The Application Effect of Evidence-Based Targeted Nursing in Severe Preeclamptic Women and Its Impact on Maternal Psychological Status, Quality of Life, and Maternal-Infant Outcomes.
{"title":"The Application Effect of Evidence-Based Targeted Nursing in Severe Preeclamptic Women and Its Impact on Maternal Psychological Status, Quality of Life, and Maternal-Infant Outcomes.","authors":"Wei Yan, Ying Zhou","doi":"","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>To analyze the application effect of evidence-based targeted nursing in severe preeclamptic women and its impact on maternal psychological status, quality of life, and maternal-infant outcomes.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A retrospective analysis was conducted on clinical data of 97 severe preeclamptic patients admitted to our hospital from June 2021 to June 2023. All patients met the complete inclusion and exclusion criteria. Based on the different nursing intervention plans received by the patients, they were divided into a control group (n=47) and an observation group (n=50). Patients in the control group received routine nursing intervention, while patients in the observation group received evidence-based targeted nursing. A comparison was made between the two groups in terms of levels of psychological status indicators, quality of life, maternal pregnancy outcomes, neonatal outcomes, Apgar scores, and nursing satisfaction.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>(1) Psychological status indicators: Before the intervention, the two groups had no significant difference in EPDS scores and SAS scores (P > .05). After the intervention, the EPDS scores and SAS scores in the observation group were significantly lower than those in the control group (P < .05, effect size d = 0.65 for EPDS scores and d = 0.72 for SAS scores), indicating a substantial reduction in depression and anxiety levels. (2) Quality of life: Before the intervention, there was no significant difference in the scores for health status, physiological function, and mental status between the two groups (P > .05). After the intervention, the scores for health status, physiological function, and mental status in the observation group were significantly higher than in the control group (P < .05, effect size d = 0.58 for health status, d = 0.63 for physiological function, and d = 0.61 for mental status), suggesting a notable improvement in the overall quality of life for patients. (3) Maternal pregnancy outcomes: The incidence of adverse pregnancy outcomes in the control group was 42.55%, while in the observation group, it was 18.00%. The incidence of adverse pregnancy outcomes in the observation group was significantly lower than in the control group (P < .05, effect size d = 0.82), indicating a substantial reduction in adverse outcomes. (4) Neonatal outcomes and Apgar scores: The incidence of adverse neonatal outcomes in the control group was 46.81%, with an Apgar score of (7.13±1.05), while in the observation group, it was 22.00%, with an Apgar score of (7.96±1.17). The incidence of adverse neonatal outcomes in the observation group was significantly lower, and the Apgar scores were significantly higher than those in the control group (P < .05, effect size d = 0.73 for adverse neonatal outcomes, and d = 0.68 for Apgar scores), indicating improved neonatal outcomes. (5) Nursing satisfaction: The nursing satisfaction in the control group was 80.85%, whereas in the observation group, it was 96.00%. The nursing satisfaction in the observation group was significantly higher than that in the control group (P < .05, effect size d = 0.86), reflecting a higher level of satisfaction with the evidence-based targeted nursing intervention.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Evidence-based targeted nursing intervention in severe preeclamptic women demonstrates significant benefits in improving maternal psychological well-being, quality of life, and maternal-infant outcomes. The intervention effectively reduces depression and anxiety levels, enhances overall quality of life, and reduces the incidence of adverse pregnancy and neonatal outcomes. The use of personalized care plans and enhanced patient education may contribute to these positive outcomes. Furthermore, evidence-based targeted nursing intervention promotes higher levels of nursing satisfaction and fosters better doctor-patient relationships. These findings highlight the importance of implementing evidence-based targeted nursing as a standard approach in the management of severe preeclampsia, ultimately improving the holistic care and well-being of both mothers and infants.</p>","PeriodicalId":7571,"journal":{"name":"Alternative therapies in health and medicine","volume":" ","pages":"414-421"},"PeriodicalIF":1.9000,"publicationDate":"2025-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Alternative therapies in health and medicine","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"INTEGRATIVE & COMPLEMENTARY MEDICINE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Objective: To analyze the application effect of evidence-based targeted nursing in severe preeclamptic women and its impact on maternal psychological status, quality of life, and maternal-infant outcomes.
