Personalized and continuous care intervention affects rehabilitation, living quality, and negative emotions of patients with breast cancer

Table 1 Comparison of the general data between the routing and intervention groups

Data	Routing group (n = 134)	Intervention group (n = 66)	t/χ2/Z	P value
Age (yr, mean ± SD)	43.75 ± 7.15	45.39 ± 4.67	1.954	0.052
BMI (kg/m2, mean ± SD)	23.40 ± 1.23	23.59 ± 1.84	0.747	0.457
Marital status [n (%)]			0.186	0.918
Spinsterhood	7 (5.22)	4 (6.06)
Married	106 (79.11)	53 (80.30)
Divorced/widowed	21 (15.67)	9 (13.64)
Cultural levels [n (%)]			0.154	0.878
Junior school or below	25 (18.66)	11 (16.67)
High school/technical secondary school	76 (56.72)	39 (59.09)
College or higher	33 (24.62)	16 (24.24)
Sources of treatment costs [n (%)]			3.890	0.149
Fee	22 (16.42)	8 (12.12)
Medical insurance	96 (71.64)	55 (83.33)
Private expense	16 (11.94)	3 (4.55)
Tumor diameter (cm, mean ± SD)	4.16 ± 1.05	4.41 ± 0.98	1.623	0.104
Lesion localization [n (%)]			1.232	0.550
Left side	62 (46.27)	29 (43.94)
Right side	58 (43.28)	32 (48.48)
Both sides	14 (10.45)	5 (7.58)
TNM [n (%)]			1.763	0.078
I	29 (21.64)	9 (13.64)
II	82 (61.19)	40 (60.61)
III	23 (17.16)	17 (25.76)
Pathological type [n (%)]			1.140	0.802
Early invasive cancer	12 (8.96)	5 (7.58)
Invasive nonspecific carcinoma	110 (82.09)	58 (87.88)
Specific invasive carcinoma	7 (5.22)	2 (3.03)
Else	5 (3.73)	1 (1.52)
Operation mode [n (%)]			0.178	0.724
Mastectomy surgery	102 (98.51)	52 (78.79)
Breast conservation	32 (23.88)	14 (21.21)

BMI: Body mass index; TNM: Tumor node metastasis.