Search

Aims and objectives: To observe the psychological status of pregnant women during COVID‐19 pandemic, and to test a hypothetical model that estimates the influence of psychological response to COVID‐19 and security sense on pregnancy stress. Background: COVID‐19 advanced rapidly and then spread worldwide. Pregnant women were more susceptible to the COVID‐19 infection. Furthermore, it is not clear whether this infection will increase the risk of congenital monstrosity, foetal growth restriction, premature delivery or cause other long‐term adverse effects. Design: A descriptive, cross‐sectional survey. Methods: A total of 331 pregnant women participated in this study. And this research adhered to the STROBE guideline. The psychological questionnaire for emergent events of public health, pregnancy stress scale and security questionnaire were used to collect data. The hypothetical path model was tested using the SPSS version 25.0 software and AMOS version 26.0 software. Results: Fear and depression were the most common psychological responses among pregnant women during the COVID‐19 pandemic. The hypothesis model of this study fitted the data well, and the results showed that psychological response positively affected pregnancy stress, while security sense negatively affected pregnancy stress; security sense mediated between psychological response and pregnancy stress. Conclusion: Nurses and midwives can help reduce the stress in pregnant women by alleviating their psychological response to the COVID‐19 pandemic and by improving their security sense. Relevance to clinical practice: It is essential for the health staff to build trust with pregnant women and their families, and communicate accurate information to them. Nurses should promptly conduct a psychological response evaluation and psychological guidance for pregnant women to alleviate their fears and hypochondria related to COVID‐19. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Aims and objectives To explore decisional conflict and its influencing factors on choosing dialysis modality in patients with end-stage renal diseases. The influencing factors investigated include demographics, predialysis education, dialysis knowledge, decision self-efficacy and social support. Background Making dialysis modality decisions can be challenging for patients with end-stage renal diseases; there are pros and cons to both haemodialysis and peritoneal dialysis. Patients are often uncertain as to which one will be the best alternative for them. This decisional conflict increases the likelihood of making a decision that is not based on the patient's values or preferences and may result in undesirable postdecisional consequences. Addressing factors predisposing patients to decisional conflict helps to facilitate informed decision-making and then to improve healthcare quality. Design A predictive correlational cross-sectional study design was used. Methods Seventy patients were recruited from the outpatient dialysis clinics of two general hospitals in Taiwan. Data were collected with study questionnaires, including questions on demographics, dialysis modality and predialysis education, the Dialysis Knowledge Scale, the Decision Self-Efficacy scale, the Social Support Scale, and the Decisional Conflict Scale. Results The mean score on the Decisional Conflict Scale was 29.26 ( SD = 22.18). Decision self-efficacy, dialysis modality, predialysis education, professional support and dialysis knowledge together explained 76.4% of the variance in decisional conflict. Conclusions Individuals who had lower decision self-efficacy, did not receive predialysis education on both haemodialysis and peritoneal dialysis, had lower dialysis knowledge and perceived lower professional support reported higher decisional conflict on choosing dialysis modality. Relevance to clinical practice When providing decisional support to predialysis stage patients, practitioners need to increase patients' decision self-efficacy, provide both haemodialysis and peritoneal dialysis predialysis education, increase dialysis knowledge and provide professional support. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Aims. The study aims to compare changes over time among three study groups on the primary outcome, pain, as well as on the secondary outcomes, other symptoms, activities of daily living function, sport and recreation function, knee-related quality of life, knee range of motions and the six-minute walk test and to investigate whether aquatic exercises would be superior compared with land exercise on pain reduction. Background. Osteoarthritis is a prevalent musculoskeletal disorder. Appropriate exercise may prevent osteoarthritis-associated disabilities and increase life quality. To date, research that compares the effects of different types of exercise for knee osteoarthritis has been limited. Design. The study is a randomised trial. Methods. Eighty-four participants with knee osteoarthritis were recruited from local community centres. Participants were randomly assigned to the control, aquatic or land-based exercise group. Exercise in both groups ran for 60 minutes, three times a week for 12 weeks. Data were collected at baseline, week 6 and week 12 during 2006-2007. The instruments included the Knee Injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score, a standard plastic goniometer and the six-minute walk test. Generalised estimation equations were used to compare changes over time among groups for key outcomes. Results. Results showed statistically significant group-by-time interactions in pain, symptoms, sport/recreation and knee-related quality of life dimensions of Knee Injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score, knee range of motions and the six-minute walk test. However, the aquatic group did not show any significant difference from the land group at both weeks 12 and 6. Conclusions. Both aquatic and land-based exercise programmes are effective in reducing pain, improving knee range of motions, six-minute walk test and knee-related quality of life in people with knee osteoarthritis. The aquatic exercise is not superior to land-based exercise in pain reduction. Relevance to clinical practice. Similar outcomes could be possible with the two programmes. Health care professionals may consider suggesting well-designed aquatic or land-based exercise classes for patients with osteoarthritis, based on their preferences and convenience. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]