Effect of psychological intervention combined with feedback-based health education on lung cancer patients.

The study is described as a pilot and was done at one hospital in Shanghai, China. Randomisation used a random number table, but allocation concealment and blinding of participants, nurses, or outcome assessors were not described. The paper does not name a primary outcome, and it reports several outcomes at once. Dropout and missing data are not explained; the respiratory outcome table uses a different observation-group count from the other outcomes. Nursing satisfaction was measured with a hospital-made scale, and the paper gives only limited information about its validation. The observation group received routine nursing plus stage-based psychological intervention plus feedback-based health education, so the contribution of each component cannot be separated. The authors note that different treatment plans and family economic situations were not considered. The text and Table 2 disagree on venous oxygen saturation: the text says no between-group difference, while the table reports a between-group P value of 0.000.

The study was supported by Grant No.22XD1402500 from the Talent Program of Shanghai Science and Technology Program. No other conflict-of-interest statement is provided.

Do not conclude that the combined model alone caused the improvements. The observation group received routine nursing with oral health education, radiation and chemotherapy prevention and treatment measures, diet and medication guidance, and psychological counseling. It also received stage-based psychological intervention with videos, pictures, venting support, disease knowledge, successful-case discussion, music therapy, and meditation, plus feedback-based health education with structured interviews, video or slide teaching, retelling, diaries, weekly gatherings, reassessment, and phone or WeChat follow-up. The study cannot separate these components.