中国妇幼保健

目的 分析基于PERMA模式的积极心理干预在宫颈癌放化疗患者中的应用效果。方法 选取2024年6月—2025年6月温州医科大学附属第二医院收治的80例宫颈癌放化疗患者,按床号奇偶性分为研究组和普通组,每组各40例患者。普通组进行常规心理干预,研究组进行基于PERMA模式的积极心理干预。比较两组患者的负性情绪、创伤性应激障碍、癌因性疲乏、希望水平、满意率。结果 干预前,研究组焦虑自评量表(SAS)评分,抑郁自评量表(SDS)评分,创伤后应激障碍量表(PCL-C)反复创伤性体验维度评分、易激怒维度评分、麻木与回避维度评分,癌症疲乏量表(CFS)情感维度评分、认知维度评分、躯体维度评分,希望评估量表(HHI)亲密行为维度评分、积极态度维度评分、积极行动维度评分分别为(61.47±4.02)分、(58.62±4.41)分、(16.41±1.61)分、(16.93±1.45)分、(26.74±1.69)分、(11.21±1.34)分、(11.75±1.01)分、(21.47±1.45)分、(8.49±1.64)分、(7.05±0.84)分、(8.31±0.82)分;普通组SAS量表评分,SDS量表评分,PCL-C量表反复创伤性体验维度评分、易激怒维度评分、麻木与回避维度评分,CFS量表情感维度评分、认知维度评分、躯体维度评分,HHI量表亲密行为维度评分、积极态度维度评分、积极行动维度评分分别为(61.83±4.66)分、(58.97±4.39)分、(16.78±1.02)分、(16.56±1.68)分、(26.09±1.44)分、(11.09±1.27)分、(11.48±1.13)分、(21.89±1.74)分、(8.82±1.07)分、(7.12±0.96)分、(8.27±0.79)分。干预后,研究组SAS量表评分,SDS量表评分,PCL-C量表反复创伤性体验维度评分、易激怒维度评分、麻木与回避维度评分,CFS量表情感维度评分、认知维度评分、躯体维度评分,HHI量表亲密行为维度评分、积极态度维度评分、积极行动维度评分分别为(38.35±3.91)分、(35.21±3.65)分、(8.41±1.03)分、(7.53±1.16)分、(15.84±1.22)分、(7.14±0.65)分、(8.29±0.51)分、(12.09±1.02)分、(11.01±1.25)分、(12.16±0.74)分、(11.45±0.43)分;普通组SAS量表评分,SDS量表评分,PCL-C量表反复创伤性体验维度评分、易激怒维度评分、麻木与回避维度评分,CFS量表情感维度评分、认知维度评分、躯体维度评分,HHI量表亲密行为维度评分、积极态度维度评分、积极行动维度评分分别为(44.16±3.78)分、(40.89±3.96)分、(11.25±1.29)分、(11.08±1.52)分、(19.71±1.89)分、(8.02±0.57)分、(9.11±0.74)分、(14.78±1.54)分、(9.95±1.19)分、(10.85±0.69)分、(10.68±0.66)分。干预前,两组SAS量表评分,SDS量表评分,PCL-C量表反复创伤性体验维度评分、易激怒维度评分、麻木与回避维度评分,CFS量表情感维度评分、认知维度评分、躯体维度评分,HHI量表亲密行为维度评分、积极态度维度评分、积极行动维度评分比较,差异均无统计学意义(均P>0.05);干预后,研究组SAS量表评分、SDS量表评分、PCL-C量表反复创伤性体验维度评分、易激怒维度评分、麻木与回避维度评分,CFS量表情感维度评分、认知维度评分、躯体维度评分均低于普通组,HHI量表亲密行为维度评分、积极态度维度评分、积极行动维度评分均高于普通组(均P<0.05)。研究组满意率(97.50%)高于普通组(80.00%),差异有统计学意义(χ²=6.135,P<0.05)。结论 基于PERMA模式的积极心理干预在宫颈癌放化疗患者中的应用效果明显,可以改善宫颈癌患者的负性情绪,缓解放化疗期间的创伤性应激障碍和癌因性疲乏,提高希望水平。

Objective To analyze the application effect of positive psychological intervention based on PERMA model in patients with cervical cancer undergoing radiotherapy and chemotherapy. Methods A total of 80 patients with cervical cancer treated with radiotherapy and chemotherapy in the Second Affiliated Hospital of Wenzhou Medical University from June 2024 to June 2025 were selected and divided into study group and ordinary group according to the parity of bed number, with 40 patients in each group. The patients in ordinary group were given routine psychological intervention, and the patients in study group were given positive psychological intervention based on PERMA model. The negative emotions, traumatic stress disorders, cancer-related fatigue, hope levels, and satisfaction rates were compared between the two groups. Results Before intervention, Self-rating Anxiety Scale( SAS) score, Self-rating Depression Scale( SDS) score, the scores of repeated traumatic experience dimension, irritability dimension, numbness and avoidance dimension of Post-traumatic Stress Disorder Scale(PCL-C), the scores of emotional dimension, cognitive dimension, and physical dimension of Cancer Fatigue Scale(CFS), the scores of intimate behavior dimension, positive attitude dimension, and positive action dimension of Hope Assessment Scale(HHI) in study group were(61. 47±4. 02) points,(58. 62±4. 41) points,(16. 41±1. 61) points,(16. 93±1. 45) points,(26. 74±1. 69) points,(11. 21±1. 34) points,(11. 75 ± 1. 01) points,( 21. 47 ± 1. 45) points,( 8. 49 ± 1. 64) points,( 7. 05 ± 0. 84) points, and( 8. 31 ±0. 