Archives

  • 2022-06
  • 2022-05
  • 2022-04
  • 2022-02
  • 2021-03
  • 2020-08
  • 2020-07
  • 2020-03
  • 2019-11
  • 2019-10
  • 2019-09
  • 2019-08
  • 2019-07
  • Chloroquine br Individualized oncology nursing care

    2022-06-21


    3.2. Individualized oncology nursing care
    The first question explored the extent to which nursing care was individualized, according to patients with cancer. Based on data ana-lysis it Chloroquine was found that the level of support of patients’ individuality (ICS-A) was at 3.4 (SD = 0.9). This level of support is considered to be of a medium level compared to preceding studies (e.g. Suhonen et al., 2018). Higher levels of support were recorded for clinical situations (mean = 3.68, SD = 1.00), followed by decision control (mean = 3.34. SD = 1.14) and personal life situations (mean = 3.05. SD = 1.27) (Fig. 1).
    3.2.1. Internal consistency reliability For the ICS.A scale, the Cronhach's alpha coefficient was found good
    Fig. 2. ICS.B - The Individuality in Care Received: Mean level of ICS.B scores across the total scale and the three subscales. Error bars represent +standard deviation (SD).  European Journal of Oncology Nursing 41 (2019) 33–40
    for all the subscales and the total scale, ranging from 0.81 to 0.93. Likewise, for the ICS.B scale Cronhach's alpha coefficient was also found good for all the subscales and the scale, ranging from 0.78 to 0.93.
    3.3. Quality of oncology nursing care
    3.3.1. Internal consistency reliability
    For the QONCS scale, Cronhach's alpha was found good for all the dimensions and the total scale, ranging from 0.78 to 0.95.
    3.4. Correlations between individualized care and quality oncology nursing care
    The third research question explored whether there were any cor-relations between individualized care and quality oncology nursing care. Based on data analysis, a statistically significant (p < 0.01) po-sitive correlation was observed between the two scales of ICS, i.e. ICS-A (The Support of Individuality) and ΙCS-B (The individuality in Care Received) (r = 0.80), all the subscales, i.e. Clinical Situation (r = 0.45, 0.27, 0.41, 0.42), Personal life situation (r = 0.30, 0.51, 0.44, 0.35) and Decision control (r = 0.35, 0.46, 0.35, 0.40), and four of the dimen-sions of QONCS, i.e. “Being supported and confirmed”, “Being cared for religiously and spiritually”, “Sense of Belonging” and “Being re-spected”. No statistically significant (p > 0.05) correlation was ob-served between the two scales of ICS, i.e. ICS-A and ΙCS-B, Chloroquine all the subscales, i.e. Clinical Situation, Personal life situation and Decision control, and the fifth dimension of QONCS, i.e. “Being valued” (Table 5).
    Regarding the correlations between the five dimensions of QONCS the following statistically significant correlations were observed (Table 5). “Being supported and confirmed” was positively related to “Sense of belonging” and “Being respected” (r = 0.53 and 0.71 re-spectively, p < 0.01). “Being cared for religiously and spiritually” was positively related to “Sense of belonging” (r = 0.35, p < 0.01) and negatively related to “Being valued” (r = −0.16, p < 0.05). “Sense of belonging” was positively related to “Being respected” (r = 0.45, p < 0.01).
    3.5. Multivariate models
    Two linear regression models were fitted; a) Support of Individuality (dependent variable) on the QONCS subscales (in-dependent variables), b) The individuality of Care Received (depen-dent) on the QONCS subscales (independent variables). The model as-sumptions of normality of residuals and heteroscedasticity were validated using a metaphase normal QQ-plot and a Predicted vs Residual scatter-plot. There was no significant multicollinearity as observed via the Variance Inflation Factors (models’ VIF < 2). The analysis revealed the following:
    Table 4
    QONCS - Quality of Oncology Nursing Scale Scores: Descriptive statistics across QONCS subscales and internal consistency index (Cronbach's alpha).