Skip to main content
Have a personal or library account? Click to login
Latent profile analysis of perceived stress and influencing factors in colorectal cancer patients† Cover

Latent profile analysis of perceived stress and influencing factors in colorectal cancer patients†

Frontiers of Nursing
Volume 11 (2024): Issue 3 (September 2024)
By: ,  ,  ,  ,   and    
Open Access
|Sep 2024
Figures & tables

Figures & Tables

Table 1.

General information about colorectal cancer patients (N=225).

VariablesN%
Gender
    Male15360
    Female10240
Age (years)
    ≤609738
    >6015862
Residence
    Rural14155.3
    Urban11444.7
Education
    Primary school and below14757.6
    Junior high school6726.3
    High school and above4116.1
Occupation
    Farmer11043.1
    Worker8131.8
    Civil servant/public institution employee3413.3
    Other3011.8
Monthly family income (RMB)
    ≤300017970.2
    >30007629.8
Pre-admission employment status
    Employed12247.8
    Retired11444.7
    others197.5
Disease stage
    Stage I3513.7
    Stage II9838.4
    Stage III9135.7
    Stage IV3112.2
Treatment method
    Surgery10641.6
    Surgery + chemotherapy/radiotherapy14958.4
Colostomy
    Present11545.1
    Absent14054.9
Table 2.

Fit indices of latent profile models for different categories.

VariableAICBICaBICEntropyPLMRPBLRTCategory probabilities
16626.6046725.7606636.993
26027.0926179.3676043.0460.8790.00010.00000.305/0.65
35725.9345931.3285747.4540.9460.02330.00000.19/0.24/0.57
45589.4715847.9835616.5560.9000.00000.00000.20/0.23/0.20/0.37
55282.3855594.0165315.0350.9160.37510.00000.20/0.37/0.23/0.19/0.01

1 Note: AIC, Akaike information criterion; BIC, Bayesian information criterion; BLRT, Bootstrapped likelihood ratio test.

Table 3.

Probabilities of membership in 3 latent categories.

VariableCategory 1Category 2Category 3
Category 10.9380.0620.000
Category 20.0520.9480.000
Category 30.0000.0001.000

1 Note: BLRT, Bootstrapped likelihood ratio test.

Figure 1.

Three potential profile distributions of stress perception characteristics in colorectal cancer patients.

Table 4.

Analysis of different characteristics of the 3 latent categories, N (%).

VariablesC1 (n = 49)C2 (n = 61)C3 (n = 145)χ2/FP
Genderχ2 = 12.8920.002
    Male35 (71.4%)25 (41%)93 (64.1%)
    Female14 (28.6%)36 (59%)52 (35.9%)
Age (years)χ2 = 8.7540.013
    ≤6010 (20.4%)23 (37.7%)64 (44.1%)
    >6039 (79.6%)38 (62.3%)81 (55.9%)
Residenceχ2 = 46.308<0.001
    Rural6 (12.2%)37 (60.7%)98 (67.6%)
    Urban43 (87.8%)24 (39.3%)47 (32.4%)
Educationχ2 = 43.577<0.001
    Primary school and below10 (20.4%)43 (70.5%)94 (64.8%)
    Middle school19 (38.8%)10 (16.4%)38 (26.2%)
    High school and above20 (40.8%)8 (13.1%)13 (9%)
Occupationχ2 = 73.210<0.001
    Farmer3 (6.1%)24 (39.3%)83 (57.2%)
    Worker23 (46.9%)24 (39.3%)34 (23.4%)
    Civil servant/public institution employee21 (42.9%)5 (8.2%)8 (5.5%)
    Other2 (4.1%)8 (13.1%)20 (13.8%)
Monthly family income (RMB)χ2 = 72.898<0.001
    ≤300010 (20.4%)47 (77%)122 (84.1%)
    >300039 (79.6%)14 (23%)23 (15.9%)
Pre-admission employment statusχ2 = 42.684<0.001
    Employed8 (16.3%)29 (47.5%)85 (58.6%)
    Retired40 (81.6%)29 (47.5%)45 (31.1%)
    Unemployed1 (2.1%)3 (5%)15 (10.3%)
Disease stageχ2 = 1.5360.957
    Stage I7 (14.3%)9 (14.8%)19 (13.1%)
    Stage II21 (42.9%)20 (32.8%)57 (39.3%)
    Stage III15 (30.6%)24 (39.3%)52 (35.9%)
    Stage IV6 (12.2%)8 (13.1%)17 (11.7%)
Treatment methodχ2 = 0.2200.896
    Surgery20 (40.8%)24 (39.3%)62 (42.8%)
    Surgery + chemotherapy/radiotherapy29 (59.2%)37 (60.7%)83 (57.2%)
Stomaχ2 = 22.363<0.001
    Present14 (28.6%)17 (27.9%)84 (57.9%)
    Absent35 (71.4%)44 (72.1%)61 (42.1%)
Economic toxicity score (mean + standard deviation)20.12 ± 4.52613.08 ± 4.3799.83 ± 3.832F = 115.559<0.001
Table 5.

The assigned values for the independent variables.

VariablesAssigned values
Gender
    Male1
    Female2
Age (years)
    ≤600
    >601
Residence
    Rural0
    Urban1
Education
    Primary school and below0
    Junior high school1
    High school and above2
Occupation
    Farmer0
    Worker1
    Civil servant/public institution employee2
    Other3
Monthly family income (RMB)
    ≤30000
    >30001
Pre-admission employment status
    Unemployed0
    Employed1
    Retired2
Stoma presence
    None0
    Present1
Table 6.

Multinomial logistic regression results of stress perception categories in colorectal cancer patients.

VariablesVariable coefficientStandard errorWald χ2P-valueOR value95% CI
Comparison 1: C3 versus C1
    Monthly family income ≤3000 RMB−1.8950.7117.1020.0080.150.037–0.606
    No stoma1.2580.5555.1370.0233.5171.185–10.437
    Economic toxicity0.3470.08118.498<0.0011.4151.208–1.658
Comparison 1: C3 versus C2
    Gender: Male−1.2740.40210.0590.0020.280.127–0.615
    No stoma1.2370.37810.7240.0013.4441.643–7.219
    Economic toxicity0.2070.0611.7540.0011.231.093–1.385
Comparison 2: C1 versus C2
    Monthly family income ≤3000 RMB1.6970.6846.1480.0135.4571.427–20.869

1 Note: Comparison 1: C3 is used as the reference group; Comparison 1: C1 is used as the reference group; CI, confidence interval.

DOI: https://doi.org/10.2478/fon-2024-0033 | Journal eISSN: 2544-8994 | Journal ISSN: 2097-5368
Journal RSS Feed
Language: English
Page range: 303 - 312
Submitted on: Jan 17, 2024
Accepted on: Apr 14, 2024
Published on: Sep 16, 2024
Published by: Shanxi Medical Periodical Press
In partnership with: Paradigm Publishing Services
Keywords:
colorectal cancer,
economic toxicity,
influence factors,
latent profile analysis,
perceived stress
Related subjects:
Medicine,
Assistive professions, nursing

© 2024 Yu-Yue Tan, Yin-Hong Liu, Zhi-Hui Zhang, Wei-Rong Huang, Man-Lin Yan, Xian-Rong Li, published by Shanxi Medical Periodical Press
This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.

Volume 11 (2024): Issue 3 (September 2024)
Previous article
Next article