Skip to content

Advertisement

Open Access
Open Peer Review

This article has Open Peer Review reports available.

How does Open Peer Review work?

Factors associated with Health-Related Quality of Life in Kidney Transplant Recipients in France

  • Yosra Mouelhi1Email author,
  • Elisabeth Jouve2,
  • Marine Alessandrini1,
  • Nathalie Pedinielli2,
  • Valérie Moal3,
  • Aurélie Meurette4,
  • Elisabeth Cassuto5,
  • Georges Mourad6,
  • Antoine Durrbach7,
  • Bertrand Dussol3 and
  • Stéphanie Gentile1, 2
BMC Nephrology201819:99

https://doi.org/10.1186/s12882-018-0893-6

Received: 22 June 2017

Accepted: 11 April 2018

Published: 27 April 2018

Abstract

Background

Health-Related Quality of Life (HRQoL) assessment after kidney transplantation has become an important tool in evaluating outcomes. This study aims to identify the associated factors with HRQoL among a representative sample size of Kidney Transplant Recipients (KTR) at the time of their inclusion in the study.

Methods

Data of this cross-sectional design is retrieved from a longitudinal study conducted in five French kidney transplant centers in 2011, and included KTR aged 18 years with a functioning graft for at least 1 year. Measures include demographic, psycho-social and clinical characteristics. To evaluate HRQoL, the Short Form-36 Health Survey (SF-36) and a HRQoL instrument for KTR (ReTransQol) were administered. Multivariate linear regression models were performed.

Results

A total of 1424 patients were included, with 61.4% males, and a mean age of 55.7 years (±13.1). Demographic and clinical characteristics were associated with low HRQoL scores for both questionnaires. New variables were found in our study: perceived poor social support and being treated by antidepressants were associated with low scores of Quality of Life (QoL), while internet access was associated with high QoL scores.

Conclusion

The originality of our study’s findings was that psycho-social variables, particularly KTR treated by antidepressants and having felt unmet needs for any social support, have a negative effect on their QoL. It may be useful to organize a psychological support specifically adapted for patients after kidney transplantation.

Keywords

Cross sectionalHealth-related quality of lifeKidney Transplant RecipientsReTransQolSF-36

Background

In public health and medicine, Health-Related Quality of Life (HRQoL) measurements have become an important outcome measure in addition to morbidity and mortality rates, both in population health assessment and in clinical trials [1, 2]. HRQoL is a multi-dimensional concept that includes domains related to physical, mental, emotional, and social functioning. It goes beyond direct measures of population health, life expectancy and causes of death, and focuses on the impact that health status has on Quality of Life (QoL) [2]. In addition to its multidimensional nature, one important reason to measure the HRQoL is establishing and expanding information about the range of problems that affect the patients [35].

In general, chronic diseases are increasingly widespread [6]. The World Health Organization (WHO), therefore, prioritizes HRQoL improvement for people living with chronic diseases [7]. In France, the August 9, 2004 public health law applied this priority, implementing a national plan to improve the HRQoL for people living with chronic diseases, mainly those with End-Stage Renal Disease (ESRD) [8]. The French Biomedicine Agency and the National Institute for Public Health Surveillance have promoted studies to determine the level of HRQoL of ESRD patients in France in order to improve the HRQoL of chronic disease patients [9, 10].

When compared with dialysis, renal transplantation has become the most cost-effective treatment [1113] for ESRD patients, as it presents medical costs reduction, extended lifetime [14] and enhanced HRQoL [11, 15, 16].

Although the HRQoL advantages in Kidney Transplant Recipients (KTR) were established [11, 14, 1621], life after kideny transplantation may present negative as well as positive aspects. Therefore, it is essential to describe the demographic and clinical factors that influence HRQoL outcomes. Furthermore, most published studies did not clearly explore the psycho-social variables that potentially can affect the QoL. This study aims to identify factors associated with HRQoL through a comprehensive analysis of demographic, psycho-social and clinical characteristics among a representative cohort of KTR living in France.

Methods

Study design and patients

This is a cross-sectional design retrieved from a longitudinal study carried out continuously during the year 2011, in five French kidney transplant centers: Marseille, Montpellier, Nice, Paris and Nantes University Hospitals. All patients aged 18 years and older with a functioning graft for at least one year were eligible for the study. Multi-organ transplant patients before or simultaneously with their kidney transplant were excluded.

Data collection and measures

Patients were included in 2011 during their regular medical visits. Data of inclusion, including demographic, psycho-social characteristics and HRQoL, were directly collected from the patients who agreed to participate, except health data which were obtained from nephrologists.

Demographic and psycho-social characteristics

Demographic and psycho-social variables collected were:

➢ Age, gender, level of education: primary or less, college, secondary 1st stage and university

➢ Living arrangement: alone or not alone

➢ Having children or not, employment status: employed, retired, unemployed

➢ Disability pension: patients receiving disability pension or not

➢ Monthly incomes in the household (€)

➢ Internet and social network use

➢ Social support: done by a perceived questionnaire, used to estimate the availability and the quality of this support [22]. It is composed of four main scales: esteem, financial, informative and emotional supports. For each scale, patients were asked to answer if they were in need for this support or not.

Clinical characteristics

Medical measures were grouped into four domains related to kidney disease, health status and comorbidities, treatments (i.e. drugs) along with their side effects and biological data.
  1. 1.

    To explore kidney disease: we collected the etiology of End-Stage Renal Disease (ESRD), the previous dialysis treatment and duration, the duration since transplantation, the organ donor type (cardiac death, deceased or living-related donor), the organ transplantation (one or two simultaneous kidney grafts), the number of transplantations, the graft rejection episodes and the graft chronic dysfunction.

     
  2. 2.

    To explore health status and comorbidities: we collected the pathologies frequently associated with KTR (neoplasia, hypertension, and diabetes mellitus), smoking status, Body Mass Index (BMI) and the two validated scales: The Karnofsky Performance Scale (KPS) and The Charlson Comorbidity Index (CCI).

     

The Karnofsky Performance Scale (KPS) was evaluated to classify patients according to their functional impairment from 0 to 100%. The lower the Karnofsky score, the worse the survival for most serious illnesses was [23, 24].

The Charlson Comorbidity Index (CCI) was evaluated to classify patient’s comorbidities. According to Charlson et al. [25], the CCI was calculated by assigning for each pathology a score of 1, 2, 3, or 6, depending on the death risk associated with each one and by summing the weights for all present comorbid conditions (ranges from 0 to 37). For the combined age-comorbidity score, each decade of age over 40 adds 1 point to the risk (e.g. 50–59 years, 1 point; 60–69 years, 2 points; 70–79 years, 3 points…) [26]. Higher scores indicate greater comorbidity.
  1. 3.

