BPG is committed to discovery and dissemination of knowledge
Randomized Controlled Trial
Copyright: ©Author(s) 2026.
World J Psychiatry. Nov 19, 2026; 16(11): 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 ± 8.2155.95 ± 7.820.4750.636
Sex0.2340.628
Male37 (75.51)39 (79.59)
Female12 (24.49)10 (20.41)
Disease duration (months)6.23 ± 2.115.91 ± 2.360.7080.481
Child–Pugh classification0.1920.661
Grade A34 (69.39)36 (73.41)
Grade B15 (30.61)13 (26.53)
CNLC stage0.0570.972
Stage IIb14 (28.57)15 (30.61)
Stage IIIa23 (46.94)22 (44.90)
Stage IIIb12 (24.49)12 (24.49)
ECOG score0.0490.825
0-1 point33 (67.35)34 (69.39)
2 points16 (32.65)15 (30.61)
Number of tumors0.1720.678
Single lesion20 (40.82)18 (36.73)
Multiple lesions29 (59.18)31 (63.27)
Maximum tumor diameter0.1720.678
< 5 cm18 (36.73)20 (40.82)
≥ 5 cm31 (63.27)29 (59.18)
Portal vein tumor thrombus0.1860.667
Present15 (30.61)17 (34.69)
Absent34 (69.39)32 (65.31)
Distant metastasis0.2720.602
Present8 (16.33)10 (20.41)
Absent41 (83.67)39 (79.59)
Type of targeted therapy0.1690.681
Sorafenib21 (42.86)19 (38.78)
Lenvatinib28 (57.14)30 (61.22)
Previous history of TACE0.0460.831
Yes17 (34.69)16 (32.65)
No32 (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
GroupCaseDT

NGASR

Before
After
Before
After
Control496.82 ± 1.354.91 ± 1.185.76 ± 1.424.23 ± 1.09
Observation496.79 ± 1.313.25 ± 0.925.71 ± 1.382.16 ± 0.81
t value0.1127.7660.17710.670
P value0.911< 0.0010.860< 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
GroupCaseSAS

SDS

Before
After
Before
After
Control4958.64 ± 7.2150.12 ± 6.3557.38 ± 6.9549.26 ± 6.12
Observation4958.27 ± 7.1642.35 ± 5.4857.01 ± 6.8841.53 ± 5.36
t value0.2556.4850.2656.651
P value0.799< 0.0010.792< 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 adherence21 (42.86)32 (65.31)
Partial adherence17 (34.69)15 (30.61)
Non-adherence11 (22.45)2 (4.08)
Treatment adherence rate38 (77.55)47 (95.92)7.1840.007
Nursing satisfaction
Very satisfied23 (46.94)34 (69.39)
Satisfied14 (28.57)13 (26.53)
Dissatisfied12 (24.49)2 (4.08)
Overall satisfaction rate37 (75.51)47 (95.92)8.3330.004
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 group492 (4.08)3 (6.12)4 (8.16)9 (18.37)
Observation group490 (0.00)1 (2.04)1 (2.04)2 (4.08)
χ² value5.018
P value0.025
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-1.1710.4780.310.12-0.780.014
Baseline DT score, per 1-point increase0.3920.1431.481.12-1.960.006
Advanced tumor stage, yes vs no0.9750.4742.651.05-6.720.040
Good family support, yes vs no-0.8680.4320.420.18-0.980.045
Model 2: High suicide risk at follow-up (NGASR ≥ 5)
Stepped psychological intervention vs control-1.3090.5540.270.09-0.790.018
Baseline NGASR score, per 1-point increase0.4760.1561.611.19-2.190.002
Advanced tumor stage, yes vs no1.1250.5403.081.07-8.890.037
Good family support, yes vs no-1.0220.4860.360.14-0.940.036


Write to the Help Desk