J W Grijpma1, M Tielen2, A L van Staa3, L Maasdam4, T van Gelder5, S P Berger6, J J Busschbach7, M G H Betjes8, W Weimar9, E K Massey10. 1. Erasmus MC, Department of Internal Medicine, P.O. Box 2040, 3000 CA Rotterdam, the Netherlands. Electronic address: j.grijpma@erasmusmc.nl. 2. Erasmus MC, Department of Internal Medicine, P.O. Box 2040, 3000 CA Rotterdam, the Netherlands. Electronic address: m.tielen@erasmusmc.nl. 3. Rotterdam University of Applied Sciences, Research Centre Innovations in Care, P.O. Box 25035, 3001 HA Rotterdam, The Netherlands; Erasmus University Rotterdam, Institute of Health Policy & Management (iBMG), Rotterdam, The Netherlands. Electronic address: a.van.staa@hr.nl. 4. Erasmus MC, Department of Internal Medicine, P.O. Box 2040, 3000 CA Rotterdam, the Netherlands. Electronic address: l.maasdam@erasmusmc.nl. 5. Erasmus MC, Department of Internal Medicine, P.O. Box 2040, 3000 CA Rotterdam, the Netherlands. Electronic address: t.vangelder@erasmusmc.nl. 6. Erasmus MC, Department of Internal Medicine, P.O. Box 2040, 3000 CA Rotterdam, the Netherlands. Electronic address: s.p.berger@umcg.nl. 7. Erasmus MC, Department of Psychiatry, P.O. Box 2040, 3000 CA Rotterdam, the Netherlands. Electronic address: j.vanbusschbach@erasmusmc.nl. 8. Erasmus MC, Department of Internal Medicine, P.O. Box 2040, 3000 CA Rotterdam, the Netherlands. Electronic address: m.g.h.betjes@erasmusmc.nl. 9. Erasmus MC, Department of Internal Medicine, P.O. Box 2040, 3000 CA Rotterdam, the Netherlands. Electronic address: w.weimar@erasmusmc.nl. 10. Erasmus MC, Department of Internal Medicine, P.O. Box 2040, 3000 CA Rotterdam, the Netherlands. Electronic address: e.massey@erasmusmc.nl.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Kidney transplant recipients face many self-management challenges. We aimed to identify profiles of attitudes towards self-management support (SMS) shortly after kidney transplantation. METHODS: Profiles were generated using Q-methodology: In face-to-face interviews participants rank-ordered opinion statements on aspects of SMS according to agreement. Socio-demographic and medical characteristics were assessed using a questionnaire. By-person factor analysis was used to analyze the rankings and qualitative data was used to support choice of profiles. The resulting factors represent clusters of patients with similar attitudes towards SMS. RESULTS: Forty-three patients (mean age=56; 77% male) participated. Four profiles were identified: (A) transplant-focused and obedient; (B) holistic and collaborative; (C) life-focused and self-determined; and (D) was bipolar. The positive pole (D+) minimalizing and disengaged and the negative pole (D-) coping-focused and needy represent opposing viewpoints within the same profile. Socio-demographic and medical characteristics were not related to profile membership. DISCUSSION: Each profile represents a specific attitude on post-transplant life, responsibility for health and decision-making, SMS needs, and preferences for SMS. PRACTICAL IMPLICATIONS: Patients vary in their attitude, needs and preferences for SMS indicating the necessity of providing personalized support after kidney transplantation. Health professionals should explore patients' SMS needs and adapt support accordingly.
OBJECTIVE: Kidney transplant recipients face many self-management challenges. We aimed to identify profiles of attitudes towards self-management support (SMS) shortly after kidney transplantation. METHODS: Profiles were generated using Q-methodology: In face-to-face interviews participants rank-ordered opinion statements on aspects of SMS according to agreement. Socio-demographic and medical characteristics were assessed using a questionnaire. By-person factor analysis was used to analyze the rankings and qualitative data was used to support choice of profiles. The resulting factors represent clusters of patients with similar attitudes towards SMS. RESULTS: Forty-three patients (mean age=56; 77% male) participated. Four profiles were identified: (A) transplant-focused and obedient; (B) holistic and collaborative; (C) life-focused and self-determined; and (D) was bipolar. The positive pole (D+) minimalizing and disengaged and the negative pole (D-) coping-focused and needy represent opposing viewpoints within the same profile. Socio-demographic and medical characteristics were not related to profile membership. DISCUSSION: Each profile represents a specific attitude on post-transplant life, responsibility for health and decision-making, SMS needs, and preferences for SMS. PRACTICAL IMPLICATIONS: Patients vary in their attitude, needs and preferences for SMS indicating the necessity of providing personalized support after kidney transplantation. Health professionals should explore patients' SMS needs and adapt support accordingly.
Authors: Janet M J Been-Dahmen; Denise K Beck; Mariëlle A C Peeters; Heleen van der Stege; Mirjam Tielen; Marleen C van Buren; Erwin Ista; AnneLoes van Staa; Emma K Massey Journal: BMC Nephrol Date: 2019-04-27 Impact factor: 2.585
Authors: Femmy M Bijnsdorp; H Roeline W Pasman; Cécile R L Boot; Susanne M van Hooft; AnneLoes van Staa; Anneke L Francke Journal: BMC Palliat Care Date: 2020-04-21 Impact factor: 3.234
Authors: Regina van Zanten; Monique van Dijk; Joost van Rosmalen; Denise Beck; Robert Zietse; Ann Van Hecke; AnneLoes van Staa; Emma K Massey Journal: Trials Date: 2022-01-06 Impact factor: 2.279
Authors: Kate Churruca; Kristiana Ludlow; Wendy Wu; Kate Gibbons; Hoa Mi Nguyen; Louise A Ellis; Jeffrey Braithwaite Journal: BMC Med Res Methodol Date: 2021-06-21 Impact factor: 4.615