    To explore treatments and their side effects, we collected treatment characteristics. We generated with nephrologists a selective list of the most commonly prescribed drugs with their generic names, previously used in a recent publication [27]. This list includes the most used categories of treatments by KTR: immunosuppressive, antihypertensive and other treatments. For each category, we obtained its corresponding drugs. Then, we asked the patients for the existence of side effects related to treatments, without specifying the type.

     
  2. 4.

    To explore biological data: we collected creatinine and hemoglobin (Hb) levels directly from nephrologists during the medical visit. Creatinine levels were defined by establishing 3 categories with nephrologists (normal < 120 μmol/L, mild to moderate: 120–250 μmol/L, severe > 250 μmol/L). Anemia was defined by using the World Health Organization (WHO) criteria, which meant that the Hb concentration was below 12 g/dl in women and below 13 g/dl in men [28].

     

Health-related quality of life

HRQoL was measured with the SF-36 and the ReTransQol. French version of the SF-36 [29, 30] is a generic, self-administered, multidimensional and coherent measure of HRQoL that consists of 36 items, which are used to calculate eight subscales: Physical Functioning (PF), Role Physical (RP), Bodily Pain (BP), General Health (GH), Vitality (VT), Social Functioning (SF), Role Emotional (RE), and Mental Health (MH). The correlated physical (PCS) and mental (MCS) summary components were computed following the standardized procedure provided by authors [27, 31, 32].

The ReTransQol version 2 [33, 34] is a disease specific self-administered instrument assessing the HRQoL of KTR and consisting of 32 items describing 5 dimensions: Physical Health (PH), Mental Health (MH), Medical Care and satisfaction (MC), Treatment (TRT), and Fear of losing the Graft (FG).

Scores for both instruments range from 0 to 100, with higher scores indicating better HRQoL.

Ethical aspects

The study methodology was approved by the local Institutional Review Board (CCTIRS n°12-726) and the “Comité National Informatique et Liberté” (CNIL n°1639707), thus ensuring the confidentiality of all the collected informations. All patients agreeing to participate signed a written informed consent before their inclusion in the study.

Statistical analysis

Statistical analysis was performed using Statistical Package for Social Sciences (SPSS) software (version 20, SPSS, Inc., Chicago, IL, USA). Quantitative data were expressed as mean ± standard deviation (SD), minimum and maximum or median, 25th and 75th percentiles, whereas categorical data were expressed as frequency and percentage. Group comparisons were performed using analysis of variance (bivariate analysis) for quantitative variables. All factors with a p-value < 0.2 were included as candidate variables in the multivariate analysis. Multivariate Linear Regression models (MLR) were used to estimate the relationship between HRQoL scores and the other characteristics. The β coefficients and p-value were performed. The level of significance was set at a p-value ≤0.05. The assumptions of the MLR were verified for linear relationship, normality of distribution, absence of multicollinearity and residuals. Because missing data were minimal (< 10%), we did not replace them and we only analyzed the available ones (i.e. ignoring the missing data).

Results

At the time of the survey, 1469 KTR met eligible criteria for the study during 2011. Among them, 45 patients (3.1%) without QoL questionnaires were excluded from this study and 1424 were included and selected for analysis. Thus, the participation rate is 96.9%.

Patients’ characteristics

As presented in Table 1, patient’s mean age was 55.7 years (± 13.1), more than 60% were males and lived with a partner. Less than 40% attended college and were employed at the time of the survey. The majority of KTR had access to internet in the household. Moreover, most of KTR declared having felt a need for an esteem support more than the other supports.
Table 1

Patients’ characteristics (N = 1424)

 

N (%)

Gender

 Male

874 (61.4)

Age (years)

 Mean ± SD

55.7 ± 13.1

 Range

18.8–85.9

Level of education

 Primary or less

163 (11.5)

 College

536 (37.9)

 Secondary 1st stage

304 (21.5)

 University

413 (29.1)

Living arrangement

 Alone

323 (22.7)

Children

 No children

390 (27.6)

Employment status

 Employed

548 (38.5)

 Retired

545 (38.3)

 Unemployed

329 (23.2)

Patients receiving disability pension

487 (34.7)

Monthly incomes in the household (€)

 < 739

100 (7.5)

 740–1200

255 (19.1)

 1201–2200

419 (31.4)

 2201–4400

425 (31.8)

 > 4400

136 (10.2)

Internet

 Patients with Internet use

1131 (79.9)

  Patients with Social networks use

417 (36.9)

Perceived social support

 Patients in need for an esteem support

869 (61.1)

 Patients in need for a financial support

377 (26.5)

 Patients in need for an informative support

559 (39.4)

 Patients in need for an emotional support

592 (41.8)

SD standard deviation

Regarding the clinical characteristics (Table 2), more than a third of KTR had glomerulonephritis and the majority were dialyzed before transplantation. Median time since transplantation was 7.1 years. Most of patients had a deceased donor transplantation and had a single kidney transplantation. The mean CCI score was 4.09 (± 1.8, range from 2 to 14), and most of KTR had mild to moderate creatinine level (50.8%). Other characteristics about clinical characteristics are shown in Table 2. Most patients were treated with immunosuppressive drugs. Nearly 28% of KTR reported side effects related to treatments with a mean number of side effects of 6.4 ± 1.7 per patient (Table 3).
Table 2

Clinical characteristics: kidney disease, health status, comorbidities and biological data

 

N (%)

Major causes of ESRD

 Chronic glomerulonephritis

487 (34.3)

 Interstitial nephropathy

158 (11.3)

 Polycystic kidney disease

262 (18.8)

 Other nephropathies (vascular, diabetic…)

497 (35.6)

Previous dialysis treatment

 Patient with dialysis treatment

1212 (86.8)

 Duration of dialysis, Median (25th percentiles, 75th percentiles)

24 (12, 42)

Transplantation

 Duration of transplantation, Median (25th percentiles, 75th percentiles)

7.1 (3.7, 12.8)

Organ donor type

 Cardiac death donor

47 (3.4)

 Deceased donor

1231 (88.3)

 Living-related donor

116 (8.3)

Organ transplantation

1396 (98.0)

 Only one kidney graft

1373 (98.4)

 Two simultaneously kidney grafts

23 (1.6)

Kidney Transplants number

 The first transplant

1199 (85.7)

 The second transplants

181 (12.9)

 Three or more transplants

19 (1.4)

