Lordick Florian, Gündel Harald, von Schilling Christoph, Würschmidt Florian, Leps Birgit, Sendler Andreas, Schüssler Jutta, Brandl Tobias, Peschel Christian, Sellschopp Almuth
III. Medizinische Klinik und Poliklinik, Klinikum rechts der Isar, TU München.
Med Klin (Munich). 2002 Aug 15;97(8):449-54. doi: 10.1007/s00063-002-1178-0.
To identify the target group for a structured educational group intervention in an acute cancer care setting, and to prove its effectiveness.
Cancer patients were given an opportunity to join an educational group intervention lasting 3 weeks (consisting of six times 1 hour). The intervention consisted of two major components: health education and coping skills. Participating patients (intervention group; n = 51) and nonparticipants (control group; n = 57) were evaluated at the beginning, then 2 months and 4 months later by means of standardized questionnaires (EORTC QLQ-C30, TSK, HADS, Henrich's FTP).
Lower social and educational status, nonurban residency, males, and unfavorable prognoses together with palliative treatment intention were found less frequently (p < 0.05) in the intervention group. In comparison to the control group, the intervention group patients were characterized by a significantly greater desire for information and by more treatment-related fear. Improvements in disease-specific knowledge, certain quality of life elements, and in coping occurred only in the intervention group. Increases in the incidence of depression were found only in the control group.
Patients with a more favorable prognosis, and a higher social and educational status, are more likely to get structured educational group intervention in an acute cancer care setting. For this subset of patients this intervention proves effective. Its importance for the standard care of cancer should be further investigated.
确定急性癌症护理环境中结构化教育小组干预的目标群体，并证明其有效性。
给予癌症患者参加为期3周（共6次，每次1小时）的教育小组干预的机会。该干预包括两个主要部分：健康教育和应对技巧。在干预开始时、2个月后和4个月后，通过标准化问卷（欧洲癌症研究与治疗组织核心生活质量问卷QLQ-C30、多伦多述情障碍量表TSK、医院焦虑抑郁量表HADS、亨里奇功能性应对问卷FTP）对参与患者（干预组；n = 51）和未参与患者（对照组；n = 57）进行评估。
干预组中社会和教育地位较低、非城市居住、男性以及预后不良且有姑息治疗意向的情况较少见（p < 0.05）。与对照组相比，干预组患者的特点是对信息的需求明显更大，且与治疗相关的恐惧更多。仅干预组患者在特定疾病知识、某些生活质量要素以及应对方面有所改善。仅对照组患者的抑郁发生率有所增加。
预后较好、社会和教育地位较高的患者在急性癌症护理环境中更有可能接受结构化教育小组干预。对于这部分患者，该干预被证明是有效的。其对癌症标准护理的重要性应进一步研究。
