| Literature DB >> 29326196 |
Phillippa K Bailey1,2,3, Alexander J Hamilton1,4, Rhian L Clissold5, Carol D Inward6, Fergus J Caskey1,3,4, Yoav Ben-Shlomo1, Amanda Owen-Smith1.
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Young adults fare worse than younger adolescents or older adults on a broad range of health indicators. Those with a chronic illness such as renal failure are a particularly vulnerable group, who experience poor outcomes compared with both children and older adults. Understanding how being in receipt of renal replacement therapy (RRT) affects the lives of young adults might help us to better prepare and support these individuals for and on RRT, and improve outcomes. This study aimed to synthesise research describing young adults' experiences of the psychosocial impact of kidney failure and RRT.Entities:
Keywords: psychosocial impact; qualitative research; renal replacement therapy; thematic synthesis; young adults
Mesh:
Year: 2018 PMID: 29326196 PMCID: PMC5781019 DOI: 10.1136/bmjopen-2017-019926
Source DB: PubMed Journal: BMJ Open ISSN: 2044-6055 Impact factor: 2.692
Figure 1Systematic search results for studies. RRT, renal replacement therapy.
Study characteristics
| Study ID | Country | No of participants | Age range (years) | Methodological framework, for example, ethnography, phenomenology, qualitative | Data collection, for example, in-depth interviews, focus groups | Analysis, for example, content, framework, thematic, GT | Topic |
| Peer-reviewed journal articles | |||||||
| Tong | Australia | 27 in total—14 receiving dialysis | 16 aged 12–17 | Qualitative | In-depth interviews and journal entries | Thematic analysis | Experiences and perspectives of adolescents and young adults with advanced chronic kidney disease |
| Cura | The Philippines | 6 | 17–21 | Interpretive phenomenological analysis | In-depth interviews and participant diaries | Ricoeur’s theory of interpretation | Transition from adolescence to adulthood in patients on dialysis who have ESRD |
| Kim and Choi | South Korea | 9 | 12–18 | Qualitative | In-depth interviews, plus one focus group | Content analysis | Renal transplant experiences of Korean adolescent transplant recipients |
| Murray | UK | 14 | Median age 23.5 | Mixed methods | In-depth interviews following questionnaire | Content analysis | Impact of ESRD on education and employment outcomes in young adults |
| Lewis and Arber | UK | 35 | 20–30 | Qualitative | In-depth interviews | Modified grounded theory | Exploring impact of age at onset (<20 years of age, essentially a young age of onset) of ESRD on education and employment outcomes |
| Lewis and Arber | UK | 40 | 16–30 | Qualitative | In-depth interviews | Modified grounded theory—social constructionist approach | Exploring the role of the body in end-stage kidney disease in young adults: gender, peer and intimate relationships |
| Harwood and Johnson | Canada | 5 | 15–18 | Qualitative | In-depth, semistructured interviews | Descriptive phenomenological analysis (Giorgi’s method) | Adolescents’ experiences of treatment after renal transplantation |
ESRD, end-stage renal disease; GT, grounded theory.
Comprehensiveness of reporting
| COREQ item | Study reference | No of studies | ||||||
| Tong | Harwood and Johnson | Murray | Lewis and Arber | Lewis and Arber | Cura | Kim and Choi | ||
| Domain 1: research team and reflexivity | ||||||||
| Interviewer/facilitator identified | X | X | X | X | 4 | |||
| Researcher credentials | X | X | X | 3 | ||||
| Occupation of researcher | X | 1 | ||||||
| Gender of researcher | X | X | X | X | 4 | |||
| Experience and training | X | 1 | ||||||
| Prior/existing relationship with participants | 0 | |||||||
| Participant knowledge of interviewer | 0 | |||||||
| Interviewer characteristics, for example, bias, assumptions, interest in topic | X | 1 | ||||||
| Domain 2: study design | ||||||||
| Methodology and theory | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | 7 |
| Sampling strategy | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | 7 |
| Method of approach/invitation | X | X | 2 | |||||
| Sample size | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | 7 |
| Non-participation | X | 1 | ||||||
| Setting of data collection | X | X | X | X | X | 5 | ||
| Presence of non-participants | X | X | 2 | |||||
| Description of sample, for example, demographics | X | X | X | X | X | X | 6 | |
| Interview guide | X | 1 | ||||||
| Repeat interviews | X | 1 | ||||||
| Audio/visual recording | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | 7 |
| Field notes | X | 1 | ||||||
| Duration | X | X | X | 3 | ||||
| Data saturation | X | X | X | X | 4 | |||
| Transcripts returned | 0 | |||||||
| Domain 3: analysis and findings | ||||||||
| No of data coders | X | X | X | X | 4 | |||
| Description of coding tree | 0 | |||||||
| Derivation of themes—in advance or derived | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | 7 |
| Software | X | X | X | X | 4 | |||
| Participant checking | X | 1 | ||||||
| Quotations presented | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | 7 |
| Data and findings consistent | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | 7 |
| Clarity of major themes | X | X | X | X | X | 5 | ||
| Clarity of minor themes | X | X | 1 | |||||
| Total no of COREQ items | 22 | 12 | 9 | 16 | 13 | 18 | 15 | |
COREQ, Consolidated Criteria for Reporting Qualitative Health Research.
Quality assessment of included papers
| CASP checklist items | Tong | Harwood and Johnson | Murray | Lewis and Arber | Lewis and Arber | Cura | Kim and Choi |
| 1. Was there a clear statement of the aims of the research? | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes |
| 2. Is a qualitative methodology appropriate? | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes |
| 3. Was the research design appropriate to address the aims of the research? | Yes | Cannot tell | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes |
| 4. Was the recruitment strategy appropriate to the aims of the research? | Yes | Cannot tell | Yes | Yes | Yes | Cannot tell | Yes |
| 5. Was the data collected in a way that addressed the research issue? | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Cannot tell | Yes |
| 6. Has the relationship between researcher and participants been adequately considered? | Cannot tell | Cannot tell | Cannot tell | Yes | Cannot tell | Cannot tell | Cannot tell |
| 7. Have ethical issues been taken into consideration? | Yes | Cannot tell | Cannot tell | Yes | Yes | Cannot tell | Yes |
| 8. Was the data analysis sufficiently rigorous? | Yes | No | No | Yes | Yes | No | Yes—although saturation reported as reached after nine interviews |
| 9. Is there a clear statement of findings? | Yes | Yes | No | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes |
| 10. How valuable is the research? | Valuable: New insights particularly regarding experiences of waiting for and of transplantation. Journal in addition to interview data added rich insights. Areas for service improvement in light of findings highlighted. | Limited by: Small sample. Underanalysis. | Limited by: Qualitative element of this study is poorly reported compared with the quantitative element. | Valuable: Large sample. Diversity of participants. Rich, extensive, detailed analysis. Research reflexivity explicitly explored. | Valuable: Large sample. Diversity of participants. Rich, extensive, detailed analysis. | Limited by: Small sample Underanalysis Transferability | Limited by: Small sample. |
Figure 2Thematic schema.