Patients with at least one acute rejection episode

213 (15.3)

Patients with chronic graft dysfunction

426 (30.6)

Comorbidities

 Neoplasia

285 (20.4)

 Hypertension

1143 (81.8)

 Diabetes mellitus

255 (18.2)

 Smoking patients

203 (14.9)

 BMI > 30 (kg/m2)

213 (15.3)

Karnofsky Index scale, rating criteria (%)

 80–100: Able to carry on normal activity and to work

1311 (94.2)

 50–70: Unable to work

76 (5.5)

 20–40: Unable to care for self

3 (0.2)

 0–10: Death, disease may be progressing rapidly

2 (0.1)

Charlson Comorbidity Index, score

 Mean ± SD

4.09 ± 1.8

 Range

2–14

Biological data

Creatinine levels (μmol/L)

 Normal: < 120

583 (42.6)

 Mild to moderate: 120–250

697 (50.8)

 Severe: > 250

91 (6.6)

Hemoglobin levels (g/dl)

 Anemia: < 12

551 (40.4)

 Normal: hemoglobin ≥12

813 (59.6)

ESRD End-Stage Renal Disease, SD standard deviation

Table 3

Clinical characteristics: treatments and their side effects

 

Drugs

N (%)

Side effectsa

N (%)

Mean number of drugs/side effects per patient

6.6 ± 1.8 (2–14)

6.4 ± 1.7 (4–9)

Immunosuppressive treatments

1397 (98.1)

344 (24.6)

 Calcineurin inhibitors

1170 (82.2)

242 (20.6)

 Mycophenolic acid and derivatives

933 (65.5)

115 (12.3)

 Corticoids

832 (58.4)

159 (19.1)

 Others (mTOR inhibitors, Azathioprine)

334 (23.4)

56 (16.7)

Antihypertensive treatments

1161 (81.5)

72 (6.2)

 Beta-blockers

727 (51.1)

28 (3.8)

 Angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitors

709 (49.8)

34 (4.8)

 Calcium antagonists

485 (34.1)

20 (4.1)

 Others (Central antihypertensive, Peripheral vasodilators/alpha-blockers, Diuretics)

544 (38.2)

30 (5.5)

Other treatments

1170 (82.2)

54 (4.6)

 Cardiovascular drugs

792 (55.6)

38 (48.0)

 Calcium drugs

727 (51.1)

2 (0.3)

 Diabetes drugs

239 (16.8)

13 (5,4)

 Erythropoiesis-Stimulating Agents (ESA)

199 (14.0)

1 (0.5)

 Antidepressants

149 (10.5)

4 (2.7)

aPercentage of side effects = number of patients with a side effect related to the treatment dividing by number of patients taking this treatment

Health related quality of life

Figure 1 shows the mean HRQoL scores and their SD for the eight components of the SF-36 and the five components of the ReTransQol.
Figure 1
Fig. 1

HRQoL scores (SF36 & ReTransQol)

Multivariate regression analysis

We selected all variables in the final regression model for both questionnaires (SF-36 and ReTransQol) according to their significance in the univariate analysis (p < 0.2).

Adjusted differences in the ten generic dimensions of SF-36 and in the five specific dimensions of ReTransQol using demographic, psycho-social and clinical variables are shown in Tables 4 and 5, respectively.
Table 4

Final regression models for SF-36 domains

Dimensions

Variables

β coeff. [95% CI]

P values

PF

N = 1253

R 2  = 0.21

Intercept

84.1 [75.3; 92.8]

< 0.001

Age

−0.3 [− 0.4; − 0.1]

< 0.001

Female

−4.4 [−7.0; −1.8]

0.001

Disability pension

−6.3 [−9.0; −3.7]

< 0.001

High monthly incomes (€)

3.5 [2.3; 4.7]

< 0.001

Having felt a need for an esteem support

−4.1 [− 6.8; − 1.3]

0.004

Having felt a need for a financial support

−3.1 [− 6.1; − 0.1]

0.04

Diabetic patient

− 4.5 [− 7.9; − 1.2]

0.008

BMI > 30 (kg/m2)

− 4.0 [− 7.4; − 0.6]

0.021

Treatment with ESA

− 3.7 [− 7.3; − 0.1]

0.045

Treatment with antidepressants

−5.7 [− 9.7; − 1.7]

0.005

KPS ≥ 70%

16.9 [11.6; 22.2]

< 0.001

High creatinine levels > 250 (μmol/L)

− 2.7 [− 4.8; − 0.6]

0.012

CCI score

− 1.4 [− 2.4; − 0.4]

0.005

RP

N = 1256

R 2  = 0.14

Intercept

84.0 [69.0; 99.0]

< 0.001

Age

−0.4 [− 0.5; − 0.2]

< 0.001

Disability pension

− 7.4 [− 12.0; − 2.7]

0.002

High monthly incomes (€)

4.5 [2.5; 6.5]

< 0.001

Having felt a need for an esteem support

−6.4 [− 11.5; − 1.3]

0.015

Having felt a need for an emotional support

−8.4 [−13.6; − 3.3]

0.001

Diabetic patient

−6.2 [−11.7; − 0.8]

0.026

Treatment with ESA

−8.9 [−15.0; −2.7]

0.005

Treatment with antidepressants

−15.2 [− 22.2; − 8.2]

< 0.001

KPS ≥ 70%

14.6 [5.5; 23.6]

0.002

High creatinine levels > 250 (μmol/L)

−5.9 [−9.4; − 2.4]

0.001

BP

N = 1257

R 2  = 0.15

Intercept

85.3 [74.7; 95.9]

< 0.001

Age

−0.3 [− 0.4; − 0.2]

< 0.001

Female

−4.6 [−7.7; −1.5]

0.003

Having children

−3.9 [− 7.4; − 0.4]

0.03

Disability pension

−6.3 [−9.5; −3.1]

< 0.001

High monthly incomes (€)

1.8 [1.4; 3.3]

0.014

Having felt a need for an esteem support

−5.2 [−8.5; −1.9]

0.002

Diabetic patient

−6.0 [−9.8; −2.2]

0.002

Treatment with cardiovascular drugs

−3.8 [−6.9; −0.7]

0.017

Treatment with antidepressants

−9.6 [− 14.4; −4.7]

< 0.001

Side effects related to any treatment

−5.8 [− 9.0; − 2.5]

< 0.001

KPS ≥ 70%

14.2 [7.9; 20.5]

< 0.001

CCI score

−2.7 [−5.2; −0.3]

0.030

GH

N = 1321

R 2  = 0.15

Intercept

63.9 [58.4; 69.4]

