Latent profile analysis of social alienation in bladder cancer patients with urostomy

doi:10.3877/cma.j.issn.1674-3253.2025.05.015

Abstract

Abstract:

Objective

To explore the status and latent profile of social alienation in bladder cancer (BC) patients with urostomy, analyze the influencing factors of different types, so as to provide reference for clinical accurate intervention.

Methods

Through convenience sampling, BC patients with urostomy in Department of Urology of ten class-A tertiary hospitals in Shandong Province were selected from May to November 2023. The demographic characteristics questionnaire, Social Isolation Assessment (SIA) were used for investigation.

Results

A total of 239 bladder cancer patients with urostomy were enrolled. Social isolation could be divided into three latent classes, namely low social alienation (high self-value group, 36.82%), medium social alienation (lack of family and society support group, 30.13%), high social alienation (sensitive and fragile group, 33.05%). Multivariate Logistic regression outputs demonstrated that age, household average monthly income, living style were influencing factors regarding to social alienation in bladder cancer patients with urostomy.

Conclusion

The level of social alienation in BC patients with urostomy is high with heterogeneity. Medical staffs can adopt targeted nursing interventions according to the personality characteristics of different classes of patients to reduce social alienation.

Key words: Bladder cancer, Urostomy, Social alienation, Latent profile analysis

Xinhong Zhang, Yurong Ma, Zhilei Qiu, Jinli Li, Qian Wang, Haijing Dong. Latent profile analysis of social alienation in bladder cancer patients with urostomy[J]. Chinese Journal of Endourology(Electronic Edition), 2025, 19(05): 639-644.

/ / Recommend

Add to citation manager EndNote|Ris|BibTeX

URL: https://zhqjmnmwkzz.cma-cmc.com.cn/EN/10.3877/cma.j.issn.1674-3253.2025.05.015

