Literature DB >> 34766467

Analysis of risk factors for mental health problems of inpatients with chronic liver disease and nursing strategies: A single center descriptive study.

Zhu Qin1, Yannan Shen1, Yuanhao Wu2, Haicheng Tang2, Lin Zhang3.   

Abstract

The number of patients with chronic liver disease (CLD) is large. The social and economic burdens due to CLD have increased. The mental health problems of patients with CLD are prominent and deserve our attention and care. This study analyzed 320 patients with CLD who were hospitalized between January 2018 and January 2020. Questionnaire surveys were used to assess mental health status, including the Self-Rating Anxiety Scale (SAS), Self-Rating Depression Scale (SDS), and Symptom Checklist-90 (SCL-90). At the same time, basic data and potential related factors were collected. Data were analyzed using descriptive statistics and logistic regression. Among the 320 patients with CLD, 240 (75%) had mental health problems; among the total patients, education levels, occupations, course of disease, annual hospitalizations, complications, and nursing satisfaction were significantly different between the two groups (p < .05). The education levels and occupations of the group without mental health problems were significantly different within the group (p < .05). The SCL-90 found that the four factors with the highest scores were anxiety (ANX: 33.3%), depression (DEPR: 20.4%), somatization (SOM: 12.9%), and sleep and diet (SD: 9.6%). Logistic regression analysis showed that education levels, course of disease, annual hospitalizations, complications, and nursing satisfaction levels were independent risk factors for the mental health of patients with CLD. Model fitness was checked using the Hosmer-Lemeshow test. The receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve showed that the area under the curve was 0.84. Patients with CLD have prominent mental health problems and experience many risk factors. It is necessary to adopt individualized psychological interventions and care to improve the quality of life of these patients.
© 2021 The Authors. Brain and Behavior published by Wiley Periodicals LLC.

Entities:  

Keywords:  anxiety; chronic liver disease; depression; influencing factors; mental health; nursing

Mesh:

Year:  2021        PMID: 34766467      PMCID: PMC8671788          DOI: 10.1002/brb3.2406

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Brain Behav            Impact factor:   2.708


BACKGROUND

The liver is the largest solid organ of the human body. Chronic liver disease (CLD) is a common cause of premature death. CLD is usually discovered late, and interventions are ineffective, resulting in a very high morbidity and mortality rate. According to data from the World Health Organization, hepatitis B virus is prevalent worldwide. Approximately 2 billion people in the world have been infected by the hepatitis B virus, and approximately 240 million of them have become chronically infected. The proportion of infection in different countries and different regions is quite different (Ott et al., 2012). According to the 2006 hepatitis B epidemiological survey report in China, the positive rate of Hepatitis B surface antigen (HBsAg) among people under 60 years old was 7.18% (Liang et al., 2009). Based on this, China has approximately 93 million people with chronic hepatitis B infection, of which 20 million are chronic hepatitis B patients (Lozano et al., 2012). The hepatitis C virus is also widespread. The total number of chronic hepatitis C virus infections in the world is approximately 130−170 million people, accounting for 2.8% of the world's total population. Approximately 4 million people are newly diagnosed with a hepatitis C virus infection each year. The possibility of developing chronic hepatitis after being infected with the hepatitis C virus is 75%−85%. In addition, nonviral CLDs also include cholestatic, alcoholic, fatty liver, and autoimmune liver diseases. Approximately 650,000 people worldwide die each year due to liver failure, cirrhosis, or liver cancer caused by CLD (Lozano et al., 2012). The mental health of patients with CLD is easily overlooked during treatment, and psychological problems can affect the treatment effect and the outcome of the disease. At present, there are few studies on the psychological problems of patients with CLD at home and abroad. Patients with CLD experience repeated hospitalizations, poor treatment effects, and death due to complications, which can easily lead to psychological problems in patients, even if there are no complications. A variety of psychological and social problems can exist under these circumstances (Spiegel et al., 2007). Studies have shown that patients with severe CLD (cirrhosis and liver failure) have a higher degree of depression, and the degree of anxiety is not significantly abnormal compared with that of patients with hepatitis (Duan et al., 2012). The same research has proven that untreated patients with chronic hepatitis C also have various psychological problems, such as depression (Erim et al., 2010; Schaefer et al., 2012). Anxiety is common in patients with CLD. Seventy‐five percent of the patients had obvious anxiety after investigation, and 19% of them had anxiety and fear at the same time (Lopez‐Navas et al., 2013). Anxiety and fear not only affect treatment but also can harm society. Our hospital is a designated hospital for infectious diseases in Shanghai. This designated hospital treats a large number of patients with CLD every year. This study aimed to determine the risk factors affecting the mental health of patients with CLD through a mental health survey and to provide patients individualized treatment for these risk factors. Psychological interventions and nursing care can increase patients' confidence in overcoming the disease and achieve better clinical treatment results.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Study design and sample

