| Summary: | 碩士 === 長庚大學 === 護理學研究所 === 92 === Menopause is an important turning point in the life cycle of women. Natural and surgical menopause women would face different physical, psychological, and social changes during the period of menopause. Thus, the purpose of this study was to compare the thriving, lifestyle, quality of life, and other influential factors between natural and surgical menopause women.
This study was a comparative, correlative design and was adapted a cross-sectional method. Subjects were natural menopause women aged around 45 to 59 from north of Taiwan and surgical menopause women aged around 40 to 59 from gynecology wards of a medical centre located in north of Taiwan by systematic sampling. The subjects were measured by face-to-face interviews and structural questionnaires, which included the Demographic Inventory, Recognized and Believing sections (Perceived Health Status, Healthy Requirements of Menopause, and Attitude of Facing Menopause), Menopausal Symptom Distress, Social Support Scale, Thriving Scale, Health-Promoting Lifestyle Profile, and Quality of Life Scale. A total of 302 effective questionnaires were retrieved, 152 from natural menopause group and 150 from surgical menopause group.
The results of this study were categorized as follows:
1. In the section of “thriving”, the surgical group was more positive than the natural group (48.25± 7.05 vs. 34.18± 6.68). In the natural group, level of social support, attitude of facing menopause, frequency of symptom happening, social support satisfaction, and healthy requirements could be explained by variance of 50.20%. In the surgical group, level of serious torment, social support satisfaction, and attitude of facing menopause could be explained by variance of 38.20%. Overall, groups, level of serious torment, social support satisfaction, attitude of facing menopause, and level of social support could be explained by variance of 71.20%.
2. In the section of “health-promotion lifestyle”, the natural group performed better than the surgical group (79.64± 14.52 vs. 77.81± 11.10). In the natural group, level of social support, self-efficacy, social support satisfaction, and frequency of symptom happening could be explained by variance of 42.60%. In the surgical group, level of social support, educational level, level of serious torment, self-efficacy, and marriages could be explained by variance of 43.20%. Overall, level of social support, self-efficacy, attitude of facing menopause, social support satisfaction, and educational level could be explained by variance of 43.00%.
3. In the section of “quality of life”, the satisfaction in the natural group was better than in the surgical group (55.81± 4.98 vs. 54.44± 4.70). In the natural group, health-promoting lifestyle, self-rated healthy condition, attitude of facing menopause, level of social support, level of serious torment, and average income per month of whole family could be explained by variance of 62.30%. In the surgery group, health-promoting lifestyle, self-rated healthy condition, attitude of facing menopause, and level of serious torment could be explained by variance of 52.40%. Overall, health-promoting lifestyle, attitude of facing menopause, self-rated healthy condition, level of serious torment, marriages, average income per month of whole family, groups, and social supporting behaviors could be explained by variance of 59.50%.
The result of study presented that these are very important to participate more social activities for natural menopause women and to improve self-efficacy for surgical ones. Therefore, the recommendation was made that in the future research to develop two different types of nursing interventions would improve menopause women’s health, spirit, and quality of life.
|
|---|
