The Effect of Stress Ball Utilization on Dyspnea Severity and Anxiety Level in Patients Receiving Nebulizer Therapy: Randomized Controlled Study

IF 2.2 4区医学 Q2 MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL

International Journal of Clinical Practice Pub Date : 2025-02-16 DOI:10.1155/ijcp/9770027

Yasemin Ceyhan, Sevil Güler, Seda Şahan

{"title":"The Effect of Stress Ball Utilization on Dyspnea Severity and Anxiety Level in Patients Receiving Nebulizer Therapy: Randomized Controlled Study","authors":"Yasemin Ceyhan, Sevil Güler, Seda Şahan","doi":"10.1155/ijcp/9770027","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div>\n Aim: The study primarily aimed at examining the effect of stress ball utilization on dyspnea and anxiety during nebulizer therapy. The secondary aim was to determine the effect of stress ball utilization on the duration of therapy and vital signs.\n Methods: The study has a randomized controlled experimental design. The study population consisted of inpatients receiving nebulizer therapy. A total of 80 patients, 40 in the intervention group and 40 in the control group, were included in the sample. The study was conducted between October 2023 and March 2024. Patients in the intervention group were asked to use a stress ball during nebulizer therapy. Data were collected using a Patient Information Form, the Visual Analog Scale, and the State-Trait Anxiety Inventory. Descriptive statistics, Chi-square, paired test, and one sample t-test were used in data analysis.\n Results: The mean age of the patients was 65 years and over and 78% of them had COPD. Stress ball utilization caused a significant effect on the severity of dyspnea (intervention: t = 2.862, p < 0.001; control: t = 2.755, p < 0.001) and anxiety levels (intervention: t = 4.647, p < 0.001; control: t = 6.597, p < 0.001) in intragroup comparisons. In intergroup comparisons, a significant difference (tı = 4.455, p < 0.001) was obtained in anxiety level with a high effect (d = 0.70). In addition, the durations of nebulizer (minutes) administration were significantly (p < 0.001) longer in the intervention group (19.10 ± 11.95) than in the control group (13.16 ± 3.02). Stress ball utilization did not affect vital signs and saturation values (p > 0.05).\n Conclusions: Utilization of a stress ball during nebulizer therapy has a positive effect on reducing anxiety levels and prolonging the duration of nebulizer use.\n Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT06297356\n </div>","PeriodicalId":13782,"journal":{"name":"International Journal of Clinical Practice","volume":"2025 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.2000,"publicationDate":"2025-02-16","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1155/ijcp/9770027","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"International Journal of Clinical Practice","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1155/ijcp/9770027","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL","Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 0

Abstract

Aim: The study primarily aimed at examining the effect of stress ball utilization on dyspnea and anxiety during nebulizer therapy. The secondary aim was to determine the effect of stress ball utilization on the duration of therapy and vital signs.

Methods: The study has a randomized controlled experimental design. The study population consisted of inpatients receiving nebulizer therapy. A total of 80 patients, 40 in the intervention group and 40 in the control group, were included in the sample. The study was conducted between October 2023 and March 2024. Patients in the intervention group were asked to use a stress ball during nebulizer therapy. Data were collected using a Patient Information Form, the Visual Analog Scale, and the State-Trait Anxiety Inventory. Descriptive statistics, Chi-square, paired test, and one sample t-test were used in data analysis.

Results: The mean age of the patients was 65 years and over and 78% of them had COPD. Stress ball utilization caused a significant effect on the severity of dyspnea (intervention: t = 2.862, p < 0.001; control: t = 2.755, p < 0.001) and anxiety levels (intervention: t = 4.647, p < 0.001; control: t = 6.597, p < 0.001) in intragroup comparisons. In intergroup comparisons, a significant difference (t^ı = 4.455, p < 0.001) was obtained in anxiety level with a high effect (d = 0.70). In addition, the durations of nebulizer (minutes) administration were significantly (p < 0.001) longer in the intervention group (19.10 ± 11.95) than in the control group (13.16 ± 3.02). Stress ball utilization did not affect vital signs and saturation values (p > 0.05).

Conclusions: Utilization of a stress ball during nebulizer therapy has a positive effect on reducing anxiety levels and prolonging the duration of nebulizer use.

Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT06297356

Abstract Image

查看原文本刊更多论文

压力球使用对雾化治疗患者呼吸困难严重程度和焦虑水平的影响：随机对照研究

目的：探讨压力球对雾化治疗中呼吸困难和焦虑的影响。第二个目的是确定压力球使用对治疗时间和生命体征的影响。方法：采用随机对照实验设计。研究人群包括接受雾化器治疗的住院患者。本研究共纳入80例患者，干预组40例，对照组40例。该研究于2023年10月至2024年3月进行。干预组患者被要求在雾化治疗期间使用压力球。数据采用患者信息表、视觉模拟量表和状态-特质焦虑量表收集。资料分析采用描述性统计、卡方检验、配对检验和单样本t检验。结果：患者平均年龄在65岁及以上，其中78%患有慢性阻塞性肺病。压力球使用对呼吸困难严重程度有显著影响(干预：t = 2.862, p <；0.001;对照组：t = 2.755, p <；0.001)和焦虑水平(干预：t = 4.647, p <；0.001;对照组：t = 6.597, p <；组内比较0.001)。组间比较，差异有统计学意义(tir = 4.455, p <；焦虑水平得到0.001)，效果显著（d = 0.70）。此外，雾化器给药时间（分钟）显著(p <；0.001)，干预组（19.10±11.95）长于对照组（13.16±3.02）。应力球的使用对生命体征和饱和度值没有影响(p >；0.05)。结论：在雾化治疗中使用压力球对降低焦虑水平和延长雾化使用时间有积极作用。试验注册：ClinicalTrials.gov标识符：NCT06297356

本文章由计算机程序翻译，如有差异，请以英文原文为准。

求助全文

约1分钟内获得全文求助全文

来源期刊

International Journal of Clinical Practice 医学-医学：内科

CiteScore

5.30

自引率

0.00%

发文量

274

审稿时长

3-8 weeks

期刊介绍： IJCP is a general medical journal. IJCP gives special priority to work that has international appeal. IJCP publishes: Editorials. IJCP Editorials are commissioned. [Peer reviewed at the editor''s discretion] Perspectives. Most IJCP Perspectives are commissioned. Example. [Peer reviewed at the editor''s discretion] Study design and interpretation. Example. [Always peer reviewed] Original data from clinical investigations. In particular: Primary research papers from RCTs, observational studies, epidemiological studies; pre-specified sub-analyses; pooled analyses. [Always peer reviewed] Meta-analyses. [Always peer reviewed] Systematic reviews. From October 2009, special priority will be given to systematic reviews. [Always peer reviewed] Non-systematic/narrative reviews. From October 2009, reviews that are not systematic will be considered only if they include a discrete Methods section that must explicitly describe the authors'' approach. Special priority will, however, be given to systematic reviews. [Always peer reviewed] ''How to…'' papers. Example. [Always peer reviewed] Consensus statements. [Always peer reviewed] Short reports. [Always peer reviewed] Letters. [Peer reviewed at the editor''s discretion] International scope IJCP publishes work from investigators globally. Around 30% of IJCP articles list an author from the UK. Around 30% of IJCP articles list an author from the USA or Canada. Around 45% of IJCP articles list an author from a European country that is not the UK. Around 15% of articles published in IJCP list an author from a country in the Asia-Pacific region.