4.4 Article

Factors associated with Health-Related Quality of Life in Kidney Transplant Recipients in France

期刊

BMC NEPHROLOGY
卷 19, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

BIOMED CENTRAL LTD
DOI: 10.1186/s12882-018-0893-6

关键词

Cross sectional; Health-related quality of life; Kidney Transplant Recipients; ReTransQol; SF-36

资金

  1. Direction Generale de l'Offre de Soins, Ministere des affaires sociales et de la sante

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background: Health-Related Quality of Life (HRQoL) assessment after kidney transplantation has become an important tool in evaluating outcomes. This study aims to identify the associated factors with HRQoL among a representative sample size of Kidney Transplant Recipients (KTR) at the time of their inclusion in the study. Methods: Data of this cross-sectional design is retrieved from a longitudinal study conducted in five French kidney transplant centers in 2011, and included KTR aged 18 years with a functioning graft for at least 1 year. Measures include demographic, psycho-social and clinical characteristics. To evaluate HRQoL, the Short Form-36 Health Survey (SF-36) and a HRQoL instrument for KTR (ReTransQol) were administered. Multivariate linear regression models were performed. Results: A total of 1424 patients were included, with 61.4% males, and a mean age of 55.7 years (+/- 13.1). Demographic and clinical characteristics were associated with low HRQoL scores for both questionnaires. New variables were found in our study: perceived poor social support and being treated by antidepressants were associated with low scores of Quality of Life (QoL), while internet access was associated with high QoL scores. Conclusion: The originality of our study's findings was that psycho-social variables, particularly KTR treated by antidepressants and having felt unmet needs for any social support, have a negative effect on their QoL. It may be useful to organize a psychological support specifically adapted for patients after kidney transplantation.

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

4.4
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