A total of 362 patients were hospitalized in the liver disease department of the hospital from January 2018 to January 2020, and 320 people completed the investigation. The diagnosis of CLD was in compliance with the clinical diagnosis and treatment standards. Exclusion criteria were as follows: hepatic coma, acute gastrointestinal bleeding, initial mental illness, and refusal to participate. According to their Self‐Rating Anxiety Scale (SAS) and Self‐Rating Depression Scale (SDS) scores, patients were divided into two groups. Patients with SAS and SDS scores less than 50 points were included in the healthy group (80 cases), and patients with SAS and SDS scores that were more than 50 points were included in the nonhealthy group (240 cases). The healthy group comprised 52 males and 28 females, aged 28−69 years, with an average age of 58.08 ± 8.32 years. In the nonhealthy group, there were 146 males and 94 females, aged 30−71 years, with an average age of 60.05 ± 5.35. There was no significant difference in age or sex between the two groups of patients (p > .05), and the groups were comparable.

Data collection

The demographic characteristics of the collected patients included occupational characteristics, age, sex, education level, marital status, occupation, course of disease, annual hospitalizations, aetiology, type of medical insurance, complications, and nursing satisfaction. This research was conducted in accordance with the Declaration of Helsinki. The data are accurate and reliable. This study was approved by the ethical review committee of the hospital. All patients provided informed consent. The questionnaire was anonymous and returned after the study.

Self‐Rating Depression Scale

The SDS consists of 20 items and is divided into a four‐level self‐rating scale. It is easy to use and can fairly intuitively reflect the subjective feelings of depressed patients and their changes during treatment. If it is a forward scoring question, it will be rated as 1, 2, 3, and 4 points in turn; for a reverse scoring question, it will be rated as 4, 3, 2, and 1. After the evaluation is over, add up the scores of the 20 items to get the total score, and then multiply the score by 1.25, and take the integer part to get the standard score. The score ranges from 25 to 100. Index scores below 49 indicate no depression, 50–59 indicate mild to moderate depression, 60–69 indicate moderate to severe depression, and scores above 70 indicate severe depression (Zung, 1971).

Self‐Rating Anxiety Scale

The SAS is a 20‐item self‐rating questionnaire used to assess anxiety‐related symptoms. Using a four‐level score, the frequency of symptoms defined by the main assessment items is: “1” no or very little time, “2” a small part of time, “3” a considerable amount of time, and “4” is extremely large part or all of the time. Similar to SDS, the original score of this scale ranges from 20 to 80 points. When converted into index scores, less than 50 is the normal range, 50–59 is mild to moderate anxiety, 60–69 is moderate to severe anxiety, and greater than 70 is severe anxiety (Dunstan & Scott, 2018; X. Wang et al., 1999).

Symptom Checklist‐90

It is used to assess a wide range of psychological problems and psychopathological symptoms and has proven to be a useful tool. The scale consists of 90 items in nine dimensions. Each item is scored on a scale of 1–5, indicating asymptomatic to severe symptoms. The main symptom dimensions evaluated are as follows: somatization (SOM), obsessive‐compulsive symptoms (OCS), interpersonal sensitivity (INTS), depression (DEPR), anxiety (ANX), hostility (HOS), phobia and anxiety (PHOA), paranoia idea (PARI), psychosis (PSY), and sleep and diet (SD). Ten factors are used to reflect the psychological symptoms in 10 aspects. The scores for each factor are as follows: 1–1.99 points indicate no mental health problems, 2–2.99 points indicate mild mental health problems, 3–3.99 points indicate moderate mental health problems, 4–4.99 points indicate severe mental health problems, and 5 points indicate serious mental health problem. According to the national norm, if the total score is more than 160 points, the number of positive entries is more than 43 points, or any factor score is more than 2 points, it is considered positive, and further examination is required (Liu et al., 2017).