https://zhqjmnmwkzz.cma-cmc.com.cn/EN/Y2025/V19/I05/639

Figures/Tables 4

References 29

[1]	季新灿, 郭浩阳, 汪伟, 等. 1990—2019年中国膀胱癌发病率趋势[J]. 济宁医学院学报, 2023, 46(2): 90-95. DOI: 10.3969/j.issn.1000-9760.2023.02.004.
[2]	Alfred Witjes J, Lebret T, Compérat EM, et al. Updated 2016 EAU guidelines on muscle-invasive and metastatic bladder cancer[J]. Eur Urol, 2017, 71(3): 462-475. DOI: 10.1016/j.eururo.2016.06.020.
[3]	Rammant E, Van Hecke A, Decaestecker K, et al. Supportive care needs and utilization of bladder cancer patients undergoing radical cystectomy: a longitudinal study[J]. Psychooncology, 2022, 31(2): 219-226. DOI: 10.1002/pon.5795.
[4]	Pham H, Torres H, Sharma P. Mental health implications in bladder cancer patients: a review[J]. Urol Oncol, 2019, 37(2): 97-107. DOI: 10.1016/j.urolonc.2018.12.006.
[5]	苏闪闪, 郑蔚, 王丹丹, 等. 癌症患者社会疏离的概念分析[J]. 中华护理杂志, 2022, 57(9): 1088-1093. DOI: 10.3761/j.issn.0254-1769.2022.09.009.
[6]	Moore S, Leung B, Bates A, et al. Social isolation: Impact on treatment and survival in patients with advanced cancer[J]. J Clin Oncol, 2018, 36(34_suppl): 156. DOI: 10.1200/jco.2018.36.34_suppl.156.
[7]	郭灿, 曹英, 汤利萍, 等. 膀胱癌泌尿造口患者支持性照顾需求研究进展[J]. 护理研究, 2023, 37(4): 624-629. DOI: 10.12102/j.issn.1009-6493.2023.04.011.
[8]	Holt-Lunstad J. A pandemic of social isolation?[J]. World Psychiatry, 2021, 20(1): 55-56. DOI: 10.1002/wps.20839.
[9]	何春燕, 郭丝锦, 林亚玮, 等. 女性乳腺癌患者社会疏离特征及预测指标的研究[J]. 护理学报, 2022, 29(13): 6-11. DOI: 10.16460/j.issn1008-9969.2022.13.006.
[10]	端木艳丽, 陈晓娟, 齐琳娜, 等. 郑州市242例老年结直肠癌肠造口患者社会疏离现状及影响因素分析[J]. 现代预防医学, 2022, 49(16): 3014-3018. DOI: 10.20043/j.cnki.MPM.202108576.
[11]	郝丽敏, 韩文萍, 韩慧琴, 等. 卵巢癌术后化疗患者社会疏离现状及影响因素研究[J]. 护理研究, 2023, 37(10): 1713-1718. DOI: 10.12102/j.issn.1009-6493.2023.10.004.
[12]	尹奎, 彭坚, 张君. 潜在剖面分析在组织行为领域中的应用[J]. 心理科学进展, 2020, 28(7): 1056-1070. DOI: 10.3724/SP.J.1042.2020.01056.
[13]	苏闪闪, 董又鸣, 郑蔚, 等. 癌症患者社会疏离测评问卷的编制及信效度检验[J]. 护理学报, 2023, 30(17): 51-56. DOI: 10.16460/j.issn1008-9969.2023.17.051.
[14]	王芬, 于海燕, 张淑娟, 等. 肠造口患者社会疏离感现状及影响因素研究[J]. 护理学杂志, 2022, 37(14): 40-43. DOI: 10.3870/j.issn.1001-4152.2022.14.040.
[15]	仲宇, 王莎, 魏惠燕, 等. 腹部造口患者病耻感支持性干预研究进展[J]. 护理研究, 2023, 37(11): 1978-1982. DOI: 10.12102/j.issn.1009-6493.2023.11.017.
[16]	Niemiec RM, Pearce R. The practice of character strengths: unifying definitions, principles, and exploration of what’s soaring, emerging, and ripe with potential in science and in practice[J]. Front Psychol, 2020, 11: 590220. DOI: 10.3389/fpsyg.2020.590220.
[17]	Proyer RT, Gander F, Wellenzohn S, et al. Strengths-based positive psychology interventions: a randomized placebo-controlled online trial on long-term effects for a signature strengths- vs. a lesser strengths-intervention[J]. Front Psychol, 2015, 6: 456. DOI: 10.3389/fpsyg.2015.00456.
[18]	朱明元, 鲁才红, 林婉婷, 等. 领悟社会支持在恶性肿瘤患者性格优势与应对方式间的中介效应[J]. 护理学杂志, 2023, 38(8): 87-90, 94. DOI: 10.3870/j.issn.1001-4152.2023.08.087.
[19]	Ruiz-Rodríguez I, Hombrados-Mendieta I, Melguizo-Garín A, et al. The importance of social support, optimism and resilience on the quality of life of cancer patients[J]. Front Psychol, 2022, 13: 833176. DOI: 10.3389/fpsyg.2022.833176.
[20]	Nielsen S, Ringborg CH, Schandl A, et al. A qualitative study exploring patient's experiences of oesophageal cancer surgery, through their personal advice to future patients[J]. Eur J Oncol Nurs, 2021, 54: 101983. DOI: 10.1016/j.ejon.2021.101983.
[21]	赵迪, 王爱敏, 赵梦璐, 等. 社区老年人社会隔离研究进展[J]. 护理学杂志, 2019, 34(23): 90-94. DOI: 10.3870/j.issn.1001-4152.2019.23.090.
[22]	Hoang P, King JA, Moore S, et al. Interventions associated with reduced loneliness and social isolation in older adults: a systematic review and meta-analysis[J]. JAMA Netw Open, 2022, 5(10): e2236676. DOI: 10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2022.36676.
[23]	董朝晖, 卢惠娟, 陆箴琦, 等. 癌症患者社会疏离体验的质性研究[J]. 中华护理杂志, 2023, 58(6): 670-675. DOI: 10.3761/j.issn.0254-1769.2023.06.004.
[24]	Mason SJ, Downing A, Wright P, et al. Health-related quality of life after treatment for bladder cancer in England[J]. Br J Cancer, 2018, 118(11): 1518-1528. DOI: 10.1038/s41416-018-0084-z.
[25]	唐建良, 王金龙, 漆文烨, 等. 不同医疗保障制度下老年人心理健康状况调查[J]. 中国农村卫生事业管理, 2014, 34(1): 63-67. DOI: 10.19955/j.cnki.1005-5916.2014.01.025.
[26]	李倩儿, 赵莉, 曾豪洁, 等. 肠造口患者创伤后成长潜在剖面分析及其与生活质量的差异比较[J]. 现代临床护理, 2023, 22(5): 17-22. DOI: 10.3969/j.issn.1671-8283.2023.05.003.
[27]	Langford DJ, Cooper B, Paul S, et al. Distinct stress profiles among oncology patients undergoing chemotherapy[J]. J Pain Symptom Manage, 2020, 59(3): 646-657. DOI: 10.1016/j.jpainsymman.2019.10.025.
[28]	Gengoux GW, Roberts LW. Enhancing wellness and engagement among healthcare professionals[J]. Acad Psychiatry, 2018, 42(1): 1-4. DOI: 10.1007/s40596-017-0875-1.
[29]	韩广雪, 胡晓双, 刘金凤, 等. 国内外伤口造口失禁专科护士核心能力的研究现状[J]. 现代临床护理, 2024, 23(11): 73-78. DOI: 10.3969/j.issn.1671-8283.2024.11.010.