82) points, respectively; SAS scale score, SDS scale score, the scores of repeated traumatic experience dimension, irritability dimension, numbness and avoidance dimension of PCL-C scale, the scores of emotional dimension, cognitive dimension, and physical dimension of CFS scale, the scores of intimate behavior dimension, positive attitude dimension, and positive action dimension of HHI scale in ordinary group were(61. 83±4. 66) points,(58. 97±4. 39) points,(16. 78±1. 02) points,(16. 56±1. 68) points,(26. 09±1. 44) points,(11. 09±1. 27) points,(11. 48±1. 13) points,(21. 89±1. 74) points,(8. 82±1. 07) points,(7. 12±0. 96) points, and(8. 27±0. 79) points, respectively. After intervention, SAS scale score, SDS scale score, the scores of repeated traumatic experience dimension, irritability dimension, numbness and avoidance dimension of PCL-C scale, the scores of emotional dimension, cognitive dimension, and physical dimension of CFS scale, the scores of intimate behavior dimension, positive attitude dimension, and positive action dimension of HHI scale in study group were(38. 35±3. 91) points,(35. 21±3. 65) points,(8. 41±1. 03) points,(7. 53±1. 16) points,(15. 84±1. 22) points,(7. 14±0. 65) points,(8. 29±0. 51) points,(12. 09±1. 02) points,(11. 01±1. 25) points,(12. 16±0. 74) points, and(11. 45±0. 43) points, respectively; SAS scale score, SDS scale score, the scores of repeated traumatic experience dimension, irritability dimension, numbness and avoidance dimension of PCL-C scale, the scores of emotional dimension, cognitive dimension, and physical dimension of CFS scale, the scores of intimate behavior dimension, positive attitude dimension, and positive action dimension of HHI scale in ordinary group were(44. 16±3. 78) points,( 40. 89 ± 3. 96) points,( 11. 25 ± 1. 29) points,( 11. 08 ± 1. 52) points,( 19. 71 ± 1. 89) points,( 8. 02 ±0. 57) points,(9. 11±0. 74) points,(14. 78±1. 54) points,(9. 95±1. 19) points,(10. 85±0. 69) points, and(10. 68±0. 66) points, respectively. Before intervention, there was no statistically significant difference in SAS scale score, SDS scale score, the scores of repeated traumatic experience dimension, irritability dimension, numbness and avoidance dimension of PCL-C scale, the scores of emotional dimension, cognitive dimension, and physical dimension of CFS scale, the scores of intimate behavior dimension, positive attitude dimension, and positive action dimension of HHI scale between the two groups(all P>0. 05); After intervention, SAS scale score, SDS scale score, the scores of repeated traumatic experience dimension, irritability dimension, numbness and avoidance dimension of PCL-C scale, the scores of emotional dimension, cognitive dimension, and physical dimension of CFS scale, the scores of intimate behavior dimension, positive attitude dimension, and positive action dimension of HHI scale in study group were statistically significantly higher than those in ordinary group(all P<0. 05). The satisfaction rate of study group(97. 50%) was higher than that of ordinary group(80. 00%), and the difference was statistically significant(χ²= 6. 135, P<0. 05). Conclusion Positive psychological intervention based on PERMA model has a significant effect in patients with cervical cancer undergoing radiotherapy and chemotherapy, which can improve negative emotions, relieve traumatic stress disorder and cancer-related fatigue during radiotherapy and chemotherapy, and increase hope level.