Quality control

All patients are given standardized treatment after admission and receive routine care. The content includes: (1) oral care: assist in oral care of patients to prevent oral ulcers or infection; (2) diet care: due to the long course of CLD and poor nutritional status, it needs to be formulated. A nutritious diet plan improves the patient's appetite while avoiding spicy foods. The questionnaire is an anonymous survey, completed independently by the patient on the day of admission or the next day, supervised and guided by two nurses, and returned to the patient after all is completed.

Statistical analysis

We used SPSS21.0 software to analyze the data. The measurement data was expressed as (x ± s), and the comparison between groups was made by t‐test; the count data were expressed by n (%) and the χ test was used. The logistic regression analysis was used for multivariate analysis. Receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves were created. p < .05 indicates that the difference is statistically significant.

RESULTS

Sample description

Analyzing the demographic characteristics of the two groups of patients, there was no statistical difference in the gender, age, marital status, etiology, and type of medical insurance between the two groups (p > .05, Table 1).
TABLE 1

Analyzing the demographic characteristics of the two groups of patients

CharacteristicsAll (n = 320)Healthy group (n = 80)Nonhealthy group (n = 240) X2 p‐Value
Gender0.442.506
Male19852146
Female1222894
Age group3.040.081
<50 years16750117
>50 years15330123
Education level21.629.000
Junior high school1051095
High school1203585
University953560
Marital status0.629.730
Unmarried33825
Married23060170
Divorced/widowed571245
Occupation10.730.005
Farmer54648
Freelance1042282
Permanent job16252110
Course of disease15.607.000
10 years1475295
10 years17328145
Annual hospitalizations26.054.000
<5 times1535895
>5 times16722145
Etiology0.322.956
Viral20452152
Autoimmunity461036
Cholestatic381028
Alcoholic32824
Type of medical insurance5.662.059
Rural health insurance1041886
Employee health insurance17548127
Business insurance411427
Complications24.986.000
No1435588
Yes17725152
Nursing satisfaction7.007.008
Good16351112
Bad15729128

Note: p < .05 indicates that the difference is statistically significant.

Analyzing the demographic characteristics of the two groups of patients Note: p < .05 indicates that the difference is statistically significant.

The SAS and SDS assess the mental health of patients with CLD

Among the 320 patients with CLD, 240 had mental health problems, with an incidence rate of 75%. Further analysis of the factors affecting patients’ mental health found that education level, occupation, course of disease, annual hospitalizations, complications, and nursing satisfaction were significantly different between the groups (p < .05, Table 1). A total of 240 patients in the nonhealthy group were divided into mild, moderate, and severe groups according to their SAS and SDS scores. The items with significant differences were compared between the groups. The results showed that there were significant differences between the groups in education level and occupation (p < .05, Table 2), while the course of disease, annual hospitalizations, complications, and nursing satisfaction comparisons between the groups were not statistically significant (p > .05, Table 2), further indicating that education level and occupation not only affect the mental health of patients with CLD but are also related to its severity.
TABLE 2

Self‐Rating Anxiety Scale (SAS) and Self‐Rating Depression Scale (SDS) assess the mental health of patients with chronic liver disease (CLD)

Nonhealthy group
Characteristics n = 240Mild (50–59, n = 135)Moderate (60–69, n = 85)Severe (>70, n = 20) X2 p‐Value
Education level
Junior high school954538126.624.036
High school85453552.438.296
University604512311.435.003
Occupation
Farmer48281286.885.032
Freelance82443170.355.837
Permanent job110634253.973.137
Course of disease
<10 years95474083.271.195
>10 years145884512
Annual hospitalizations
<5 times95553370.272.873
>5 times145805213
Complications
No88503442.807.246
Yes1522855116
Nursing satisfaction
Good112663880.756.685
Bad128694712

Note: p < .05 indicates that the difference is statistically significant.

