Copyright: ©Author(s) 2026.
World J Psychiatry. Nov 19, 2026; 16(11): 124191
Published online Nov 19, 2026. doi: 10.5498/wjp.124191
Published online Nov 19, 2026. doi: 10.5498/wjp.124191
Table 1 Comparison of baseline characteristics between the two groups, n (%)/mean ± SD
| Variable | Control group (n = 49) | Observation group (n = 49) | χ²/t value | P value |
| Age (years) | 56.72 ± 8.21 | 55.95 ± 7.82 | 0.475 | 0.636 |
| Sex | 0.234 | 0.628 | ||
| Male | 37 (75.51) | 39 (79.59) | ||
| Female | 12 (24.49) | 10 (20.41) | ||
| Disease duration (months) | 6.23 ± 2.11 | 5.91 ± 2.36 | 0.708 | 0.481 |
| Child–Pugh classification | 0.192 | 0.661 | ||
| Grade A | 34 (69.39) | 36 (73.41) | ||
| Grade B | 15 (30.61) | 13 (26.53) | ||
| CNLC stage | 0.057 | 0.972 | ||
| Stage IIb | 14 (28.57) | 15 (30.61) | ||
| Stage IIIa | 23 (46.94) | 22 (44.90) | ||
| Stage IIIb | 12 (24.49) | 12 (24.49) | ||
| ECOG score | 0.049 | 0.825 | ||
| 0-1 point | 33 (67.35) | 34 (69.39) | ||
| 2 points | 16 (32.65) | 15 (30.61) | ||
| Number of tumors | 0.172 | 0.678 | ||
| Single lesion | 20 (40.82) | 18 (36.73) | ||
| Multiple lesions | 29 (59.18) | 31 (63.27) | ||
| Maximum tumor diameter | 0.172 | 0.678 | ||
| < 5 cm | 18 (36.73) | 20 (40.82) | ||
| ≥ 5 cm | 31 (63.27) | 29 (59.18) | ||
| Portal vein tumor thrombus | 0.186 | 0.667 | ||
| Present | 15 (30.61) | 17 (34.69) | ||
| Absent | 34 (69.39) | 32 (65.31) | ||
| Distant metastasis | 0.272 | 0.602 | ||
| Present | 8 (16.33) | 10 (20.41) | ||
| Absent | 41 (83.67) | 39 (79.59) | ||
| Type of targeted therapy | 0.169 | 0.681 | ||
| Sorafenib | 21 (42.86) | 19 (38.78) | ||
| Lenvatinib | 28 (57.14) | 30 (61.22) | ||
| Previous history of TACE | 0.046 | 0.831 | ||
| Yes | 17 (34.69) | 16 (32.65) | ||
| No | 32 (65.31) | 33 (67.35) |
Table 2 Comparison of Distress Thermometer and Nurses’ Global Assessment of Suicide Risk scores before and after intervention between the two groups, mean ± SD
| Group | Case | DT | NGASR | ||
| Before | After | Before | After | ||
| Control | 49 | 6.82 ± 1.35 | 4.91 ± 1.18 | 5.76 ± 1.42 | 4.23 ± 1.09 |
| Observation | 49 | 6.79 ± 1.31 | 3.25 ± 0.92 | 5.71 ± 1.38 | 2.16 ± 0.81 |
| t value | 0.112 | 7.766 | 0.177 | 10.670 | |
| P value | 0.911 | < 0.001 | 0.860 | < 0.001 |
Table 3 Comparison of Self-Rating Anxiety Scale and Self-Rating Depression Scale scores before and after intervention between the two groups, mean ± SD
| Group | Case | SAS | SDS | ||
| Before | After | Before | After | ||
| Control | 49 | 58.64 ± 7.21 | 50.12 ± 6.35 | 57.38 ± 6.95 | 49.26 ± 6.12 |
| Observation | 49 | 58.27 ± 7.16 | 42.35 ± 5.48 | 57.01 ± 6.88 | 41.53 ± 5.36 |
| t value | 0.255 | 6.485 | 0.265 | 6.651 | |
| P value | 0.799 | < 0.001 | 0.792 | < 0.001 |
Table 4 Comparison of treatment adherence and nursing satisfaction between the two groups, n (%)
| Variable | Control group (n = 49) | Observation group (n = 49) | χ² value | P value |
| Treatment adherence | ||||
| Complete adherence | 21 (42.86) | 32 (65.31) | ||
| Partial adherence | 17 (34.69) | 15 (30.61) | ||
| Non-adherence | 11 (22.45) | 2 (4.08) | ||
| Treatment adherence rate | 38 (77.55) | 47 (95.92) | 7.184 | 0.007 |
| Nursing satisfaction | ||||
| Very satisfied | 23 (46.94) | 34 (69.39) | ||
| Satisfied | 14 (28.57) | 13 (26.53) | ||
| Dissatisfied | 12 (24.49) | 2 (4.08) | ||
| Overall satisfaction rate | 37 (75.51) | 47 (95.92) | 8.333 | 0.004 |
Table 5 Comparison of safety incident incidence rates between the two wards, n (%)
| Group | Cases (n) | Suicide attempt | Self-harm behavior | Extreme refusal of treatment | Total cases (incidence rate) |
| Control group | 49 | 2 (4.08) | 3 (6.12) | 4 (8.16) | 9 (18.37) |
| Observation group | 49 | 0 (0.00) | 1 (2.04) | 1 (2.04) | 2 (4.08) |
| χ² value | 5.018 | ||||
| P value | 0.025 |
Table 6 Multivariate logistic regression analysis of factors influencing psychological distress and suicide risk
| Outcome/predictor | B | SE | OR | 95%CI | P value |
| Model 1: Significant psychological distress at follow-up (DT ≥ 4) | |||||
| Stepped psychological intervention vs control | -1.171 | 0.478 | 0.31 | 0.12-0.78 | 0.014 |
| Baseline DT score, per 1-point increase | 0.392 | 0.143 | 1.48 | 1.12-1.96 | 0.006 |
| Advanced tumor stage, yes vs no | 0.975 | 0.474 | 2.65 | 1.05-6.72 | 0.040 |
| Good family support, yes vs no | -0.868 | 0.432 | 0.42 | 0.18-0.98 | 0.045 |
| Model 2: High suicide risk at follow-up (NGASR ≥ 5) | |||||
| Stepped psychological intervention vs control | -1.309 | 0.554 | 0.27 | 0.09-0.79 | 0.018 |
| Baseline NGASR score, per 1-point increase | 0.476 | 0.156 | 1.61 | 1.19-2.19 | 0.002 |
| Advanced tumor stage, yes vs no | 1.125 | 0.540 | 3.08 | 1.07-8.89 | 0.037 |
| Good family support, yes vs no | -1.022 | 0.486 | 0.36 | 0.14-0.94 | 0.036 |
- Citation: Yu HX, Huang CL, Zhu CJ, Zhao WW, Wang YY, Jin YM. Stepwise psychological intervention: Mitigated psychological distress and suicide risk in patients with liver cancer chemoembolization. World J Psychiatry 2026; 16(11): 124191
- URL: https://www.wjgnet.com/2220-3206/full/v16/i11/124191.htm
- DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.5498/wjp.124191