项目	低水平社会疏离型(自我价值感较强组)	中水平社会疏离型(缺少家庭社会支持组）	高水平社会疏离型（敏感脆弱组）	χ²值	P值
例数	88	72	79
性别
男	72 (81.8)	58 (80.6)	63 (79.7)	0.118	0.943
女	16 (18.2)	14 (19.4)	16 (20.3)	0.118	0.943
年龄(岁)
<65	15 (17.0)	21 (29.2)	12 (15.2)	33.761	<0.001
66~70	52 (59.1)	33 (45.8)	21 (26.6)
≥71	21 (23.9)	18 (25.0)	46 (58.2)
教育水平
初中及以下	12 (13.6)	16 (22.2)	18 (22.8)	44.414	<0.001
高中、高职	27 (30.7)	33 (45.8)	18 (22.8)
专科及以上	49 (54.4)	23 (31.9)	43 (54.4)
居住地
城市	49 (55.7)	33 (45.8)	37 (46.8)	1.949	0.377
农村	39 (44.3)	39 (54.2)	42 (53.2)	1.949	0.377
家庭月均收入(元)
<2 000	13 (14.8)	16 (22.2)	49 (54.4)	63.562	<0.001
2 000~5 000	25 (28.4)	36 (50.0)	18 (22.8)
>5 000	50 (56.8)	20 (27.8)	12 (15.2)
居住方式
独居	22 (25.0)	39 (54.2)	59 (74.7)	41.750	<0.001
非独居	66 (75.0)	33 (45.8)	20 (25.3)	41.750	<0.001
婚姻
已婚	57 (64.8)	49 (68.1)	52 (65.8)	0.195	0.907
其他(离婚、未婚、丧偶)	31 (35.2)	23 (31.9)	27 (34.2)	0.195	0.907