Self‐Rating Anxiety Scale (SAS) and Self‐Rating Depression Scale (SDS) assess the mental health of patients with chronic liver disease (CLD) Note: p < .05 indicates that the difference is statistically significant.

The Symptom Checklist‐90 assesses the mental health of patients with CLD

As shown in Table 3, in this study, the statistical results of the Symptom Checklist‐90 (SCL‐90) on the mental health of patients in the nonhealthy group found that 42 patients scored higher than 160 points, accounting for 17.5% of the group, 98 patients had positive items higher than 43 points, accounting for 40.8% of the group, and 63 patients had factor scores higher than 2, accounting for 26.3% of the group. Among all the factors, the average scores were as follows: SOM was 1.99 ± 0.21, OCS was 1.78 ± 0.31, INTS was 1.85 ± 0.24, DEPR was 2.03 ± 0.32, ANX was 2.21 ± 0.25, HOS was 1.67 ± 0.25, PHOA was 1.46 ± 0.54, PARI was 1.57 ± 0.43, PSY was 1.43 ± 0.35, and SD was 1.87 ± 0.26. We found that the four factors with the highest scores were ANX (33.3%), DEPR (20.4%), SOM (12.9%), and SD (9.6%).
TABLE 3

Symptom Checklist‐90 (SCL‐90) assesses the mental health of patients with chronic liver disease (CLD)

Nonhealthy group (n = 240)
Symptom n Mild (n = 136)Moderate (n = 84)Severe (n = 17)Serious (n = 3)Average%
SOM311613201.99 ± 0.2112.9
OCS1165001.78 ± 0.314.6
INTS21118201.85 ± 0.248.8
DEPR493213222.03 ± 0.3220.4
ANX804230712.21 ± 0.2533.3
HOS972001.67 ± 0.253.8
PHOA550001.46 ± 0.542.1
PARI752001.57 ± 0.432.9
PSY431001.43 ± 0.351.7
SD23910401.87 ± 0.269.6

Note: 1–1.99 points indicate no mental health problems, 2–2.99 points indicate mild mental health problems, 3–3.99 points indicate moderate mental health problems, 4–4.99 points indicate severe mental health problems, and 5 points indicate serious mental health problem. Abbreviations: ANX, anxiety; DEPR, depression; HOS, hostility; INTS, interpersonal sensitivity; OCS, obsessive‐compulsive symptoms; PARI, paranoia idea; PHOA, phobia and anxiety; PSY, psychosis; SD, sleep and diet; SOM, somatization.

Symptom Checklist‐90 (SCL‐90) assesses the mental health of patients with chronic liver disease (CLD) Note: 1–1.99 points indicate no mental health problems, 2–2.99 points indicate mild mental health problems, 3–3.99 points indicate moderate mental health problems, 4–4.99 points indicate severe mental health problems, and 5 points indicate serious mental health problem. Abbreviations: ANX, anxiety; DEPR, depression; HOS, hostility; INTS, interpersonal sensitivity; OCS, obsessive‐compulsive symptoms; PARI, paranoia idea; PHOA, phobia and anxiety; PSY, psychosis; SD, sleep and diet; SOM, somatization.

Independent risk factors affecting mental health of patients with CLD

Logistic regression analysis of the factors that may affect the mental health of patients with CLD showed that education level (p = .000, 95%confidence interval (CI) 0.197−0.525), course of disease (p = .002, 95%CI 1.470−5.541), annual hospitalizations (p = .000, 95%CI 1.801−6.766), complications (p = .000, 95%CI 2.130−7.848), and nursing satisfaction (p = .002, 95%CI 0.176−0.689) are independent risk factors for mental health problems in patients with CLD (Table 4). The Hosmer–Lemeshow test indicated a good fit of the model for predicting the variables. We combined five important variables (education level, course of disease, annual hospitalizations, complications, and nursing satisfaction) into the logistic regression to calculate the probability and made the ROC curve based on the probability we obtained. The ROC curve indicated an area under the curve (AUC) of 0.84. A cut‐off score of 0.542 yielded the maximum sum of sensitivity (75.4%) and specificity (78.7%) (Figure 1). Based on the results, the clinic can provide individualized psychological interventions and care for patients with CLD.
TABLE 4