< 0.001

Living alone

−3.8 [−6.4; −1.2]

0.004

Disability pension

−6.0[−8.3; − 3.7]

< 0.001

Having felt a need for an esteem support

−4.3 [− 6.9; − 1.6]

0.002

Having felt a need for an emotional support

−3.2[−5.9; − 0.6]

0.016

Duration of transplantation

−0.2 [− 0.3; − 0.0]

0.03

Treatment with cardiovascular drugs

−4.9 [− 7.1; − 2.7]

< 0.001

Treatment with ESA

− 4.9 [−8.1; − 1.7]

0.003

Treatment with antidepressants

− 4.3 [− 7.9; − 0.7]

0.018

KPS ≥ 70%

10.0 [5.3; 14.8]

< 0.001

High creatinine levels > 250 (μmol/L)

−6.9 [−8.7; − 5.0]

< 0.001

SF

N = 1362

R 2  = 0.16

Intercept

86.6 [79.6; 93.7]

< 0.001

Living alone

−5.1 [−8.0; −2.1]

0.001

Disability pension

−2.6 [−5.3; −0.0]

0.05

Having felt a need for an esteem support

−4.1 [− 7.3; − 0.9]

0.011

Having felt a need for an emotional support

−7.8 [−10.9; − 4.8]

< 0.001

Treatment with ESA

−8.1 [−11.8; − 4.5]

< 0.001

Treatment with calcium drugs

−3.9 [−6.4; − 1.4]

0.002

Treatment with antidepressants

−12.4 [− 16.5; − 8.3]

< 0.001

KPS ≥ 70%

8.4 [2.9; 13.8]

0.003

CCI score

−0.9 [−1.6; − 0.2]

0.01

RE

N = 1257

R 2  = 0.15

Intercept

72.5 [62.4; 82.6]

< 0.001

Disability pension

−6.4 [−10.7; − 2.2]

0.003

High monthly incomes (€)

3.4 [1.5; 5.3]

< 0.001

Having felt a need for an esteem support

−7.0 [−11.8; − 2.2]

0.004

Having felt a need for an emotional support

−5.9 [−9.4; − 2.4]

< 0.001

Treatment with antidepressants

−14.4 [− 25.8; − 12.9]

< 0.001

KPS ≥ 70%

13.3 [5.0; 21.6]

0.002

High creatinine levels > 250 (μmol/L)

−4.4 [−7.7; − 1.1]

0.009

MH

N = 1278

R 2  = 0.18

Intercept

60.6 [55.7; 65.5]

0.000

Disability pension

−5.9 [−9.4; −2.4]

0.020

High monthly incomes (€)

2.7 [1.8; 3.7]

< 0.001

Having felt a need for an esteem support

−6.1 [−8.7; − 3.6]

< 0.001

Having felt a need for an emotional support

−5.1 [− 7.6; −2.6]

< 0.001

Treatment with antidepressants

−15.2 [− 18.4; − 11.9]

< 0.001

KPS ≥ 70%

7.8 [3.6; 12.0]

< 0.001

VT

N = 1257

R 2  = 0.15

Intercept

59.2 [52.6; 65.7]

< 0.001

High monthly incomes (€)

2.3 [1.3; 3.3]

< 0.001

Having felt a need for an esteem support

−4.4 [−7.0; −1.8]

0.001

Having felt a need for an emotional support

−3.7 [−6.2; − 1.2]

0.004

Treatment with ESA

−3.4 [−6.5; −0.3]

0.03

Treatment with calcium drugs

−4.4 [−6.5; −2.3]

< 0.001

Treatment with antidepressants

−8.8 [−12.3; −5.4]

< 0.001

KPS ≥ 70%

8.0 [3.4; 12.5]

0.001

High creatinine levels > 250 (μmol/L)

−2.8 [−4.6; −1.0]

0.002

CCI score

−0.8 [−1.4; − 0.2]

0.007

PCS

N = 1244

R 2  = 0.2

Intercept

51.2 [47.4; 54.8]

< 0.001

Age

−0.1 [− 0.1; − 0.0]

0.003

Female

−1.8 [−2.8; − 0.7]

0.001

Disability pension

−2.7 [−3.8; − 1.6]

< 0.001

High monthly incomes (€)

−0.9 [− 0.4; − 1.3]

< 0.001

Treatment with diabetic drugs

− 2.5 [−3.9; − 1.1]

< 0.001

Treatment with cardiovascular drugs

− 1.4 [− 2.4; − 0.3]

0.009

Side effects related to any treatment

−1.4 [− 2.5; − 0.3]

0.012

KPS ≥ 70%

5.9 [3.7; 8.0]

< 0.001

High creatinine levels > 250 (μmol/L)

−2.1 [− 3.0; − 1.3]

< 0.001

CCI score

− 0.7 [− 1.1; − 0.3]

0.001

MCS

N = 1268

R 2  = 0.18

Intercept

49.6 [47.9; 51.2]

< 0.001

High monthly incomes (€)

1.3 [0.8; 1.8]

< 0.001

Having felt a need for an esteem support

−2.8 [−4.1; −1.4]

< 0.001

Having felt a need for an emotional support

−4.0 [−5.4; − 2.7]

< 0.001

Treatment with calcium drugs

−1.1 [−2.2; −0.0]

0.044

Treatment with antidepressants

−7.3 [−9.1; −5.5]

< 0.001

High creatinine levels > 250 (μmol/L)

−1.1 [−2.0; −0.2]

0.015

β coeff β coefficient, ESA Erythropoiesis-Stimulating Agent, KPS Karnofsky Performance Scale, CCI Charlson Comorbidity Index, PF Physical Functioning, RP Role Physical, BP Bodily Pain, GH General Health, VT Vitality, SF Social Functioning, RE Role Emotional, MH Mental Health, PCS Physical Component Score, MCS Mental Component Score

Table 5

Final regression models for ReTransQol domains

Dimensions

Variables

β coeff. [95% CI]

P values

PH

N = 1340

R 2  = 0.1

Intercept

65.2 [61.3; 69.0]

< 0.001

Employment status

2.1 [0.6; 3.5]

0.005

Disability pension

−2.8 [−4.2; −1.5]

< 0.001

Having felt a need for an esteem support

−3.1 [−4.6; −1.6]

< 0.001

Having felt a need for an emotional support

−1.7 [− 3.3; −0.2]

0.022

Treatment with cardiovascular drugs

−1.7 [−3.0; −0.4]

0.009

Treatment with antidepressants

−4.2 [−6.2; −2.1]