项目	低水平社会疏离型(自我价值感较强组)	中水平社会疏离型(缺少家庭社会支持组）	高水平社会疏离型（敏感脆弱组）	χ²值	P值
例数	88	72	79
性别
男	72 (81.8)	58 (80.6)	63 (79.7)	0.118	0.943
女	16 (18.2)	14 (19.4)	16 (20.3)	0.118	0.943
年龄(岁)
<65	15 (17.0)	21 (29.2)	12 (15.2)	33.761	<0.001
66~70	52 (59.1)	33 (45.8)	21 (26.6)
≥71	21 (23.9)	18 (25.0)	46 (58.2)
教育水平
初中及以下	12 (13.6)	16 (22.2)	18 (22.8)	44.414	<0.001
高中、高职	27 (30.7)	33 (45.8)	18 (22.8)
专科及以上	49 (54.4)	23 (31.9)	43 (54.4)
居住地
城市	49 (55.7)	33 (45.8)	37 (46.8)	1.949	0.377
农村	39 (44.3)	39 (54.2)	42 (53.2)	1.949	0.377
家庭月均收入(元)
<2 000	13 (14.8)	16 (22.2)	49 (54.4)	63.562	<0.001
2 000~5 000	25 (28.4)	36 (50.0)	18 (22.8)
>5 000	50 (56.8)	20 (27.8)	12 (15.2)
居住方式
独居	22 (25.0)	39 (54.2)	59 (74.7)	41.750	<0.001
非独居	66 (75.0)	33 (45.8)	20 (25.3)	41.750	<0.001
婚姻
已婚	57 (64.8)	49 (68.1)	52 (65.8)	0.195	0.907
其他(离婚、未婚、丧偶)	31 (35.2)	23 (31.9)	27 (34.2)	0.195	0.907

模型	Akaike信息准则	贝叶斯信息准则	调整贝叶斯准则	信息熵	P值		类别概率
模型	Akaike信息准则	贝叶斯信息准则	调整贝叶斯准则	信息熵	罗-梦戴尔-鲁本校正似然比检验	基于Bootstrap的似然比检验	类别概率
1	111371.651	111489.851	11382.080		-	-	-
2	9110.949	9291.725	9126.900	0.993	<0.001	<0.001	66.37/33.63
3	7866.795	8110.148	7888.267	0.994	<0.001	<0.001	36.82/30.13/33.05
4	7592.849	7898.778	7619.843	0.995	0.051	0.052	11.30/27.62/27.61/33.47

模型	Akaike信息准则	贝叶斯信息准则	调整贝叶斯准则	信息熵	P值		类别概率
模型	Akaike信息准则	贝叶斯信息准则	调整贝叶斯准则	信息熵	罗-梦戴尔-鲁本校正似然比检验	基于Bootstrap的似然比检验	类别概率
1	111371.651	111489.851	11382.080		-	-	-
2	9110.949	9291.725	9126.900	0.993	<0.001	<0.001	66.37/33.63
3	7866.795	8110.148	7888.267	0.994	<0.001	<0.001	36.82/30.13/33.05
4	7592.849	7898.778	7619.843	0.995	0.051	0.052	11.30/27.62/27.61/33.47

项目	高水平社会疏离型（敏感脆弱组）				中水平社会疏离型（缺少社会家庭支持组）
项目	β值	P值	OR值	95%CI	β值	P值	OR值	95%CI
年龄(岁)
<65 (赋值1)	-4.153	<0.001	0.016	0.002~0.112	-1.774	0.019	0.170	0.038~0.751
66~70 (赋值2)	-4.869	<0.001	0.008	0.001~0.042	-1.724	0.002	0.178	0.059~0.540
≥71 (参照，赋值3)			1.000
家庭月均收入(元)
<2 000 (赋值1)	4.741	<0.001	107.072	15.710~835.100	1.810	0.024	6.109	1.266~29.486
2 000~5 000 (赋值2)	2.931	0.002	15.496	2.942~119.411	1.907	0.014	6.730	1.476~30.681
>5 000 (参照，赋值3)			1.000
居住方式
独居(赋值1)	2.062	<0.001	7.858	2.682~23.021	1.151	0.007	3.160	1.365~7.315
非独居(参照，赋值2)			1.000

Please choose a citation manager

Content to export