Logistic regression analysis of factors that may affect the mental health of patients with chronic liver disease (CLD)

CharacteristicsBS.E.Wals p‐ValueExp (B)95% CI
Gender0.6880.4642.199.1381.9890.802–4.938
Age0.3150.3450.835.3611.3710.697–2.696
Education level−1.1350.25120.513.0000.3210.197–0.525
Marital status0.1180.3100.145.7031.1250.613–2.064
Occupation−0.3350.2451.863.1720.7150.442–1.157
Course of disease1.0490.3399.597.0022.8541.470–5.541
Annual hospitalizations1.2500.33813.712.0003.4911.801–6.766
Etiology0.8190.6441.619.2032.2690.642–8.012
Type of medical insurance−0.4290.2532.873.0900.6510.396–1.069
Complications1.4080.33317.923.0004.0892.130–7.848
Nursing satisfaction−1.0560.3489.187.0020.3480.176–0.689

Note: p < .05 indicates that the difference is statistically significant.

Abbreviations: CI, confidence internal; S.E., standard error.

FIGURE 1

Receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve analysis for the education level, course of disease, annual hospitalizations, complications, and nursing satisfaction value in the healthy group and nonhealthy group

Logistic regression analysis of factors that may affect the mental health of patients with chronic liver disease (CLD) Note: p < .05 indicates that the difference is statistically significant. Abbreviations: CI, confidence internal; S.E., standard error. Receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve analysis for the education level, course of disease, annual hospitalizations, complications, and nursing satisfaction value in the healthy group and nonhealthy group

DISCUSSION

CLD is a major public health problem. The number of patients with CLD is large, and the quality of life and work efficiency of these patients are reduced, which increases the social and economic burdens (Stepanova et al., 2017). In recent years, the clinical treatment of CLD has been in a stage of rapid development. In particular, there has been more in‐depth research on antiviral treatments. The mental health of patients with CLD is often neglected during treatment, and psychological problems will affect the treatment effect and disease outcome. The incidence of depression and anxiety in patients with chronic hepatitis is increasing year by year, and the incidence will increase as the course of the disease progresses. Failure to control the negative emotional state of patients with CLD in a timely manner can aggravate the negative response to treatment and the condition, causing CLD to recur without treatment for a long time, which seriously affects the treatment effect, reduces the patient's quality of life, and leads to psychological imbalance of the patient. Therefore, it is necessary to determine the risk factors for mental health problems of patients with CLD and conduct reasonable psychological treatments and nursing interventions in a timely manner for patients with CLD. Epidemiological surveys conducted in several countries indicate that lower socioeconomic status (SES) is associated with increased liver‐related mortality (Crombie & Precious, 2011; Mackenbach et al., 2015; Najman et al., 2007; Tjepkema et al., 2012; Wong et al., 2002). In Denmark, low SES is associated with an increased risk of HCV infection. Once infected, patients with low SES have a higher mortality rate (Omland et al., 2013). Low social status is closely related to a low education level. Low education level (that is, not exceeding basic education) is an integral part of SES (Zung, 1971) and a reliable substitute indicator. Studies have found that in developed countries (Denniston et al., 2014; Meffre et al., 2010) and developing countries (Maan et al., 2014), a low education level is associated with a higher prevalence of HBV or HCV infection. Low education level is related to the severity of CLD. A low level of education is not a risk factor in itself, but it can be an indirect indicator of dangerous behaviors and habits that can increase the chances of subjects being exposed to the virus. This also could indicate a lack of knowledge and access to medical treatment, which may aggravate the prognosis of CLD (Stroffolini et al., 2020). Our research also found that occupation and education level affect the mental health of patients with CLD and affect the severity of mental health problems. There are many reasons for the psychological problems of patients with CLD. Patients with CLD have a long course of disease, which can cause repeated acute exacerbations and hospitalizations during the course of the disease. This can affect the patient's work, leading to an inferiority complex and psychological shadow and indifferent interpersonal relationships, and some patients even lose their ability to work, leading to further increases in the economic burden. It is known that there will be complications in the course of CLD. The common complications are liver cancer (Uchida et al., 2020), liver fibrosis (Itakura et al., 2021), and upper gastrointestinal bleeding, and these complications are prone to causing liver failure, hepatic encephalopathy, and life‐threatening conditions. The patient suffers from the disease for a long time and eventually dies. These negative factors lead to mental health problems of patients with CLD. We used a more developed SAS and SDS to objectively evaluate the mental health of patients. After a patient with CLD becomes sick, they lose interest in many things around them. If the patient looked at many trivial things before, they can develop depression, anxiety, eating and sleep disorders, etc. (Z. X. Wang et al., 2012). The SCL‐90 questionnaire test is the questionnaire survey that is used for evaluating comprehensive mental health and has good validity and reliability. In this study, the SCL‐90 questionnaire test in patients with CLD showed that patients with CLD do experience some mental health problems. The four factors with the highest scores were ANX (33.3%), DEPR (20.4%), SOM (12.9%), and SD (9.6%). Overall, patients with CLD have increasingly complex psychological problems, that are worthy of social attention. In short, in addition to providing more professional treatments for patients with CLD, patients with mental health problems require more psychological counselling and care from our doctors and nurses. Interestingly, our research has found that nursing satisfaction also exists in patients with CLD. Nursing satisfaction was an independent risk factor for mental health problems mainly because we are a large specialist hospital with a shortage of nursing staff, extended working hours for nurses, and insufficient time to communicate with patients. At the same time, the professional skills of nurses need to be further improved, especially in psychology. Knowledge in this area must be enriched so that we can better and more accurately care for patients, form a precise and individualized nursing model, achieve satisfactory nursing results, reduce the physical and psychological pain of patients, and truly improve the quality of life of patients.

