4.1 Article

Walking, Sedentary Time and Health-Related Quality Life Among Kidney Transplant Recipients: An Exploratory Study

Journal

TRANSPLANTATION PROCEEDINGS
Volume 48, Issue 1, Pages 59-64

Publisher

ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.transproceed.2015.12.022

Keywords

-

Funding

  1. Canada Research Chairs program
  2. Population Health Investigator Award from Alberta Innovates - Health Solutions
  3. Alberta Innovates Establishment Grant
  4. Athabasca University Graduate Students Research Fund

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Objectives. The primary objectives of this study were to: 1) establish walking and physical activity prevalence and sedentary time estimates; and 2) determine associations of health related quality of life (HRQoL) with objectively assessed walking, self-reported physical activity, and sedentary time among kidney transplant recipients. Methods. Using a cross-sectional design, kidney transplant recipients received a survey package containing measures of sedentary time, moderate-to-vigorous physical activity, and HRQoL, and a step pedometer. Results. Thirty-two participants returned a completed survey, for a response rate of 82% (32 of 39 interested participants). The average steps per day were 9752 steps (SD = 3685) and 59% achieved public health guidelines of at least 150 minutes of moderate-to-vigorous physical activity per week. Total sedentary time during the week was 11.6 h/d whereas total sedentary time during the weekend was 8.9 h/d. Compared to those not achieving at least 10,000 steps/d, respondents who were achieving at least 10,000 steps/d had a significantly higher physical component score for HRQoL (M-diff = 7.8, P = .018). Similar patterns emerged for meeting physical activity guidelines and sedentary time. Conclusion. For kidney transplant recipients, greater participation in walking, overall physical activity, and lower engagement in sedentary activity, was associated with better HRQoL.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.1
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available