The Effects Of Nutrition Education On Nutritional Status And Life Quality Of Nasopharyngeal Carcinoma Patients

Objective:The nutrition education is applied to nasopharyngeal carcinoma patients,so as to explore its impact on nutritional risk,nutritional status and life quality of these patients.Methods:The 89 patients with nasopharyngeal carcinoma treated in Affiliated Tumor Hospital of a tertiary general hospital in Guizhou Province from November 2017 to June 2018 were randomly divided into the control group of 43 cases and the intervention group of 46 cases.The control group was given routine care,while the intervention group was given nutrition education on the basis of routine care.The nutritional risk,nutritional status and life quality of the intervention groups during hospitalization and after discharge were analyzed and compared.Results:89 cases are included in total.For the intervention group: 7 cases were shedded during the implementation,39 cases are included;While for the control group,2 cases were shedded,and 41 cases are included in total.There was no significant difference in the basic data(P>0.05).And the results are displayed as following:1.NRS 2002 score and the proportion changes of with and without nutrition riskComparing the NRS 2002 score of intervention group in different time: admission and discharge time,discharge and follow-up visit in the third month,the sixth month after discharge.The difference is statistically significant(P<0.01).For proportion changes between with and without nutrition risk of intervention group at different time,discharge and follow-up visit in the sixth month,The difference is statistically significant(P<0.05),Other results are proved of no significant difference(P>0.05).Comparing the NRS 2002 score and the proportion of with and without nutrition risk in the control group at different time: admission and discharge time,discharge and follow-up visit in the first month,the third month,the sixth month after discharge.The difference is statistically significant(P<0.01).After comparison of two groups in different time in NRS 2002 score and the proportion changes of with and without nutrition risk: in discharge is statistically significant(P<0.05).2.PG-SGA score and nutritional status ratio changeComparing the PG-SGA scores of intervention group in different time: Admission comparisons with discharge;Discharge comparisons with follow-up visit in the first month,the third month,the sixth month;Follow-up in the first month comparisons with the third month,the sixth month.The difference is statistically significant(P<0.01).And the comparison of nutritional status in different time: admission comparisons with the discharge time and follow-up visit in the first month,the sixth month;discharge comparisons with the follow-up visit in the first month,the third month,the sixth month;Follow-up in the first month comparisons with the third month,the sixth month.The difference is statistically significant(P<0.05).Comparing the PG-SGA scores of control group in different time: Admission comparisons with discharge,follow-up visit in the first month;Discharge comparisons with follow-up visit in the first month,the third month,the sixth month.The difference is statistically significant(P<0.05).And the comparison of nutritional status in different time:Admission comparisons with discharge,follow-up visit in the first month and the third month,the sixth month;Discharge comparisons with follow-up visit in the first month,the third month,the sixth month.The difference is statistically significant(P<0.05).Comparing the PG-SGA score and nutritional status ratio change of two groups in different time.The PG-SGA score at the time of discharge,follow-up visit in the first month,the third month and the sixth month.The difference is statistically significant(P<0.01).The proportion of nutritional status at follow-up visit in the first month,the third month and the sixth month.The difference is statistically significant(P<0.05).3.The change of life qualityThere was no significant difference in quality of life between the two groups at admission(P>0.05).when it comes to discharge,the role function(RF),emotional function(EF),social function(SF),general health status(QL),fatigue(FA)in the symptom area,nausea and vomiting(NV),insomnia(SL)in a single field,loss of appetite(AP),constipation(CO),the difference was statistically significant(P<0.05).In all field,role function(RF),emotional function(EF),total health status(QL),insomnia(SL),constipation(CO)time effect,treatment effect,interaction effect are statistically significant(P< 0.05);The time effect and treatment effect of cognitive function(CF),fatigue(FA),nausea and vomiting(NV),and loss of appetite(AP)are statistically significant(P<0.05).The time effect and interaction effect of physical function(PF)are statistically significant(P<0.05);there is only a treatment effect in short of breath(DY),and only time effect in financial difficulty(FI)(P<0.05).Conclusion:Nutrition education can effectively reduce the nutritional risk score and slow down the incidence of nutritional risk;It also can reduce the progress of adverse nutritional status or keep the nutritional status of the body relatively stable,control or alleviate the factors affecting the quality of life,improve the life quality of patients.Nutrition education has a direct correlation between the nutritional risk,nutritional status,life quality improvement of patients and the time of intervention.