方法应用焦虑自评量表（SAS）及抑郁自评量表（SDS）对2所综合性医院的急诊科40名护士和普通病房40名护士进行了问卷调查，并进行对比分析。
Methods: With SAS and SDS, 40 nurses in emergency wards and 40 nurses in normal wards of 2 hospitals were investigated, then the results were comparing analysed.
方法：对骨折患者应用焦虑自评量表（ ）及简易应对方式问卷进行调SAS查。
METHODS: Self-rating anxiety scale (SAS) and simple coping style questionnaire were used in the patients with fracture.
应用抑郁自评量表（SDS）、焦虑自评量表（SAS）及症状自评量表（SCL-90）对两组人群进行测评；收集病人的相关资料。
The SDS, SAS and SCL-90 were applied to measure the two -group patients and collect correlative data.
两组干预前后分别采用焦虑自评量表(SAS)、特质应对方式(TCSQ)、及自编患者对护理工作满意度调查表进行评价。
All the patients were investigated with Self-Rating Anxiety Scale (SAS), Traits Coping Styles Questionnaire (TCSQ) and satisfaction with nursing work in patients before and after the intervention.
结果两组抑郁自评量表（SDS）、焦虑自评量表（SAS）、社交回避及苦恼量表（SAD）、症状自评量表（SCL-90）因子评分（除偏执、精神病性外）比较，差异有统计学意义（均P<0.05）。
Results The scores of SDS, SAS, SAD, and SCL-90 except the factors of paranoid ideation and psychoticism showed significant differences between the two groups(P<0.05 for all).
结果两组抑郁自评量表（SDS）、焦虑自评量表（SAS）、社交回避及苦恼量表（SAD）、症状自评量表（SCL-90）因子评分（除偏执、精神病性外）比较，差异有统计学意义（均P<0.05）。
Results The scores of SDS, SAS, SAD, and SCL-90 except the factors of paranoid ideation and psychoticism showed significant differences between the two groups(P<0.05 for all).
应用推荐