Methods: A retrospective analysis was conducted on clinical data of 97 severe preeclamptic patients admitted to our hospital from June 2021 to June 2023. All patients met the complete inclusion and exclusion criteria. Based on the different nursing intervention plans received by the patients, they were divided into a control group (n=47) and an observation group (n=50). Patients in the control group received routine nursing intervention, while patients in the observation group received evidence-based targeted nursing. A comparison was made between the two groups in terms of levels of psychological status indicators, quality of life, maternal pregnancy outcomes, neonatal outcomes, Apgar scores, and nursing satisfaction.
Results: (1) Psychological status indicators: Before the intervention, the two groups had no significant difference in EPDS scores and SAS scores (P > .05). After the intervention, the EPDS scores and SAS scores in the observation group were significantly lower than those in the control group (P < .05, effect size d = 0.65 for EPDS scores and d = 0.72 for SAS scores), indicating a substantial reduction in depression and anxiety levels. (2) Quality of life: Before the intervention, there was no significant difference in the scores for health status, physiological function, and mental status between the two groups (P > .05). After the intervention, the scores for health status, physiological function, and mental status in the observation group were significantly higher than in the control group (P < .05, effect size d = 0.58 for health status, d = 0.63 for physiological function, and d = 0.61 for mental status), suggesting a notable improvement in the overall quality of life for patients. (3) Maternal pregnancy outcomes: The incidence of adverse pregnancy outcomes in the control group was 42.55%, while in the observation group, it was 18.00%. The incidence of adverse pregnancy outcomes in the observation group was significantly lower than in the control group (P < .05, effect size d = 0.82), indicating a substantial reduction in adverse outcomes. (4) Neonatal outcomes and Apgar scores: The incidence of adverse neonatal outcomes in the control group was 46.81%, with an Apgar score of (7.13±1.05), while in the observation group, it was 22.00%, with an Apgar score of (7.96±1.17). The incidence of adverse neonatal outcomes in the observation group was significantly lower, and the Apgar scores were significantly higher than those in the control group (P < .05, effect size d = 0.73 for adverse neonatal outcomes, and d = 0.68 for Apgar scores), indicating improved neonatal outcomes. (5) Nursing satisfaction: The nursing satisfaction in the control group was 80.85%, whereas in the observation group, it was 96.00%. The nursing satisfaction in the observation group was significantly higher than that in the control group (P < .05, effect size d = 0.86), reflecting a higher level of satisfaction with the evidence-based targeted nursing intervention.
Conclusion: Evidence-based targeted nursing intervention in severe preeclamptic women demonstrates significant benefits in improving maternal psychological well-being, quality of life, and maternal-infant outcomes. The intervention effectively reduces depression and anxiety levels, enhances overall quality of life, and reduces the incidence of adverse pregnancy and neonatal outcomes. The use of personalized care plans and enhanced patient education may contribute to these positive outcomes. Furthermore, evidence-based targeted nursing intervention promotes higher levels of nursing satisfaction and fosters better doctor-patient relationships. These findings highlight the importance of implementing evidence-based targeted nursing as a standard approach in the management of severe preeclampsia, ultimately improving the holistic care and well-being of both mothers and infants.
期刊介绍：
Launched in 1995, Alternative Therapies in Health and Medicine has a mission to promote the art and science of integrative medicine and a responsibility to improve public health. We strive to maintain the highest standards of ethical medical journalism independent of special interests that is timely, accurate, and a pleasure to read. We publish original, peer-reviewed scientific articles that provide health care providers with continuing education to promote health, prevent illness, and treat disease. Alternative Therapies in Health and Medicine was the first journal in this field to be indexed in the National Library of Medicine. In 2006, 2007, and 2008, ATHM had the highest impact factor ranking of any independently published peer-reviewed CAM journal in the United States—meaning that its research articles were cited more frequently than any other journal’s in the field.
Alternative Therapies in Health and Medicine does not endorse any particular system or method but promotes the evaluation and appropriate use of all effective therapeutic approaches. Each issue contains a variety of disciplined inquiry methods, from case reports to original scientific research to systematic reviews. The editors encourage the integration of evidence-based emerging therapies with conventional medical practices by licensed health care providers in a way that promotes a comprehensive approach to health care that is focused on wellness, prevention, and healing. Alternative Therapies in Health and Medicine hopes to inform all licensed health care practitioners about developments in fields other than their own and to foster an ongoing debate about the scientific, clinical, historical, legal, political, and cultural issues that affect all of health care.
分享
京公网安备 11010802042870号
京ICP备2023020795号-1
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：
扫码关注我们
