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.

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.

Table 3 Comparison of limb shoulder joint activity of the affected limb between the routing and the intervention groups (°, mean ± SD)

Time	Group	Case	Anteflexion	Posterior extension	Abduction	Internal rotation	External rotation
T1
	Routing group	134	150.39 ± 11.57	40.75 ± 3.25	161.97 ± 8.14	72.10 ± 5.63	77.26 ± 5.72
	Intervention group	66	148.97 ± 13.99	39.68 ± 5.24	163.03 ± 7.21	73.97 ± 7.67	75.70 ± 6.69
	t value		0.760	1.514	0.899	1.763	1.629
	P value		0.448	0.134	0.370	0.081	0.106
T2
	Routing group	134	123.90 ± 14.14a	28.49 ± 4.58a	115.48 ± 7.37a	60.00 ± 8.66a	64.37 ± 5.29a
	Intervention group	66	130.97 ± 17.07a	32.83 ± 5.59a	126.21 ± 9.40a	64.65 ± 9.34a	67.58 ± 8.44a
	t value		3.102	5.470	8.131	3.481	2.822
	P value		0.002	< 0.001	< 0.001	0.001	0.006

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

T₁: Before care intervention; T₂: After one month of care intervention.

Table 4 Comparison of complications between the routing and intervention groups, n (%)

Group	Case	Skin flap necrosis	Upper limb lymphadendema	Scalp hydrops	Wound infection	Else	Total
Routing group	134	7 (5.22)	17 (12.69)	4 (2.99)	12 (8.96)	6 (4.48)	46 (34.33)
Intervention group	66	2 (3.03)	6 (9.09)	0	3 (4.55)	1 (1.52)	12 (18.18)
χ2							5.075
P value							0.024

Table 5 Comparison of care satisfaction between the routing and intervention groups, n (%)

Group	Case	Not satisfied	Satisfied	Very satisfied	Total
Routing group	134	29 (21.64)	69 (51.49)	36 (26.87)	105 (78.36)
Intervention group	66	6 (9.09)	34 (51.52)	26 (39.39)	60 (90.91)
χ2					4.825
P value					0.028