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

Table 2 Comparison of the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-Breast scores between the routing and intervention groups (points, mean ± SD)

Time	Group	Case	Physiological well-being	Emotional well-being	Social well-being	Functional well-being	Specific breast cancer subscale	Total points
T1
	Routing group	134	18.45 ± 3.39	16.09 ± 2.67	17.10 ± 3.64	15.06 ± 4.05	19.96 ± 4.35	86.65 ± 8.05
	Intervention group	66	17.82 ± 4.51	16.67 ± 3.55	17.53 ± 4.07	15.77 ± 2.47	21.08 ± 4.92	88.68 ± 8.46
	t value		1.002	1.169	0.761	1.538	1.639	1.799
	P value		0.630	0.245	0.447	0.126	0.103	0.074
T2
	Routing group	134	20.50 ± 3.34a	18.60 ± 3.42a	22.08 ± 3.13a	19.37 ± 3.45a	23.71 ± 3.33a	104.27 ± 7.87a
	Intervention group	66	22.27 ± 2.80a	20.56 ± 1.72a	23.68 ± 2.75a	22.61 ± 2.40a	26.29 ± 2.18a	115.41 ± 5.85a
	t value		3.940	5.382	3.532	7.697	6.556	11.249
	P value		< 0.001	< 0.001	0.001	< 0.001	< 0.001	< 0.001

^aP < 0.05, comparison of the same group before care.

T₁: Before care intervention; T₂: After three months of care intervention.