< 0.001

Side effects related to any treatment

−1.4 [−2.8; −0.07]

0.04

KPS ≥ 70%

5.4 [2.6; 8.1]

< 0.001

High creatinine levels > 250 (μmol/L)

−1.5 [−2.6; −0.5]

0.003

MH

N = 1276

R 2  = 0.1

Intercept

77.5 [73.7; 81.4]

< 0.001

Female

−2.0 [−3.8; −0.1]

0.034

Living alone

−5.1 [−7.3; −3.0]

< 0.001

Disability pension

−2.3 [−4.3; −0.4]

0.015

High monthly incomes (€)

1.4 [0.5; 2.4]

0.002

Internet use

5.4 [0.2; 5.0]

0.03

Having felt a need for an informative support

2.1 [0.2; 3.8]

0.024

Treatment with antidepressants

−7.0 [−9.8; −4.0]

< 0.001

MC

N = 1355

R 2  = 0.1

Intercept

78.2 [76.9; 79.6]

< 0.001

Having felt a need for an informative support

1.9 [0.5; 3.4]

0.008

Treatment with ESA

−7.0 [−9.8; −4.0]

0.06

Treatment with calcium drugs

−2.3 [−3.7; −0.8]

0.001

High creatinine levels > 250 (μmol/L)

− 2.0 [− 3.1; − 0.7]

0.002

TRT

N = 1347

R 2  = 0.1

Intercept

86.8 [82.2; 91.5]

< 0.001

High educational level

−3.4 [−6.1; −0.7]

0.011

Having felt a need for an esteem support

−4.2 [− 6.3; −2.1]

< 0.001

Having felt a need for an informative support

−3.1 [−5.2; −1.1]

0.003

Treatment with calcium drugs

−2.2 [−4.0; −0.5]

0.011

Side effects related to any treatment

−2.2 [−4.1; −0.3]

0.023

KPS ≥ 70%

4.1 [0.4; 7.7]

0.026

High creatinine levels > 250 (μmol/L)

−3.1 [−4.5; −1.8]

< 0.001

FG

N = 1259

R 2  = 0.1

Intercept

70.4 [66.1; 74.4]

< 0.001

Disability pension

−4.0[−6.2; −1.7]

0.001

High monthly incomes (€)

1.9 [0.4; 2.9]

< 0.001

Having felt a need for an esteem support

−4.1 [−6.7; −1.6]

0.001

Having felt a need for an emotional support

−3.7 [−6.3; −1.2]

0.004

Being on dialysis before transplantation

−4.8 [−7.8; −1.7]

0.002

Treatment with antidepressants

−3.6 [− 7.0; −0.2]

0.037

High creatinine levels > 250 (μmol/L)

−3.7 [−5.9; −2.1]

< 0.001

β coeff β coefficient, ESA Erythropoiesis-Stimulating Agent, KPS Karnofsky Performance Scale, PH Physical Health, MH Mental Health, MC Medical Care and satisfaction, TRT Treatment, FG Fear of losing the Graft

All HRQoL components of SF-36 and RTQ were lower with demographic and clinical characteristics. The variables which contributed most to low QoL scores were receiving disability pension, low monthly incomes and a low Karnofsky Performance Scale (< 70%). To a lesser extent, advanced age, female gender, having children, unemployment, living alone, a high Charlson Comorbidity Index, high creatinine levels (> 250 μmol/L), chronic graft dysfunction, being treated with cardiovascular drugs and presence of side effects related to treatments were associated with low QoL scores (Tables 4 and 5).

Psycho-social variables were also found to be associated with HRQoL scores for both questionnaires. Perceived poor social support and being treated by antidepressants were associated with low scores of QoL, while internet access was associated with high QoL scores (Tables 4 and 5).

Discussion

This study analyzed the factors associated with HRQoL in a representative sample of 1424 Kideny Transplant Recipients (KTR) from five kidney centers of France. This study goes further from a previous work published in a French national study of 1061 KTR from 8 regions of France, which was the first French report about HRQoL in kidney transplantation [27]. We analyzed the exploration of psycho-social factors that were poorly studied in literature, such as perceived social support measured by a validated questionnaire [22] and internet access. Indeed, there is growing evidence for the necessity of specifying psychological dimension’s influence on quality of life after kidney transplantation [35, 36].

In our study, HRQoL scores, socio-demographic and clinical characteristics of KTR are similar to a French national survey [27]. Socio-demographic variables had a negative influence on HRQoL: level of HRQoL significantly decreases with age, female gender, living status and the educational level. These findings are in accordance with other studies [27, 3752].

This study points out that KTR receiving a disability pension have an extremely impaired HRQoL, especially for physical dimensions. This association may be influenced by the impact of manual work [53]. Patients in lower-ranked occupations may have less control in the work situation and thereby less possibility to prevent their health influenced by physical demands and poor ergonomic working environment [54].

Karnofsky Performance Status (KPS) was strongly associated with good HRQoL scores, whatever the instrument used. Whether KTR could carry normal activity and take care of themselves are the important parameters of measurement of QoL. Zhang L et al. [55] suggested that KPS score could be the most important factor associated with QoL values in patients with advanced HIV. These results suggest that healthy lifestyle and physical function are recommended after transplantation to improve HRQoL and it seems important to counsel and encourage for more physical activity as a part of routine medical care in KTR.

Furthermore, treatments with diabetic, cardiovascular and calcium drugs had a negative impact on HRQoL, especially for physical dimensions. In contrast, we did not find any association between immunosuppressive drugs and HRQoL, which suggests that nephrologists should use more effective treatments to prevent rejection and preserve the kidney function without adversely affecting HRQoL. A specific health education for KTR, including how treatments must be adhered, its benefits and side effects, is also recommended for KTR to handle difficulties due to specific treatments.

We also found a strong association between antidepressants and bad HRQoL scores for both physical and mental components. It is possible that patients treated with antidepressants tended to somatize more and give more emphasis to the negative effects of transplantation than its positive effects [56, 57]. It could also suggest that patients with worse health conditions are more susceptible to depression, even after transplantation. Studies reported that patients undergoing dialysis and/or transplantation, may become unable to cope with it, as it affects their mind integrity [58]. Depression and anxiety as impaired HRQoL are known to be associated with increased mortality and poor outcomes in KTR [59, 60]. Mental health is thus playing an important role in HRQoL and should not be underestimated after kidney transplantation.

