4.6 Article

Cross-Sectional Analysis of Health-Related Quality of Life in Pediatric Liver Transplant Recipients

期刊

JOURNAL OF PEDIATRICS
卷 156, 期 2, 页码 270-U137

出版社

MOSBY-ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.jpeds.2009.08.048

关键词

-

资金

  1. National Institute of Child Health and Human Development [R01 HD045694]
  2. National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases at the National Institutes of Health [U01 DK061693]
  3. Mapi Research Trust

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objective To investigate the distribution of health-related quality of life in pediatric liver transplant recipients compared with a normative population. Study design This cross-sectional, multicenter study was conducted at select centers. Patients between 2 and 18 years of age, surviving liver transplantation by at least 12 months, were eligible. Parent/guardian fluency in English or Spanish was required. Children >= 8 years and parents of all children completed the age-appropriate versions of the PedsQL 4.0 (Mapi Research Institute, Lyon, France). Scores were compared with a sample of healthy children (n = 3911) matched by age group, sex, and race/ethnicity and with a sample of pediatric patients with cancer receiving chemotherapy and/or radiation. Results Participants included 65% (873/1339) of eligible patients. Mean age was 8.17 +/- 4.43 years, and 55% were female. The total and subscale scores of PedsQL 4.0 were lower than in healthy children (P < .001), with effect sizes for self-report ranging from -0.25 for Emotional Functioning to -0.68 for School Functioning. Patients and their parents reported better physical functioning than patients with cancer but similar social and school functioning. Correlations between parent and self-reports were in the moderate agreement range. Conclusions Pediatric liver transplant recipients and their parents report lower health-related quality of life than control subjects with some domains equal to children receiving cancer therapy. (J Pediatr 2010;156:270-6).

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据