Demographic Correlates of Perceived Health Status after Renal Transplantation
PDF

How to Cite

KAMRAN, F., Rafique, R., Anjum, A., & Raza, Z. (2017). Demographic Correlates of Perceived Health Status after Renal Transplantation. KHYBER MEDICAL UNIVERSITY JOURNAL, 8(3), 115. Retrieved from https://www.kmuj.kmu.edu.pk/article/view/16077

Abstract

OBJECTIVES: to identify the demographic factors that can make recipients vulnerable to develop poorer perceptions of health despite a
healthy graft functioning and to evaluate recipients’ perceived health
status (PHS) influences their coping and adjustment with the altered
life styles and challenges after transplant.
METHODS: In this longitudinal study, PHS was measured by a self-developed questionnaire that reflected the symptoms’ severity and frequency measured by the common immunosuppressant side effects. Actual physical health status was measured by the clinical data that comprised of kidney function tests (serum creatinine, blood urea nitrogen, uric acid) and general health indicators such as blood pressure, cholesterol and haemoglobin levels.
RESULTS: There was significant correlation among sociodemographic
factors and perceptions of health status after a successful renal transplant over time. Age had a significant negative association with PHS, indicating that older recipients tend to have poorer perceptions of health as compared to younger recipients. Single RTRs tend to have more a better PHS than those in a relationship. Time since transplantation showed a significant positive correlation with PHS reflecting that with the passage of time, perceptions of health tend to improve in most RTRs.
In Sociodemographic factors, significant differences were found only
in age and marital status. Older and single recipients tend to report
better PHS. However, PHS did not differ significantly across gender,
educational level, financial and work status.
CONCLUSION: Socio-demographic factors do affect PHS to some extent and thus need to be considered as a part of transplant candidacy and psychological management accordingly.
KEY WORDS: Perceived Health Status (Non-MeSH), Actual Physical
Health Status (Non-MeSH), Renal Transplant Recipients (Non-MeSH),
Socio-demographic (Non-MeSH), Quality of Life (MeSH).

PDF

References

Bowling A. Measuring Disease. A Review

of Disease-specific Quality of Life

Measurement Scales. Buckingham: Open

University Press; 2001.

Prihodova L, Nagyova I, Rosenberger J,

Roland R, Dijk J, Groothoff J. Impact of

personality and psychological distress

on health -related quality of life in kidney

transplant recipients. Transpl Int

;23(5):484-92.

Ojo AO, Hanson JA, Wolfe RA, Leichtman

AB, Agodoa LY, Port FK. Long-term survival

in renal transplant recipients with graft

function. Kidney Int 2000;57(1):307–13.

McCaughan AJ, Patterson CC, Maxwell AP,

Courtney AE. Factors influencing survival

after kidney transplant failure. Transpl Res

;3(1):18.

Siegal B, Halbert RJ, McGuire MJ. Life satisfaction

among kidney transplant recipients:

Demographic and biological factors. Prog

Transpl 2002 Dec;12(4):293-8.

Sellarés J, de Freitas DG, Mengel M, Reeve

J, Einecke G, Sis B, et al. Understanding

the causes of kidney transplant failure:

The dominant role of antibody-mediated

rejection and nonadherence. Am J Transpl

Feb;12(2):388-99.

Gentile S, Beauger D, Speyer E, Jouve

E, Dussol B, Jacquelinet C, et al. Factors

associated with health related quality of

life in renal transplant recipient: Results of

a national survey in France. Health Qual

Life Outcomes 2013;11(1):88.

Dew MA, Switzer GE, Goycoolea JM,

Allen AS, DiMartini A, Kormos RL, et

al. Does transplantation produce quality

of life benefits? A quantitative analysis

of the literature. Transplant 1997 Nov

;64(9):1261-73.

Maglakelidze N, Pantsulaia T, Tchokhonelidze

I, Managadze L, Chkhotua A. Assessment

of health-related quality of life in

renal transplant recipients and dialysis patients.

Transplant Proc. 2011;43(1):376–9.

Muehrer RJ, Becker BN. Psychosocial

factors in patients with chronic kidney disease:

Life after transplantation: new transitions

in quality of life and psychological

distress. Semin Dial 2005;18(2):124–131.

Goetzmann L, Sarac N, Ambuhl P, Boehlerb

A, Iranib S, Muellhauptb B, et al. Psychological

response and quality of life after

transplantation: A comparison between

heart, lung, liver and kidney recipients.

Swiss Med Wkly 2008 Aug 23;138(33-

:477-83. doi: 2008/33/smw-12160.

Bohlke M, Marini SS, Rocha M, Terhorst

L, Gomes RH, Barcellos FC, et al. Factors

associated with health-related quality of

life after successful kidney transplantation:

A population-based study. Qual Life Res

;18(9):1185–93.

Griva K, Stygall J, Ng JH, Davenport

A, Harrison MJ, Newman S. Prospective

changes in health-related quality

of life and emotional outcomes in

kidney transplantation over 6 years.

J Transplant 2011;2011:671571. doi:

1155/2011/671571. Epub 2011 Jul 21.

Hodge EE, Goormastic M, Straffon RA,

Novick AC, Streem SB, Goldfarb DA, et al.

Changing demographics in renal transplant

recipients: The 30 year Cleveland Clinic

experience. Clin Transpl 1994; 221-31.

de Mendonça AEO, de Vasconcelos Torres

G, de Góes Salvetti M, Alchieri JC, Costa

IKF. Changes in quality of life after kidney

transplantation and related factors. Acta

Paul Enferm 2014;27(3):287-92.

Chisholm MA, Spivey CA, Nus AV. Influence

of economic and demographic factors

on quality of life in renal transplant recipients.

Clin Transplant 2007;21(2):285–93.

Rizvi SAH, Naqvi, SAA, Zafar MN, Akhtar

SF. A kidney transplantation model in a

low-resource country: an experience from

Pakistan. Kidney Int Suppl (2011)2013

May;3(2):236-40.

Rosenberger J, vanDijk JP, Nagyova I,

Zezula I, Geckova AM, Roland R, et al.

Predictors of perceived health status

in patients after kidney transplantation.

Transplantation 2006;81(9):1306-10.

Work published in KMUJ is licensed under a

 Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 2.0 Generic License.

Creative Commons License

Authors are permitted and encouraged to post their work online (e.g., in institutional repositories or on their website) prior to and during the submission process, as it can lead to productive exchanges, as well as earlier and greater citation of published work.