The aim of this study was to examine the quality of life and to report on the utility and QALY measures in patients before and after coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG); to investigate whether the SF-12 is comparable with the SF-36 for measuring health-related quality of life of patients with CABG; and to determine the impact of individual predictors on poor quality of life assessment after rehabilitation. This prospective study was conducted between January 2017 and December 2018 at the University Hospital Center Osijek, at three time points: pre-operation, 1 month after surgery, and after rehabilitation. The study was conducted with the SF-36 and SF-12 health questionnaires on 47 participants. After rehabilitation, there was a significant improvement in all domains of quality of life. The highest score was given to the change in pain (BP); mean scores were 63.8 (95% CI 56.9 to 70.6) (p = 0.001). The lowest grade (the lowest quality) after rehabilitation was in the domain of limitations due to physical difficulties (RP); arithmetic mean was 48.5 (95% CI 41 to 55.9) (p < 0.001). Quality-adjusted life-year was 0.41 (95% CI 0.38–0.44) after the CABG. The results of this study show that patients with coronary heart disease have poor quality of life before surgery. One month after the surgery, the quality of life improved, but was still inadequate. One year after surgery, satisfactory results were obtained in almost all subscales. The SF-36, SF-12, and its components, can be used effectively in patients with CABG. Age, gender, lifestyle, and risk factors in our sample of participants are not predictors of poor quality of life assessment after rehabilitation.
Core self-evaluation (CSE) is a theory that includes four personality dimensions: selfesteem, self-efficacy, locus of control and emotional stability. CSE proved to be a significant predictor of the research on cognitive, emotional and behavioral responses across various situations in the workplace. The aim of this study was to examine the relationship between personality traits of the core self-evaluation and clinical decision-making in nurses' profession. A cross-sectional design was applied. Data was collected with standardized instruments: Core Self-Evaluation Scale and Clinical Decision-Making Nurses Scale, 584 nurses have participated in the study. Correlation and hierarchical regression analysis were used to test the relations and prediction of variables. The findings of the study revealed that there is a significant positive relationship between overall core self-evaluation and nurses' clinical decision-making, and there is a significant contribution of self-esteem, self-efficacy and locus of control on all dimensions of clinical decision, especially in the area of canvassing of objectives and values. Nurses with high CSE have positive self-views and tend to be confident in their ability and they also feel in control while performing nursing interventions, whereas those with low CSE tend to have fewer accessible positive resources and are more prone to risk aversion.
The aim of this study is to examine the influence of nurses’ self-concept (NSC) on clinical decision-making (CDM) among nursing students and hospital nurses. A further aim is to examine whether there is a difference in CDM and NSC between hospital nurses with various levels of experience and nursing students. A cross-sectional study was conducted during 2018 in the Faculty of Dental Medicine and Health and the University Hospital Center, in Osijek, Croatia, EU. The respondents consisted of 568 hospital nurses, and 129 BSc nursing students. Data were collected with the clinical decision-making in nursing scale (CDMNS) and the nurses’ self-concept questionnaire (NSCQ). There was no correlation between CDM and NSC in either students or hospital nurses. Hospital nurses generally had significantly higher scores in CDM than nursing students. On the other hand, students had a significantly higher total NSC level. The results of this study suggest that experience has a positive impact on nurses’ CDM skills. The high NSC estimated by students enables them to easily take up their clinical roles and approach the patient in a holistic manner, which is an attitude that gradually develops during studies and with clinical experience.
Background: The aim of this study was to examine the impact of education, coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), and risk factors on the quality of life in patients with type 2 diabetes. Methods: A prospective study was conducted in three phases: before education, after education, and in the period of pandemic coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). The subjects were diabetics on oral therapy. To determine the quality of life index, a standardized Ferrans and Powers survey questionnaire was used. Results: A total of 205 participants took part in the study, of which 111 (54.1%) were men and 94 (46%) women. Participants were enrolled in the study between January 2019 and September 2020. Glycated hemoglobin values were significantly higher before education compared to post-education and at the time of COVID-19 (Friedman test, p = 0.002), and body mass index was significantly lower after education compared to values before education (Friedman test, p = 0.008). The quality of life was significantly lower in all domains in the COVID-19 period (Friedman test, p < 0.001). Conclusions: A significant predictor of worse assessment of overall quality of life was male gender and rural place of residence. Disease duration of up to 5 years was a significant predictor of worse assessment in the psychological/spiritual domain, while being married was a predictor of better assessment of the quality of life in the family domain. The education of diabetics brought an increase in the health and quality of life while the coronavirus disease pandemic had negative consequences on the same parameters. We consider it necessary to systematically educate diabetics about the comorbidity of COVID-19.
BackgroundMeasuring the quality of life (QoL) of women with breast cancer is an important aspect of measuring treatment success. In Croatia, no QoL studies have been carried out with a focus on patients after mastectomy. The aim of this study was to examine QoL 1 month and 1 year after mastectomy.MethodsThis cross-sectional single-center study of quality of life was conducted in 101 patients, 50 of whom had undergone a mastectomy 1 month prior, and 51 of whom had undergone a mastectomy 1 year prior. The study was conducted from July 2015 to June 2016. The questionnaires used in the study were developed by the European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC). The questionnaire EORTC QLQ-C30 assesses the QoL of cancer patients, and the questionnaire EORTC QLQ-BR23 is a disease-specific breast cancer module. A chi square test, Fisher’s exact test, Kolmogorov-Smirnov test, Student’s t-test and Mann-Whitney U test were performed in the statistical analysis using the statistical program SPSS (Inc. Released 2008. SPSS Statistics for Windows, Version 17.0. Chicago: SPSS Inc.).ResultsPatients who had undergone a mastectomy a year earlier placed a higher value on their health state than did those who had undergone a mastectomy a month earlier. The most affected values of functional status on the EORTC QLQ-C30 scale were emotional functioning (37.5 [95% CI 33.3–61.6]) and sexual functioning (16.67 [95% CI 0–33.3]) 1 month and 1 year after mastectomy, respectively. The most affected symptoms on the EORTC QLQ-C30 scale were hair loss 66.67 [95% CI 33.3–100]) and fatigue 33.33 [95% CI 24–44]) 1 month and 1 year after mastectomy, respectively.ConclusionIn our study, both functional and symptom scales were more affected in women 1 month after mastectomy. QoL was considerably improved in women 1 year after the surgery compared to 1 month after mastectomy. The results of this study could contribute to the public awareness of the QoL of breast cancer patients.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.