CONCLUSION

Patients with CLD have prominent mental health problems and experience many risk factors, such as education level, course of disease, annual hospitalizations, complications, and nursing satisfaction. It is necessary to adopt individualized psychological interventions and care to improve the quality of life of these patients.

LIMITATIONS

Several limitations should be considered in the present study, including the sample from a single hospital. In the future, research should be conducted in multiple hospitals to better generalize the findings and compare the differences. Finally, access to social and family support for CLD should also be provided.

RELEVANCE FOR CLINICAL PRACTICE

The results of this study provide information for patients with CLD who have mental health disorders during their hospitalization. This information may help doctors and nurses or hospital authorities take necessary measures to provide support and interventions for the mental health of patients with CLD who are more likely to develop psychological problems than other types of patients.

CONFLICT OF INTEREST

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

AUTHOR CONTRIBUTIONS

Zhu Qin designed the study, screened the literature, and drafted the manuscript. Yannan Shen and Yuanhao Wu collected the clinical data and processed statistical data. Haicheng Tang analyzed and interpreted the data and revised the manuscript. Lin Zhang designed, supervised, and revised the manuscript. All authors read and approved the final version of the manuscript.

TRANSPARENT PEER REVIEW

The peer review history for this article is available at https://publons.com/publon/10.1002/brb3.2406
  26 in total

1.  A rating instrument for anxiety disorders.

Authors:  W W Zung
Journal:  Psychosomatics       Date:  1971 Nov-Dec       Impact factor: 2.386

2.  Contribution of major diseases to disparities in mortality.

Authors:  Mitchell D Wong; Martin F Shapiro; W John Boscardin; Susan L Ettner
Journal:  N Engl J Med       Date:  2002-11-14       Impact factor: 91.245

3.  Cause-specific mortality by education in Canada: a 16-year follow-up study.

Authors:  Michael Tjepkema; Russell Wilkins; Andrea Long
Journal:  Health Rep       Date:  2012-09       Impact factor: 4.796

4.  Depression and protective factors of mental health in people with hepatitis C: a questionnaire survey.

Authors:  Yesim Erim; Sefik Tagay; Mingo Beckmann; Sabine Bein; Vito Cicinnati; Susanne Beckebaum; Wolfgang Senf; Jörg F Schlaak
Journal:  Int J Nurs Stud       Date:  2009-09-19       Impact factor: 5.837

5.  Development and validation of a disease-targeted quality of life instrument in chronic hepatitis B: the hepatitis B quality of life instrument, version 1.0.