Aside from these factors, social support was significantly associated with bad HRQoL scores. KTR with a need for an esteem and emotional support have bad QoL scores in almost all dimensions and specifically in mental dimensions (Tables 4 and 5). This underlies that social support may reflect non-constructive coping strategies with the disease, which should not be underestimated. Furthermore, informative support and internet access were associated with high QoL scores for mental dimension of ReTransQol (Table 5), testifying their interest in seeking for information and communication about their health or their transplant, and arguing the need for progress in these fields. These results are in accordance with previous studies, which demonstrated that Internet could improve the well-being and QoL by providing mental stimulation and challenge [61].

Summing up, these new findings reinforce the importance of patients’ psychological health and strengthen the necessity of psychosocial development and support for these patients. Our patients may, after kidney transplantation, need more psychological interventions aiming to provide information about their medical care. This could help them to deal with their disease and reduce several mental problems (such as stress and anxiety). Therefore, for better post-transplant rehabilitation and given the risks of psychopathology, the development of interdisciplinary interventions such as socio-medical and psychotherapeutic programs are essential.

Finally, our sample is representative of general French KTR with a large sample size. To our knowledge, there are few studies with a sample over 1000 patients [17, 62, 63]. Another strong point of the current study was the use of generic and specific HRQoL tools. We applied the generic instrument SF-36 Health Survey [29, 30], the most used questionnaire for HRQoL analysis in KTR [6467], and a disease-specific instrument validated for KTR in the French language: the ReTransQol version 2 [34]. Both questionnaires are very interesting to work with, as they are complementary and offer different views on the global aspects and the specific domains to identify factors associated with HRQoL for KTR. Indeed, RTQ was more sensitive than SF-36 for clinical variables such as treatment and fear of losing the graft, but less exhaustive for demographic factors. Another strong point of this study was the construction of a comprehensive multivariate model, including many variables, especially psycho-social ones that were poorly studied in QoL studies for KTR. Despite being comprehensive, the final regression models explained 20% of the physical (PCS) HRQoL variance and 18% of mental HRQoL variance (MCS). Limitations of our research are related to the cross-sectional design, which is the first phase of our longitudinal study, so we cannot truly interpret predictive factors. The longitudinal data are currently under analysis to compare HRQoL scores, its evolution over time and its associated factors.

Conclusion

The originality of our study’s findings was that new variables, particularly KTR treated by antidepressants and having felt unmet needs for any social support, have a negative effect on their QoL. It may be useful to organize a psychological support specifically adapted for these patients. In order to orientate psychological programs and improve patient care and well-being, a better understanding of how patients anticipate, live and face post-kidney-transplantation and a deep investigation of psychological factors are needed in future QoL studies.

Abbreviations

BMI: 

Body Mass Index

BP: 

Bodily Pain

CCI: 

Charlson Comorbidity Index

ESA: 

Erythropoiesis-Stimulating Agents

ESRD: 

End-Stage Renal Disease

FG: 

Fear of losing the Graft

GH: 

General Health

Hb: 

Hemoglobin

HRQoL: 

Health-Related Quality of Life

KPS: 

Karnofsky Performance Scale

KTR: 

Kidney Transplant Recipients

MC: 

Medical Care and satisfaction

MCS: 

Mental Composite Score

MH: 

Mental Health

MLR: 

Multivariate Linear Regression

PCS: 

Physical Composite Score

PF: 

Physical Functioning

PH: 

Physical Health

QoL: 

Quality of Life

RE: 

Role Emotional

RP: 

Role Physical

RTQ: 

ReTransQol

SD: 

Standard Deviation

SF: 

Social Functioning

SF-36: 

Short Form-36 Health Survey

TRT: 

Treatment

VT: 

Vitality

WHO: 

World Health Organization

β coeff: 

β coefficient

Declarations

Acknowledgements

The authors would like to thank patients, nephrologists and clinical technicians for their help and participation to this study.

Funding

This study is integrated in a research program funded by: Direction Générale de l’Offre de Soins, Ministère des affaires sociales et de la santé, for study design and data collection. Authors declare that they have no conflicts of interest regarding this funding source. Analysis, interpretation of data and writing of the manuscript were not associated with any funding.

Availability of data and materials

All data generated or analyzed during this study are included in this article. The datasets of this study are not publicly available at present. As it is a longitudinal study, all data are under analysis for the publication of other articles/studies, but they can be available from the corresponding author on reasonable request.

Authors’ contributions

YM performed statistical analysis, analyzed and interpreted the data and drafted the manuscript; SG conceived the study and its design, coordinated the data management, interpreted the data and revised the manuscript critically; EJ participated in the statistical analysis; MA and NP revised the manuscript; BD, VM, AM, EC, GM and AD participated in the design of the study, collected medical data and participated to the interpretation of data. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.

Ethics approval and consent to participate

The study methodology was approved by the local Institutional Review Board (CCTIRS n°12-726) and the “Comité National Informatique et Liberté” (CNIL n°1639707), thus ensuring the confidentiality of all the collected informations. All patients agreeing to participate signed a written informed consent before their inclusion in the study.

Competing interests

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Open AccessThis article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated.

Authors’ Affiliations

(1)
Laboratoire de Santé Publique, Faculté de Médecine, Université Aix-Marseille, Marseille, France
(2)
Service Santé Publique et Information Médicale, CHU Marseille, Marseille, France
(3)
Centre de Néphrologie et de Transplantation Rénale, CHU Marseille, Marseille, France
(4)
Transplantation, Urology and Nephrology Institute (ITUN), CHU Nantes, Nantes, France
(5)
Hôpital Pasteur, Nice, France
(6)
Département de Néphrologie, Dialyse et Transplantation, CHU Montpellier, Montpellier, France
(7)
Service de Néphrologie, CHU Bicêtre, Paris, France

