4.1 Article

The Assessment of Health-Related Quality of Life in Patients With Chronic Liver Disease: A Single-Center Study

期刊

CUREUS JOURNAL OF MEDICAL SCIENCE
卷 12, 期 9, 页码 -

出版社

SPRINGERNATURE
DOI: 10.7759/cureus.10727

关键词

health related quality of life; chronic liver disease; nepali version sf-36

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Aim The aim of this study was to investigate the factors affecting health-related quality of life (HRQOL) in Nepalese patients with chronic liver disease (CLD). Methods In this study, HRQOL was measured with validated Nepali versions of the short-form 36 (SF-36) survey. Socioeconomic factors, etiology, laboratory parameters, disease severity, and self-rated health perceptions on HRQOL were recorded for analysis. Results Sixty CLD patients were enrolled in the study. The following HRQOL scores were obtained: physical functioning (PF) (34.4 +/- 26.7), role limitation due to physical health (RLPH) (7.5 +/- 17.8), role limitation due to emotional problems (RLEP) (27.7 +/- 38.2), energy or fatigue (E/F) (38.5 +/- 21.5), emotional well-being (EWB) (57.7 +/- 22.8), social functioning (SF) (55.2 +/- 23.5), pain (44.8 +/- 30.3), and general health (GH) (38.2 +/- 17). Employed status and higher annual family income had a positive impact on HRQOL. Ascites and abnormal upper gastrointestinal endoscopic findings were associated with poor health status perceptions. More severe disease (higher Child-Pugh class) was associated with lower HRQOL scores. A significant negative correlation between the model for end-stage liver disease (MELD) score and HRQOL domains was observed (p: <0.05). Age, gender, religion, education, and duration of the diagnosis of CLD had no effect on HRQOL of CLD patients. Conclusion HRQOL in patients with CLD was lower than that in the general population. Unemployed status, low annual family income, ascites, abnormal upper gastrointestinal endoscopic findings, and higher Child-Pugh class and MELD scores were important factors that adversely affected HRQOL.

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

4.1
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