Ricardo Sesso1, João F Rodrigues-Neto, Marcos B Ferraz. 1. Division of Nephrology and Clinical Epidemiology Unit, Escola Paulista de Medicina, Universidade Federal de São Paulo, São Paulo, Brazil. rsesso@nefro.epm.br
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Socioeconomic status (SES) has been associated with the incidence of end-stage renal disease (ESRD); however, the impact of SES on the quality of life (QOL) of these patients has not been clearly defined. METHODS: One hundred eighteen patients were prospectively evaluated at the beginning of dialysis treatment and reassessed (n = 90) after an average of 7 months. QOL was measured by means of the Medical Outcomes Survey 36-Item Short Form (SF-36). Classification of SES was according to validated criteria of the Brazilian Association of Research Institutes. RESULTS: Mean scores for SF-36 dimensions were decreased in patients with low compared with high SES, with greater differences noted during follow-up. At this time, mean scores for SF-36 scales for the low- and high-SES groups were as follows: Functional Capacity, 43 +/- 31 versus 68 +/- 26 (P < 0.01); Physical Aspect, 34 +/- 36 versus 56 +/- 38; Pain, 55 +/- 31 versus 80 +/- 28 (P < 0.01); General Health Status, 60 +/- 21 versus 67 +/- 19; Vitality, 42 +/- 25 versus 59 +/- 16 (P < 0.05); Social Aspect, 53 +/- 32 versus 81 +/- 21 (P < 0.01); Emotional Aspect, 49 +/- 44 versus 70 +/- 41; and Mental Health, 51 +/- 27 versus 70 +/- 22 (P < 0.05), respectively. These differences were more pronounced than expected for an age- and sex-matched sample of the Brazilian general population. Multivariate analysis showed that SES continued to significantly affect all QOL dimensions, explaining 5.5% to 14.1% of variation in scales. CONCLUSION: SES is an important factor associated with QOL in patients with ESRD. Further studies to determine optimum interventions and measures in groups with lower SES may be important to improve QOL outcomes and reduce their morbidity. Copyright 2003 by the National Kidney Foundation, Inc.
BACKGROUND: Socioeconomic status (SES) has been associated with the incidence of end-stage renal disease (ESRD); however, the impact of SES on the quality of life (QOL) of these patients has not been clearly defined. METHODS: One hundred eighteen patients were prospectively evaluated at the beginning of dialysis treatment and reassessed (n = 90) after an average of 7 months. QOL was measured by means of the Medical Outcomes Survey 36-Item Short Form (SF-36). Classification of SES was according to validated criteria of the Brazilian Association of Research Institutes. RESULTS: Mean scores for SF-36 dimensions were decreased in patients with low compared with high SES, with greater differences noted during follow-up. At this time, mean scores for SF-36 scales for the low- and high-SES groups were as follows: Functional Capacity, 43 +/- 31 versus 68 +/- 26 (P < 0.01); Physical Aspect, 34 +/- 36 versus 56 +/- 38; Pain, 55 +/- 31 versus 80 +/- 28 (P < 0.01); General Health Status, 60 +/- 21 versus 67 +/- 19; Vitality, 42 +/- 25 versus 59 +/- 16 (P < 0.05); Social Aspect, 53 +/- 32 versus 81 +/- 21 (P < 0.01); Emotional Aspect, 49 +/- 44 versus 70 +/- 41; and Mental Health, 51 +/- 27 versus 70 +/- 22 (P < 0.05), respectively. These differences were more pronounced than expected for an age- and sex-matched sample of the Brazilian general population. Multivariate analysis showed that SES continued to significantly affect all QOL dimensions, explaining 5.5% to 14.1% of variation in scales. CONCLUSION: SES is an important factor associated with QOL in patients with ESRD. Further studies to determine optimum interventions and measures in groups with lower SES may be important to improve QOL outcomes and reduce their morbidity. Copyright 2003 by the National Kidney Foundation, Inc.
Authors: Juliana Alvares; Cibele Comini Cesar; Francisco de Assis Acurcio; Eli Iola Gurgel Andrade; Mariangela Leal Cherchiglia Journal: Qual Life Res Date: 2011-09-22 Impact factor: 4.147
Authors: Fabiane Rossi dos Santos Grincenkov; Natália Fernandes; Alfredo Chaoubah; Neimar da Silva Fernandes; Kleyton Bastos; Antonio Alberto Lopes; Abdul Rashid Qureshi; Fredric O Finkelstein; Roberto Pecoits-Filho; José Carolino Divino-Filho; Marcus Gomes Bastos Journal: Perit Dial Int Date: 2013 Nov-Dec Impact factor: 1.756
Authors: Maristela Bohlke; Stela S Marini; Marcos Rocha; Lisoneide Terhorst; Rafael H Gomes; Franklin C Barcellos; Maria Claudia C Irigoyen; Ricardo Sesso Journal: Qual Life Res Date: 2009-09-10 Impact factor: 4.147
Authors: Anna Porter; Michael J Fischer; Deborah Brooks; Marino Bruce; Jeanne Charleston; William H Cleveland; Donna Dowie; Marquetta Faulkner; Jennifer Gassman; Tom Greene; Leena Hiremath; Cindy Kendrick; John W Kusek; Denyse Thornley-Brown; Xuelei Wang; Keith Norris; Mark Unruh; James Lash Journal: Transl Res Date: 2011-10-12 Impact factor: 7.012
Authors: Isabel Vázquez; Fernando Valderrábano; Joan Fort; Rosa Jofré; Juan Manuel López-Gómez; Fuensanta Moreno; Dámaso Sanz-Guajardo Journal: Qual Life Res Date: 2005-02 Impact factor: 4.147