Literature DB >> 8048434

Monitoring dialysis patients' health status.

K B Meyer1, D M Espindle, J M DeGiacomo, C S Jenuleson, P S Kurtin, A R Davies.   

Abstract

We report 3 years of experience with quarterly assessments of the self-reported health of dialysis outpatients using the Short Form-36 (SF-36) Health Survey. The SF-36 measures eight different dimensions of health: physical function, role limitations due to physical problems, bodily pain, general health perceptions, vitality, social function, role limitations due to emotional problems, and general mental health. On each dimensions, the respondent receives a score from 0 to 100. A higher score indicates better health. Program logistics and results are described, including reliability coefficients, standard deviations, and standard errors of measurement for the SF-36 in this patient population. The SF-36 was completed an average of 4.4 times by 112 patients over an average 14-month follow-up; 40 patients responded at least six times. On most dimensions, the dialysis patients' scores were lower and more variable than those of a sample of the general US population matched for age and sex. For example, mean initial physical function score (+/- SD) was 48.5 +/- 31.2 for the dialysis patients and 84.8 +/- 23.3 for the general population. The mean initial general health perception score of the dialysis patients was 43.7 +/- 23.9 with 71.9 +/- 20.3 for the general population. In contrast, general mental health scores were more comparable. The mean initial general mental health score was 69.6 +/- 17.5 for our patients and 75.5 +/- 18.0 for the general population. Reliability (Cronbach's alpha) ranged from 0.77 for general mental health to 0.93 for physical function. The 95% confidence intervals around individual scores were approximately 20 points, except for role-physical and role-emotional, which were both approximately 30 points. Two case reports compare information obtained from the SF-36 with the dialysis team's assessments of the patient, as recorded in the medical record. The two patients' comments on reviewing their SF-36 results are also summarized. Patient reactions to the health status assessment program are explored, and potential benefits and areas for further work are outlined. Serial measurement of the health status of dialysis patients allows the recognition of clear patterns in individual patient responses. These patterns sometimes suggest that the patient is either substantially more or less impaired than the dialysis team had thought. Changes in these patterns, both transient and protracted, frequently exceed 95% confidence intervals for patient-level scores. Longitudinal health status profiles of individual dialysis patients, accumulated by repeated self-assessment using the SF-36, enhance rather than merely restate the providers' intuitive judgments expressed in the medical record.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  1994        PMID: 8048434     DOI: 10.1016/s0272-6386(12)80192-2

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Am J Kidney Dis        ISSN: 0272-6386            Impact factor:   8.860


  36 in total

1.  Quality of life assessment in adults with type 1 Gaucher disease.

Authors:  B J Masek; K B Sims; C M Bove; M S Korson; P Short; D K Norman
Journal:  Qual Life Res       Date:  1999-05       Impact factor: 4.147

2.  Assessment of quality of life in a single centre dialysis population using the KDQOL-SF questionnaire.

Authors:  P Carmichael; J Popoola; I John; P E Stevens; A R Carmichael
Journal:  Qual Life Res       Date:  2000-03       Impact factor: 4.147

3.  The SF36 as an outcome measure of services for end stage renal failure.

Authors:  J P Wight; L Edwards; J Brazier; S Walters; J N Payne; C B Brown
Journal:  Qual Health Care       Date:  1998-12

4.  Quality of life in Turkish haemodialysis patients.

Authors:  Arzu Acaray; Rukiye Pinar
Journal:  Int Urol Nephrol       Date:  2005       Impact factor: 2.370

Review 5.  Measuring the health status burden in hemodialysis patients using the SF-36® health survey.

Authors:  Aaron S Yarlas; Michelle K White; Min Yang; Renee N Saris-Baglama; Peter Galthen Bech; Torsten Christensen
Journal:  Qual Life Res       Date:  2010-10-23       Impact factor: 4.147

6.  Quality of life assessment by community pharmacists: an exploratory study.

Authors:  J P Bentley; M C Smith; B F Banahan; D A Frate; B R Parks
Journal:  Qual Life Res       Date:  1998-02       Impact factor: 4.147

7.  Design and rationale of health-related quality of life and patient-reported outcomes assessment in the Frequent Hemodialysis Network trials.

Authors:  Manisha Jhamb; Manjula K Tamura; Jennifer Gassman; Amit X Garg; Robert M Lindsay; Rita S Suri; George Ting; Fredric O Finkelstein; Scott Beach; Paul L Kimmel; Mark Unruh
Journal:  Blood Purif       Date:  2011-01-10       Impact factor: 2.614

8.  Improving CKD-Specific Patient-Reported Measures of Health-Related Quality of Life.

Authors:  John E Ware; Michelle M Richardson; Klemens B Meyer; Barbara Gandek
Journal:  J Am Soc Nephrol       Date:  2019-03-21       Impact factor: 10.121

9.  Using data from studies of health-related quality of life to describe clinical issues examples from a longitudinal study of patients with advanced stages of cervical cancer.

Authors:  M Klee; M Groenvold; D Machin
Journal:  Qual Life Res       Date:  1999-12       Impact factor: 4.147

10.  Individual-patient monitoring in clinical practice: are available health status surveys adequate?

Authors:  C A McHorney; A R Tarlov
Journal:  Qual Life Res       Date:  1995-08       Impact factor: 4.147

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.