Application of traditional Chinese medicine acupoint needle embedding combined with emotional nursing in patients with gynecological malignant tumors

Table 1 shows the comparisons of demographic data between the two groups, n (%)

Item		Observation group (n = 42)	Control group (n = 42)	t/χ2 value	P value
Age (yr, mean ± SD)		52.49 ± 7.65	52.18 ± 7.83	0.184	0.855
Primary tumor site	Ovarian cancer	14 (33.33)	15 (35.71)	0.236	0.889
	Endometrial carcinoma	3 (7.14)	2 (4.76)
	Cervical cancer	25 (59.52)	25 (59.52)
Primary chemotherapy	Yes	18 (42.86)	17 (40.48)	0.049	0.221
	No	24 (57.14)	25 (59.52)
KPS score (points, mean ± SD)		82.56 ± 5.69	82.33 ± 5.87	0.182	0.856

KPS: Karnofsky Performance Status scale.

Table 2 Comparison of chemotherapy-related nausea and vomiting grade between the two groups after intervention, n (%)

Group	n	Grade 0	Grade I	Grade II	Grade III	Grade IV
Observation group	42	29 (69.05)	10 (23.81)	2 (4.76)	1 (2.38)	0 (0.00)
Control group	42	15 (35.71)	13 (30.95)	8 (19.05)	5 (11.90)	1 (2.38)
χ2 value		12.114
P value		0.017

Table 3 Compares both group’s quality of life scores before and after the intervention

Group	n	Nausea dimension		Vomiting dimension		Total score
		Pre-intervention	Post-intervention	Pre-intervention	Post-intervention	Pre-intervention	Post-intervention
Observation group	42	32.30 ± 6.54	40.23 ± 4.52a	32.77 ± 6.81	39.87 ± 5.36a	63.54 ± 7.81	80.15 ± 6.52a
Control group	42	32.08 ± 3.77	33.89 ± 3.59a	32.59 ± 6.94	33.72 ± 5.47a	63.37 ± 7.95	74.58 ± 7.16a
t value		0.189	7.118	0.120	5.204	0.099	3.728
P value		0.851	0.000	0.905	0.000	0.921	0.000

^aP < 0.05.

Table 4 Comparison of cancer-related fatigue scores between both groups before and after intervention (points mean ± SD)

Group	n	Behavior		Emotion		Perception		Cognition		Total score
		Pre-intervention	Post-intervention	Pre-intervention	Post-intervention	Pre-intervention	Post-intervention	Pre-intervention	Post-intervention	Pre-intervention	After intervention
Observation group	42	3.84 ± 0.57	3.12 ± 0.841	3.91 ± 0.62	2.74 ± 0.361	3.74 ± 0.55	2.78 ± 0.671	3.91 ± 0.32	2.68 ± 0.361	4.11 ± 0.36	2.33 ± 0.411
Control group	42	3.67 ± 0.69	4.64 ± 0.97	3.85 ± 0.72	3.94 ± 0.47	3.66 ± 0.63	3.82 ± 0.54	3.88 ± 0.49	3.97 ± 0.52	3.94 ± 0.48	3.99 ± 0.56
t value		1.231	7.677	0.409	13.136	0.62	7.832	0.332	13.219	1.836	15.5
P value		0.222	0	0.683	0	0.536	0	0.741	0	0.07	0

¹Indicates significant value.

Table 5 Comparison of coping style scores between the two groups before and after intervention (points mean ± SD)

Group	n	Avoidance		Yield		Facing
		Pre-intervention	Post-intervention	Pre-intervention	Post-intervention	Pre-intervention	Post-intervention
Observation group	42	18.56 ± 1.25	11.21 ± 1.08a	17.54 ± 1.37	10.23 ± 1.55a	11.27 ± 1.58	19.52 ± 1.13a
Control group	42	18.41 ± 1.38	13.64 ± 2.55a	17.28 ± 1.49	12.19 ± 1.12a	11.09 ± 1.67	14.16 ± 1.29a
t value		0.522	5.687	0.832	6.642	0.507	20.255
P value		0.603	0.000	0.408	0.000	0.613	0.000

^aP < 0.05.

Table 6 Comparison of sleep quality and Karnofsky Performance Status scale score between the two groups before and after intervention (points mean ± SD)

Group	n	PSQI scale		KPS score
		Pre-intervention	Post-intervention	Pre-intervention	Post-intervention
Observation group	42	12.24 ± 2.57	6.54 ± 1.57a	82.56 ± 5.69	79.85 ± 6.62a
Control group	42	11.97 ± 2.98	9.51 ± 1.68a	82.33 ± 5.87	75.71 ± 7.52a
t value		0.445	8.371	0.182	2.678
P value		0.658	0.000	0.856	0.009

^aP < 0.05.

PSQI: Pittsburgh Sleep Quality Index; KPS: Karnofsky Performance Status.