Meta-analysis shows that interventions based on Protection Motivation Theory reduce complications in elderly patients with gastrointestinal cancer, suggesting better recovery outcomes.
Objective This study aims to evaluate the effect of postoperative interventions based on the Protection Motivation Theory (PMT) on postoperative recovery in elderly gastrointestinal cancer patients, providing scientific evidence to support clinical practice and improving postoperative recovery quality and survival rates in elderly patients. Methods A systematic review and meta-analysis were conducted, with relevant studies retrieved from multiple Chinese and English databases. The studies selected met the inclusion criteria, involving elderly gastrointestinal cancer patients aged 60 years or older, and interventions guided by PMT, including health education, behavior modification, or psychological interventions. The primary outcomes assessed were postoperative complication rates, psychological stress scores, and quality of life scores. Results A total of 8 randomized controlled trials (RCTs) were included, with a total of 319 participants. Meta-analysis results indicated that the PMT intervention group had a significantly lower postoperative complication rate compared to the conventional health education group (MD = 1.81, 95% CI:1.30–2.53, P = 0.0005). The PMT intervention group also showed significantly lower postoperative psychological stress scores than the conventional group (MD = -15.64, 95% CI: -17.34 to -13.95, P < 0.00001). Moreover, the PMT intervention group exhibited significantly better postoperative quality of life scores compared to the conventional care group (MD=-8.99, 95% CI:-9.60 to-8.38, P < 0.00001). Conclusion Postoperative interventions based on the Protection Motivation Theory can significantly improve postoperative recovery in elderly gastrointestinal cancer patients by enhancing recovery outcomes, reducing complication rates, improving psychological stress levels, and enhancing quality of life, demonstrating strong clinical application value.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Wei et al. (2025) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: