 | < 0.001 | 0.661 | < 0.001 |
Table 2 Comparison of physiological stress responses between both groups (mean ± SD)
Group | Case | Heart rate (times/min) | MABP (kPa) | ||
24 hours before surgery | When awake after surgery | 24 hours before surgery | When awake after surgery | ||
Observation | 40 | 77.01 ± 3.56 | 78.36 ± 2.98 | 11.14 ± 1.02 | 12.06 ± 1.26 |
Control | 40 | 77.78 ± 3.50 | 81.14 ± 2.44 | 11.29 ± 1.14 | 13.45 ± 1.17 |
t | 0.975 | 4.565 | 0.620 | 5.113 | |
P value | 0.332 | < 0.001 | 0.537 | < 0.001 |
Table 3 Comparison of coping methods between the two groups (mean ± SD, score)
Group | Case | Face | Escape | Surrender | |||
Before | After | Before | After | Before | After | ||
Observation | 40 | 17.25 ± 1.40 | 23.64 ± 1.52 | 16.94 ± 1.24 | 12.11 ± 1.02 | 21.69 ± 2.63 | 15.32 ± 1.41 |
Control | 40 | 17.36 ± 1.29 | 20.06 ± 1.44 | 16.79 ± 1.30 | 13.59 ± 1.14 | 21.54 ± 2.44 | 17.05 ± 1.29 |
t | 0.365 | 10.814 | 0.528 | 6.119 | 0.264 | 5.725 | |
P value | 0.716 | < 0.001 | 0.599 | < 0.001 | 0.792 | < 0.001 |
Table 4 Comparison of two groups (mean ± SD, score)
Group | Case | HPLP-II | |
Before | After | ||
Observation | 40 | 104.25 ± 6.77 | 133.61 ± 10.25 |
Control | 40 | 104.39 ± 6.45 | 121.12 ± 10.16 |
t | 0.095 | 5.473 | |
P value | 0.925 | < 0.001 |
Table 5 Comparison of complication occurrence between the two groups, n (%)
Group | Case | Infection of incisional wound | Ventosity | Adhesive ileus | Total incidence |
Observation | 40 | 1 (2.50) | 0 (0.00) | 0 (0.00) | 1 (2.50) |
Control | 40 | 4 (10.00) | 4 (10.00) | 0 (0.00) | 8 (20.00) |
Correction χ2 | 4.507 | ||||
P value | 0.034 |
Table 6 Comparison of nursing satisfaction between the two groups, n (%)
Group | Case | Very satisfied | More satisfied | Commonly | Unsatisfied | Degree of satisfaction |
Observation | 40 | 19 (47.50) | 16 (40.00) | 3 (7.50) | 2 (5.00) | 38 (95.00) |
Control | 40 | 12 (30.00) | 14 (35.00) | 6 (15.00) | 8 (20.00) | 32 (80.00) |
χ2 | 4.114 | |||||
P value | 0.043 |
- Citation: Liu N, Tang J, Fang F, Yuan HJ, Huang L, Tan XY. Combined effects of nurse-patient communication and psychological nursing on physical and mental stress responses after gastrointestinal surgery. World J Gastrointest Surg 2025; 17(8): 104784
- URL: https://www.wjgnet.com/1948-9366/full/v17/i8/104784.htm
- DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.4240/wjgs.v17.i8.104784