Blog
About

0
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
1 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found

      Self-Assessed Quality of Life in Peritoneal Dialysis Patients

      Read this article at

      ScienceOpenPublisherPubMed
      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Background/Aims: Studies comparing quality of life (QOL) between peritoneal and hemodialysis patients have yielded inconsistent results. Physical (PCS) and mental component summary (MCS) scales of Short Form 36 (SF-36) health survey are highly validated measures of self-assessed QOL. We sought to evaluate these indices in PD patients: (1) as measures of QOL, (2) predictors of QOL, (3) to study change in QOL over time, and (4) to compare QOL in PD vs. hemodialysis patients. Methods: SF-36 questionnaires were administered every 3 months to patients over a 2-year period and PCS and MCS were calculated. Mean follow-up was 15.3 ± 6.6 months for PD and 14.5 ± 5.7 months for HD. Results: Average PCS in PD (31.8 ± 7.8) was lower than HD (36.9 ± 9.8) (p < 0.02), while MCS was similar in the groups (p = NS). The prevalence of depression was 26.1% in PD and 25.4% in HD patients (p = NS). Serum albumin was the only significant predictor of PCS among PD patients and explained much of the decrease in PCS in them. The number of hospitalizations and in-hospital days were significantly lower for PD compared to HD patients (p < 0.05). PCS as well as MCS remained stable in both groups throughout the observation period. Conclusion: Self-assessed physical function is diminished, while mental function is similar in PD compared to HD patients. When corrected for serum albumin, this difference is eliminated. Over time, QOL in patients treated with PD remained stable.

          Related collections

          Most cited references 3

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          The Medical Outcomes Study. An application of methods for monitoring the results of medical care.

          The Medical Outcomes Study was designed to (1) determine whether variations in patient outcomes are explained by differences in system of care, clinician specialty, and clinicians' technical and interpersonal styles and (2) develop more practical tools for the routine monitoring of patient outcomes in medical practice. Outcomes included clinical end points; physical, social, and role functioning in everyday living; patients' perceptions of their general health and well-being; and satisfaction with treatment. Populations of clinicians (n = 523) were randomly sampled from different health care settings in Boston, Mass; Chicago, Ill; and Los Angeles, Calif. In the cross-sectional study, adult patients (n = 22,462) evaluated their health status and treatment. A sample of these patients (n = 2349) with diabetes, hypertension, coronary heart disease, and/or depression were selected for the longitudinal study. Their hospitalizations and other treatments were monitored and they periodically reported outcomes of care. At the beginning and end of the longitudinal study, Medical Outcomes Study staff performed physical examinations and laboratory tests. Results will be reported serially, primarily in The Journal.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: not found
            • Article: not found

            A critical appraisal of the quality of quality-of-life measurements

             T Gill (1994)
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              Quality of life in peritoneal dialysis patients.

              In 49 patients receiving continuous ambulatory peritoneal dialysis, we assessed the relative influences of adequacy of dialysis (assessed by kinetic transfer/volume urea) and psychological symptoms (depression and anxiety) upon the patients' evaluation of their overall quality of life (QoL). Subjects completed self-rating forms for anxiety, depressive, and somatic symptoms, for discrete areas relevant to QoL, and for overall QoL; clinicians also rated QoL. Depressive symptoms proved a much stronger correlate of overall QoL than did the biochemical measure of dialysis adequacy, and they remained influential even after adjustment for anxiety, kinetic transfer/volume, and somatic symptoms. In contrast, the effects of kinetic transfer/volume, anxiety symptoms, and somatic symptoms dropped sharply when adjusted for the other variables. Because psychological (especially depressive) symptoms may be stronger determinants of patients' overall QoL than is adequacy of dialysis, assessing QoL and psychological status should be part of the care of end-stage renal disease patients.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Journal
                AJN
                Am J Nephrol
                10.1159/issn.0250-8095
                American Journal of Nephrology
                S. Karger AG
                0250-8095
                1421-9670
                2001
                June 2001
                25 June 2001
                : 21
                : 3
                : 215-220
                Affiliations
                Division of Nephrology and Hypertension, Winthrop University Hospital, Mineola, N.Y., USA
                Article
                46250 Am J Nephrol 2001;21:215–220
                10.1159/000046250
                11423691
                © 2001 S. Karger AG, Basel

                Copyright: All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be translated into other languages, reproduced or utilized in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, recording, microcopying, or by any information storage and retrieval system, without permission in writing from the publisher. Drug Dosage: The authors and the publisher have exerted every effort to ensure that drug selection and dosage set forth in this text are in accord with current recommendations and practice at the time of publication. However, in view of ongoing research, changes in government regulations, and the constant flow of information relating to drug therapy and drug reactions, the reader is urged to check the package insert for each drug for any changes in indications and dosage and for added warnings and precautions. This is particularly important when the recommended agent is a new and/or infrequently employed drug. Disclaimer: The statements, opinions and data contained in this publication are solely those of the individual authors and contributors and not of the publishers and the editor(s). The appearance of advertisements or/and product references in the publication is not a warranty, endorsement, or approval of the products or services advertised or of their effectiveness, quality or safety. The publisher and the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to persons or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content or advertisements.

                Page count
                Figures: 1, Tables: 1, References: 24, Pages: 6
                Product
                Self URI (application/pdf): https://www.karger.com/Article/Pdf/46250
                Categories
                Clinical Study

                Comments

                Comment on this article