Authors:  Brennan M R Spiegel; Roger Bolus; Steven Han; Myron Tong; Eric Esrailian; Jennifer Talley; Tram Tran; Jason Smith; Hetal A Karsan; Francisco Durazo; Bruce Bacon; Paul Martin; Zobair Younossi; Siew Hwa-Ong; Fasiha Kanwal
Journal:  Hepatology       Date:  2007-07       Impact factor: 17.425

6.  Chronic hepatitis C virus infection in the United States, National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey 2003 to 2010.

Authors:  Maxine M Denniston; Ruth B Jiles; Jan Drobeniuc; R Monina Klevens; John W Ward; Geraldine M McQuillan; Scott D Holmberg
Journal:  Ann Intern Med       Date:  2014-03-04       Impact factor: 25.391

7.  Prevalence of hepatitis B and hepatitis C virus infections in France in 2004: social factors are important predictors after adjusting for known risk factors.

Authors:  Christine Meffre; Yann Le Strat; Elisabeth Delarocque-Astagneau; Fréderic Dubois; Denise Antona; Jean-Marie Lemasson; Josiane Warszawski; Josiane Steinmetz; Dominique Coste; Jean-François Meyer; Sandrine Leiser; Jean-Pierre Giordanella; René Gueguen; Jean-Claude Desenclos
Journal:  J Med Virol       Date:  2010-04       Impact factor: 2.327

8.  Global and regional mortality from 235 causes of death for 20 age groups in 1990 and 2010: a systematic analysis for the Global Burden of Disease Study 2010.