References

  1. Finkelstein FO, Wuerth D, Finkelstein SH. Health related quality of life and the CKD patient: challenges for the nephrology community. Kidney Int. 2009;76(9):946–52.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. Aarnio M, Winter T, Kujala U, Kaprio J. Associations of health related behaviour, social relationships, and health status with persistent physical activity and inactivity: a study of Finnish adolescent twins. Br J Sports Med. 2002;36(5):360–4.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  3. Revicki DA, Kleinman L, Cella D. A history of health-related quality of life outcomes in psychiatry. Dialogues Clin Neurosci. 2014;16(2):127–35.PubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  4. Guyatt GH, Feeny DH, Patrick DL. Measuring health-related quality of life. Ann Intern Med. 1993;118:622–9.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. Loria A, Escheik C, Gerber NL, Younossi ZM. Quality of life in cirrhosis. Curr Gastroenterol Rep. 2013;15:301.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. Strong K, Mathers C, Leeder S, Beaglehole R. Preventing chronic diseases: how many lives can we save? Lancet. 2005;366:1578–82.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. WHO: Preventing chronic disease prevention: a vital investment [Internet], http://www.who.int/chp/chronic_disease_report/part1/fr/index16.html.
  8. Law n ° 2004–806 of 9 August 2004 relating to public health policy | Legifrance [Internet], http://www.legifrance.gouv.fr/affichTexte.docidTexte=JORFTEXT000000787078&dateTexte=&categorieLien=id.
  9. Jungers P, Choukroun G, Robino C, Massy ZA, Taupin P, Labrunie M, et al. Epidemiology of end-stage renal disease in the Ile-de-France area: a prospective study in 1998. Nephrol Dial Transplant. 2000;15(12):2000–6.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. Labeeuw M. Treatment of end stage renal failure by dialysis in Rhône- Alpes. Changes over the period 1993–1999. Nephrologie. 2001;22(4):161–6.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. Finnegan-John J, Thomas Veronica J. The psychosocial experience of patients with end-stage renal disease and its impact on quality of life: findings from a needs assessment to shape a service. ISRN Nephrology. 2013; https://doi.org/10.5402/2013/308986.
  12. Avramovic M, Stefanovic V. Health-related quality of life in different stages of renal failure. Artif Organs. 2012;36:581–9.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. Laupacis A, Keown P, Pus N, Krueger H, Ferguson B, Wong C, et al. A study of quality of life and cost-utility of renal transplantation. Kidney Int. 1996;50:235–42.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. Wolfe RA, Ashby VB, et al. Comparison of mortality in all patients on dialysis, patients on dialysis awaiting transplantation, and recipients of a first cadaveric transplant. N Engl J Med. 1999;341:1725–30.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. Sesso R, Eisenberg JM, Stabile C, Draibe S, Ajzen H, et al. Cost-effectiveness analysis of the treatment of end-stage renal disease in Brazil. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2009;6(1):107–14.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  16. Evans RW, Kitzmann DJ. An economic analysis of kidney transplantation. Surg Clin N Am. 1998;78:149–74.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. Jofré R, López-Gómez JM, Moreno F, Sanz-Guajardo D, Valderrábano F. Changes in quality of life after renal transplantation. Am J Kidney Dis. 1998;32(1):93–100.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. Van der Mei SF, Groothoff JW, van Sonderen ELP, van den Heuvel WJA, de Jong PE, van Son WJ. Clinical factors influencing participation in society after successful kidney transplantation. Transplantation. 2006;82(1):80–5.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. Liem YS, Bosch JL, Arends LR, Heijenbrok-Kal MH, et al. Quality of life assessed with the medical outcomes study short form 36-item health survey of patients on renal replacement therapy: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Value Health. 2007;10(5):390–7.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. Maglakelidze N, Pantsulaia T, Tchokhonelidze I, Managadze L, Chkhotua A. Assessment of health-related quality of life in renal transplant recipients and dialysis patients. Transplant Proc. 2011;43(1):376–9.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. Tonelli M, Wiebe N, Knoll G, Bello A, Browne S, Jadhav D, et al. Systematic review: kidney transplantation compared with dialysis in clinically relevant outcomes. Am J Transplant. 2011;11(10):2093–109.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. Bruchon-Schweitzer M, Quintard B. Personality and illness. Stress, adaptation and adjustment. Paris: Ed Dubod; 2001.Google Scholar
  23. Karnofsky DA, Burcherval JH. The clinical evaluation of chemotherapeutic agents in cancer. In: Macleod CM, editor. Evaluation of chemotherapeutic agents. New York: Columbia University Press; 1949. p. 191–205.Google Scholar
  24. Schag CC, Heinrich RL, Ganz PA. Karnofsky performance status revisited: reliability, validity, and guidelines. J Clin Oncol. 1984;2:187–93.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. Charlson ME, Pompei P, Ales KL, MacKenzie CR. A new method of classifying prognostic comorbidity in longitudinal studies: development and validation. J Chronic Dis. 1987;40(5):373–83.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. Charlson M, Szatrowski TP, Peterson J, Gold J. Validation of a combined comorbidity index. J Clin Epidemiol. 1994;47(11):1245–51.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. Gentile S, Beauger D, Speyer E, Jouve E, Dussol B, Jacquelinet C, et al. Factors associated with health-related quality of life in renal transplant recipients: results of a national survey in France. Health Qual Life Outcomes. 2013;11(1):88.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  28. Organization WH: Nutritional Anemia: report of a WHO scientific group (technical report series n. 405). 1968.Google Scholar
  29. Ware JE, Sherbourne CD. The MOS 36-item short-form health survey (SF-36) I. Conceptual framework and item selection. Med Care. 1992;30:473–83.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  30. Leplège A, Coste J. Introduction, enjeux, définitions : Mesure de la santé perceptuelle et de la qualité de vie: méthodes et applications. In: Estem; 2002. p. 15–36.Google Scholar
  31. Ware JE. SF-36 physical and mental health summary scales: a user’s manual. Boston: Health Assessment Lab. New England Medical Center; 1994.Google Scholar
  32. Farivar SS, Cunningham WE, et al. Correlated physical and mental health summary scores for the SF-36 and SF-12 health survey, V.1. Health Qual Life Outcomes. 2007;5:54.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  33. Gentile S, Jouve E, Dussol B, Moal V, Berland Y, Sambuc R. Development and validation of a French patient-based health-related quality of life instrument in kidney transplant: the ReTransQoL. Health Qual Life Outcomes. 2008;(1):78.Google Scholar
