Schjolberg Tore Kr, Dodd Marylin, Henriksen Nils, Asplund Kenneth, Cvancarova Småstuen Milada, Rustoen Tone
Oslo and Akershus University College of Applied Sciences, Faculty of Health Sciences, Institute of Nursing, Norway.
Department of Physiological Nursing, University of California, San Francisco, CA, USA.
Eur J Oncol Nurs. 2014 Jun;18(3):286-94. doi: 10.1016/j.ejon.2014.01.008. Epub 2014 Mar 12.
This randomized controlled trial of outpatients with breast cancer (stage I or II) evaluated the effects of a 3-week educational intervention on patient levels of fatigue.
Norwegian outpatients were randomized into an intervention group (n = 79) and a control group (n = 81). Women with fatigue (>2.5 on a 0-10 numeric rating scale, NRS) completed the Fatigue Questionnaire (FQ) and the Lee Fatigue Scale (LFS) at baseline (after treatment) (T1), immediately after intervention (T2) and 3 months after intervention (T3).
The mean fatigue score (NRS) at study entry was 6.1 (SD 1.7) and 36% (n = 57) had a score ≥7. There were no statistically significant differences between the fatigue measures of women in the intervention and control group at T2 or T3 in the overall sample after the intervention. Using an NRS cut-off of 5, there was a borderline difference for women who scored <5 for chronic fatigue on FQ (p = 0.062) and a significant difference for energy on LFS (p = 0.042) where the women in the intervention group had less fatigue. Using an NRS cut-off score of 6, there was a borderline difference for women who scored <6 for fatigue on FQ (p = 0.062) and a significant difference for energy on LFS (p = 0.021) where women in the intervention group had more energy than those in the control group.
Further research is needed to identify psycho-educational interventions to reduce levels of fatigue and to tailor an intervention based on the level of fatigue. Fatigue measurements should be chosen more carefully.
本项针对乳腺癌(I期或II期)门诊患者的随机对照试验评估了为期3周的教育干预对患者疲劳水平的影响。
挪威门诊患者被随机分为干预组(n = 79)和对照组(n = 81)。疲劳程度(在0至10的数字评分量表上>2.5)的女性在基线期(治疗后)(T1)、干预结束后即刻(T2)以及干预后3个月(T3)完成疲劳问卷(FQ)和李氏疲劳量表(LFS)。
研究入组时的平均疲劳评分(数字评分量表)为6.1(标准差1.7),36%(n = 57)的患者评分≥7。干预后,总体样本中干预组和对照组女性在T2或T3时的疲劳测量指标无统计学显著差异。以数字评分量表5分为临界值,在FQ上慢性疲劳评分<5分的女性存在临界差异(p = 0.062),在LFS上能量维度存在显著差异(p = 0.042),干预组女性疲劳程度更低。以数字评分量表6分为临界值,在FQ上疲劳评分<6分的女性存在临界差异(p = 0.062),在LFS上能量维度存在显著差异(p = 0.021),干预组女性比对照组女性精力更充沛。
需要进一步研究以确定心理教育干预措施来降低疲劳水平,并根据疲劳程度量身定制干预方案。应更谨慎地选择疲劳测量方法。