Authors:  Rafael Lozano; Mohsen Naghavi; Kyle Foreman; Stephen Lim; Kenji Shibuya; Victor Aboyans; Jerry Abraham; Timothy Adair; Rakesh Aggarwal; Stephanie Y Ahn; Miriam Alvarado; H Ross Anderson; Laurie M Anderson; Kathryn G Andrews; Charles Atkinson; Larry M Baddour; Suzanne Barker-Collo; David H Bartels; Michelle L Bell; Emelia J Benjamin; Derrick Bennett; Kavi Bhalla; Boris Bikbov; Aref Bin Abdulhak; Gretchen Birbeck; Fiona Blyth; Ian Bolliger; Soufiane Boufous; Chiara Bucello; Michael Burch; Peter Burney; Jonathan Carapetis; Honglei Chen; David Chou; Sumeet S Chugh; Luc E Coffeng; Steven D Colan; Samantha Colquhoun; K Ellicott Colson; John Condon; Myles D Connor; Leslie T Cooper; Matthew Corriere; Monica Cortinovis; Karen Courville de Vaccaro; William Couser; Benjamin C Cowie; Michael H Criqui; Marita Cross; Kaustubh C Dabhadkar; Nabila Dahodwala; Diego De Leo; Louisa Degenhardt; Allyne Delossantos; Julie Denenberg; Don C Des Jarlais; Samath D Dharmaratne; E Ray Dorsey; Tim Driscoll; Herbert Duber; Beth Ebel; Patricia J Erwin; Patricia Espindola; Majid Ezzati; Valery Feigin; Abraham D Flaxman; Mohammad H Forouzanfar; Francis Gerry R Fowkes; Richard Franklin; Marlene Fransen; Michael K Freeman; Sherine E Gabriel; Emmanuela Gakidou; Flavio Gaspari; Richard F Gillum; Diego Gonzalez-Medina; Yara A Halasa; Diana Haring; James E Harrison; Rasmus Havmoeller; Roderick J Hay; Bruno Hoen; Peter J Hotez; Damian Hoy; Kathryn H Jacobsen; Spencer L James; Rashmi Jasrasaria; Sudha Jayaraman; Nicole Johns; Ganesan Karthikeyan; Nicholas Kassebaum; Andre Keren; Jon-Paul Khoo; Lisa Marie Knowlton; Olive Kobusingye; Adofo Koranteng; Rita Krishnamurthi; Michael Lipnick; Steven E Lipshultz; Summer Lockett Ohno; Jacqueline Mabweijano; Michael F MacIntyre; Leslie Mallinger; Lyn March; Guy B Marks; Robin Marks; Akira Matsumori; Richard Matzopoulos; Bongani M Mayosi; John H McAnulty; Mary M McDermott; John McGrath; George A Mensah; Tony R Merriman; Catherine Michaud; Matthew Miller; Ted R Miller; Charles Mock; Ana Olga Mocumbi; Ali A Mokdad; Andrew Moran; Kim Mulholland; M Nathan Nair; Luigi Naldi; K M Venkat Narayan; Kiumarss Nasseri; Paul Norman; Martin O'Donnell; Saad B Omer; Katrina Ortblad; Richard Osborne; Doruk Ozgediz; Bishnu Pahari; Jeyaraj Durai Pandian; Andrea Panozo Rivero; Rogelio Perez Padilla; Fernando Perez-Ruiz; Norberto Perico; David Phillips; Kelsey Pierce; C Arden Pope; Esteban Porrini; Farshad Pourmalek; Murugesan Raju; Dharani Ranganathan; Jürgen T Rehm; David B Rein; Guiseppe Remuzzi; Frederick P Rivara; Thomas Roberts; Felipe Rodriguez De León; Lisa C Rosenfeld; Lesley Rushton; Ralph L Sacco; Joshua A Salomon; Uchechukwu Sampson; Ella Sanman; David C Schwebel; Maria Segui-Gomez; Donald S Shepard; David Singh; Jessica Singleton; Karen Sliwa; Emma Smith; Andrew Steer; Jennifer A Taylor; Bernadette Thomas; Imad M Tleyjeh; Jeffrey A Towbin; Thomas Truelsen; Eduardo A Undurraga; N Venketasubramanian; Lakshmi Vijayakumar; Theo Vos; Gregory R Wagner; Mengru Wang; Wenzhi Wang; Kerrianne Watt; Martin A Weinstock; Robert Weintraub; James D Wilkinson; Anthony D Woolf; Sarah Wulf; Pon-Hsiu Yeh; Paul Yip; Azadeh Zabetian; Zhi-Jie Zheng; Alan D Lopez; Christopher J L Murray; Mohammad A AlMazroa; Ziad A Memish
Journal:  Lancet       Date:  2012-12-15       Impact factor: 79.321

9.  Socioeconomic status in HCV infected patients - risk and prognosis.

Authors:  Lars Haukali Omland; Merete Osler; Peter Jepsen; Henrik Krarup; Nina Weis; Peer Brehm Christensen; Casper Roed; Henrik Toft Sørensen; Niels Obel
Journal:  Clin Epidemiol       Date:  2013-05-31       Impact factor: 4.790

10.  Assigning Clinical Significance and Symptom Severity Using the Zung Scales: Levels of Misclassification Arising from Confusion between Index and Raw Scores.

Authors:  Debra A Dunstan; Ned Scott
Journal:  Depress Res Treat       Date:  2018-01-21
View more
  2 in total

1.  Differences in anxiety among patients with liver cirrhosis with different compensation abilities.

Authors:  Mengdang Ou; Xiaozhen Guo; Ying Li; Haili Zhang; Ting Liu; Qun Liu; Wen Wei; Xiaoqing Luo; Yanyan Zhang
Journal:  Am J Transl Res       Date:  2022-07-15       Impact factor: 3.940

2.  Analysis of risk factors for mental health problems of inpatients with chronic liver disease and nursing strategies: A single center descriptive study.

Authors:  Zhu Qin; Yannan Shen; Yuanhao Wu; Haicheng Tang; Lin Zhang
Journal:  Brain Behav       Date:  2021-11-11       Impact factor: 2.708

  2 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.