摘要
目的分析住院保胎孕妇的心理特点并观察针对性心理干预对其的干预效果。方法按随机数表法将方便选取2018年3月—2019年3月该院86例住院保胎孕妇分为针对性心理干预组(研究组,n=43)和常规组(n=43)。以简明心境问卷(POMS-SF)为心理状态评估依据,调查统计86例住院保胎孕妇的心理状况。比较两组干预前后心理状态(POMS-SF)及应对方式[医学应对方式问卷(MCMQ)]评分差异。结果86例住院保胎孕妇入院时表现为紧张-焦虑者75例(87.21%),抑郁-沮丧者72例(83.72%),疲乏-迟钝者15例(17.59%),迷惑-混乱者48例(55.81%)。研究组干预前后POMS-SF精力-活力、紧张-焦虑、迷惑-混乱、疲乏-迟钝、抑郁-沮丧、愤怒-敌意评分分别为[干预前:(11.72±1.81)分、(15.95±2.49)分、(11.95±2.56)分、(12.64±2.43)分、(15.39±2.95)分、(5.35±1.16)分;干预后:(16.54±3.32)分、(8.44±1.52)分、(8.21±1.21)分、(8.81±1.12)分、(7.23±1.44)分、(5.31±1.10)分],常规组分别为[干预前:(11.38±1.67)分、(16.33±2.62)分、(12.24±2.60)分、(12.28±2.27)分、(15.61±3.17)分、(5.17±1.03)分;干预后:(14.23±2.71)分、(10.63±1.94)分、(9.37±1.56)分、(10.36±1.43)分、(9.35±1.82)分、(5.04±0.98)分]。干预后,2组POMS-SF各负性分量表评分除愤怒-敌意无明显变化外(P>0.05),紧张-焦虑、迷惑-混乱、疲乏-迟钝、抑郁-沮丧评分均较干预前降低(研究组:t=24.562、13.011、14.149、24.378,P<0.05;常规组:t=16.394、9.048、6.806、16.453,P<0.05),且研究组低于常规组(t=5.827、3.853、5.596、5.990,P<0.05);2组精力-活力评分则均较干预前升高(研究组:t=12.322,P<0.05;常规组:t=8.534,P<0.05),且研究组高于常规组(t=3.535,P<0.05)。研究组干预前后MCMQ面对、回避、屈服评分分别为[干预前:(19.63±3.01)分、(16.27±3.07)分、(12.85±2.76)分;干预后:(26.54±4.43)分、(16.18±2.73)分、(10.57±1.65)分],常规组分别为[干预前:(19.42±2.76)分、(16.15±2.85)分、(13.07±3.01)分;干预后:(23.65±3.62)分、(16.46±3.15)分、(11.70±2.06)分]。干预后,两组MCMQ面对评分均较干预前升高(研究组:t=12.181,P<0.05;常规组:t=8.695,P<0.05),且研究组高于常规组(t=3.313,P<0.05);屈服评分均较干预前降低(研究组:t=6.780,P<0.05;常规组:t=3.544,P<0.05),且研究组低于常规组(t=2.807,P<0.05);回避评分组间及干预前后无明显变化(P>0.05)。结论住院保胎孕妇均存在不同程度的心理问题,予以针对性的心理干预有助于减轻其负面情绪,调整其应对方式,对提升保胎质量有一定意义。
Objective To analyze the psychological characteristics of hospitalized pregnant women and observe the intervention effect of targeted psychological intervention.Methods According to the random number table method,convenient election 86 hospitalized pregnant women in the hospital from March 2018 to March 2019 were divided into targeted psychological intervention group(study group,n=43)and routine group(n=43).Based on the Concise State of Mind Questionnaire(POMS-SF),the psychological status of 86 pregnant women who were hospitalized for pregnancy was investigated.The differences in psychological status(POMS-SF)and coping style[Medical Coping Style Questionnaire(MCMQ)]before and after intervention were compared.Results 86 hospitalized pregnant women presented with stress-anxiety in 75 cases(87.21%),depression-deficient 72 cases(83.72%),fatigue-dullness in 15 cases(17.59%),and confusion-disorder in 48 cases(55.81%).Before and after the intervention of the study group,POMS-SF energy-activity,stress-anxiety,confusion-disorder,fatigue-slowness,depression-frustration,anger-hostility score were[pre-intervention:(11.72±1.81)points,(15.95±2.49)points,(11.95±2.56)points,(12.64±2.43)points,(15.39±2.95)points,(5.35±1.16)points;after intervention:(16.54±3.32)points,(8.44±1.52)points,(8.21±1.21)points,(8.81±1.12)points,(7.23±1.44)points,(5.31±1.10)points],the conventional group were[pre-intervention:(11.38±1.67)points,(16.33±2.62)points,(12.24±2.60)points,(12.28±2.27)points,(15.61±3.17)points, (5.17±1.03)points;after intervention: (14.23±2.71)points, (10.63±1.94)points, (9.37±1.56)points, (10.36±1.43)points, (9.35±1.82)points, (5.04±0.98) points]. After the intervention, the scores of the negative subscales of the two groups of POMS-SF were not significantly different from the anger-hostility (P>0.05), and the stress-anxiety, confusion-disorder, fatigue-slowness, depression-frustration scores were lower than those before the intervention (P>0.05). Tension-anxiety,Confusion-disorder,fatigue-slwness,depression-frustration scores were lower than before intruention[Study groups: t=24.562, 13.011, 14.149, 24.378, P<0.05;conventional group: t=16.394, 9.948, 6.806, 16.453, P<0.05], and the study group was lower than the conventional group (t=5.827, 3.853, 5.596, 5.990, P<0.05);the energy-activity scores of the two groups were higher than before the intervention (study group: t=12.32, P<0.05;conventional group: t=8.534, P<0.05), and the study group was higher than Conventional group (t=3.535, P<0.05). MCMQ face, avoidance, and yield scores before and after intervention in the study group were [pre-intervention: (19.63±3.01)points, (16.27±3.07)points, (12.85±2.76)points;after intervention: (26.54±4.43)points, (16.18±2.73)points,(10.57±1.65) points], the conventional group were [pre-intervention: (19.42±2.76)points,(16.15±2.85)points,(13.07±3.01)points;after intervention: (23.65±3.62)points,(16.46±3.15)points,(11.70±2.06) points]. After intervention, the scores of MCMQ in both groups were higher than those before intervention(study group: t=12.181, P<0.05;routine group: t=8.695, P<0.05), and the study The group was higher than the conventional group (t=3.313, P<0.05);the yield score was lower than that before the intervention (study group: t=6.780, P<0.05;conventional group: t=3.544, P<0.05), and the study group was low. In the conventional group (t=2.807, P<0.05);there was no significant change between the avoidance score groups and before and after the intervention (P>0.05). Conclusion There are different degrees of psychological problems in hospitalized pregnant women. Targeted psychological intervention is helpful to alleviate their negative emotions and adjust their coping styles, which is of certain significance to improve the quality of fetal protection.
作者
周颖
ZHOU Ying(Department of Obstetrics,Women and Children's Hospital Affiliated to Xiamen University(Xiamen Maternal and Child Health Hospital),Xiamen,Fujian Province,361003 China)
出处
《中外医疗》
2019年第35期111-114,共4页
China & Foreign Medical Treatment
关键词
保胎
心理特点
干预策略
Fetal preservation
Psychological characteristics
Intervention strategies