  34. Beauger D, Gentile S, Jouve E, et al. Analysis, evaluation and adaptation of the ReTransQoL: a specific quality of life questionnaire for renal transplant recipients. Health Qual Life Outcomes. 2013;11:148.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  35. Kim W, Kreps GL, Shin C-N. The role of social support and social networks in health information–seeking behavior among Korean Americans: a qualitative study. Int J Equity Health. 2015;14:40. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12939-015-0169-8. View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  36. De Pasquale C, Veroux M, Indelicato L, et al. Psychopathological aspects of kidney transplantation: efficacy of a multidisciplinary team. World J Transplant. 2014;4(4):267–75.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  37. Ponton P, Rupolo GP, Marchini F, Feltrin A, Perin N, Mazzoldi MA, et al. Quality-of-life change after kidney transplantation. Transplant Proc. 2001;33(1–2):1887–9.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  38. Chiu SFA, Wong HS, Morad Z, et al. Quality of life in cadaver and living-related renal transplant recipient in Kuala Lumpur hospital. Transplant Proc. 2004;36:2030–1.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  39. Fiebiger W, Mitterbauer C, Oberbauer R. Health-related quality of life outcomes after kidney transplantation. Health Qual Life Outcomes. 2004;2:2.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  40. Ogutmen B, Yildirim A, Sever MS, Bozfakioglu S, Ataman R, Erek E, et al. Health-related quality of life after kidney transplantation in comparison intermittent hemodialysis, peritoneal dialysis, and normal controls. Transplant Proc. 2006;38(2):419–21.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  41. Khedmat H, Karami GR, Pourfarziani V, Assari S, Rezailashkajani M, et al. A logistic regression model for predicting health-related quality of life in kidney transplant recipients. Transplant Proc. 2007;39:917–22.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  42. Bohlke M, Marini SS, Rocha M, Terhorst L, Gomes RH, Barcellos FC, et al. Factors associated with health-related quality of life after successful kidney transplantation: a population-based study. Qual Life Res. 2009;18(9):1185–93.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  43. Rambod M, Shabani M, Shokrpour N, Rafii F, Mohammadalliha J. Quality of life of hemodialysis and renal transplantation patients. Health Care Manag (Frederick). 2011;30(1):23–8.Google Scholar
  44. Stavem K, Ganss R. Reliability and validity of the ESRD symptom checklist–transplantation module in Norwegian kidney transplant recipients. BMC Nephrol. 2006;7:17.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  45. Molnar-Varga M, Molnar MZ, Szeifert L, Kovacs AZ, Kelemen A, Becze A, et al. Health-related quality of life and clinical outcomes in kidney transplant recipients. Am J Kidney Dis. 2011;58(3):444–52.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  46. Rebollo P, Ortega F, Baltar JM, Díaz-Corte C, Navascués RA, Naves M, et al. Health-related quality of life (HRQOL) in end stage renal disease (ESRD) patients over 65 years. Geriatr Nephrol Urol. 1998;8(2):85–94.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  47. Keogh AM, Feehally J. A quantitative study comparing adjustment and acceptance of illness in adults on renal replacement therapy. ANNA J. 1999;26:471–7.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  48. Rosenberger J, van Dijk JP, Nagyova I, Zezula I, Geckova AM, Roland R, et al. Predictors of perceived health status in patients after kidney transplantation. Transplantation. 2006;81(9):1306–10.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  49. Lubetkin EI, Jia H, Franks P, Gold MR. Relationship among sociodemographic factors, clinical conditions, and health-related quality of life: examining the EQ-5D in the US general population. Qual Life Res. 2005;14:2187–96.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  50. Johnson CD, Wicks MN, Milstead J, Hartwig M, et al. Racial and gender differences in quality of life following kidney transplantation. J Nurs Scholarsh. 1998;30:125–30.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  51. Kontodimopoulos N, Pappa E, Niakas D. Gender- and age-related benefit of renal replacement therapy on health-related quality of life. Scand J Caring Sci. 2009;23:721–9.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  52. Fructuoso M, Castro R, Oliveira L, Prata C, Morgado T. Quality of life in chronic kidney disease. Nefrologia. 2011;31(1):91–6.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  53. Krokstad S, Johnsen R, Westin S. Social determinants of disability pension: a 10-year follow-up of 62 000 people in a Norwegian county population. Int J Epidemiol. 2002;31:1183–91. https://doi.org/10.1093/ije/31.6.1183.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  54. Lahelma E, Laaksonen M, Lallukka T, Martikainen P, Pietilainen O, Saastamoinen P, Gould R, Rahkonen O. Working conditions as risk factors for disability retirement: a longitudinal register linkage study. BMC Public Health. 2012;12:309. https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2458-12-309.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  55. Zhang L, Yang B, Zhang J. Related factors associated with quality of life assessed using a Chinese version of the MOS-HIV health survey in people with HIV/AIDS in China. J AIDS Clin Res. 2016;7:568. https://doi.org/10.4172/2155-6113.1000568.Google Scholar
  56. Levy NB. Psychological aspects of renal transplantation. Psychosomatics. 1994;35:427–33.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  57. Brickman AL, Rothber ST, Yount SE, Blaney NT, Morgan R. Is satisfaction with kidney transplantation influenced by personality and post-transplant side-effects? Dial Transplant. 1998;27:725–33.Google Scholar
  58. Knight EL, Otsthun N, Teng M, et al. The association between mental health, physical function and haemodialysis mortality. Kidney Int. 2003;63:1843–51.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  59. Jana AK, Sircar D, Waikhom R, et al. Depression and anxiety as potential correlates of post-transplantation renal function and quality of life. Indian J Nephrol. 2014;24(5):286–90.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  60. Müller HH, Englbrecht M, Wiesener MS, et al. Depression, anxiety, resilience and coping pre and post kidney transplantation – initial findings from the psychiatric impairments in kidney transplantation (PI-KT)-study. Bueno V. PLoS One. 2015;10(11)Google Scholar
  61. Slegers K, Van Boxtel MPJ, Jolles J. Effects of computer training and internet usage on the well-being and quality of life of older adults: a randomized, controlled study. J Gerontol Ser B-Psychol Sci Soc Sci. 2008;63:176–84.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  62. Wight JP, Edwards L, Brazier J, Walters S, Payne JN, et al. The SF36 as an outcome measure of services for end stage renal failure. Qual Health Care. 1998;209(4):209–21.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  63. Ichikawa Y, Fujisawa M, Hirose E, Kageyama T, Miyamoto Y, Sakai Y, et al. Quality of life in kidney transplant patients. Transplant Proc. 2000;32(7):1815–6.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  64. Humar A, Denny R, Matas AJ, Najarian JS. Graft and quality of life outcomes in older recipients of a kidney transplant. Exp Clin Transplant. 2003;1(2):69–72.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  65. Matas AJ, McHugh L, Payne WD, Wrenshall LE, Dunn DL, Gruessner RW. Long-term quality of life after kidney and simultaneous pancreas-kidney transplantation. Clin Transpl. 1998;12(3):233–42.Google Scholar
  66. Butt Z, Yount SE, Caicedo JC, Abecassis MM, Cella D. Quality of life assessment in renal transplant: review and future directions. Clin Transpl. 2008;22(3):292–303.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  67. Jay CL, Butt Z, Ladner DP, Skaro AI, Abecassis MM. A review of quality of life instruments used in liver transplantation. J Hepatol. 2009;51(5):949–59.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar

Copyright

© The Author(s). 2018

Advertisement