Skip to main content

Table 1 Baseline characteristics of participants with comparisons between those who did and did not complete the study

From: Quality of life improved for patients after starting dialysis but is impaired, initially, for their partners: a multi-centre, longitudinal study

 

Patients

 

Partners

Overall N = 83

Pre-dialysis only n = 45

Completed study n = 39

p-value

Overall N = 83

Pre-dialysis only n = 45

Completed study n = 39

p-value

Socio-demographic characteristics

 Male n (%)^

52 (63%)

26 (59%)

26 (67%)

0.51

31 (37%)

18 (41%)

13 (33%)

0.51

 Age M (SD, years)

64 (14)

64 (14)

64 (14)

0.82

63 (15)

64 (15)

62 (15)

0.72

 Married n (%)^

69 (84%)

36 (82%)

33 (87%)

5.29

70 (84%)

36 (82%)

34 (87%)

6.61

 Highest level of education n (%)^

   

3.68

   

1.51

  None

4 (5%)

3 (7%)

1 (3%)

 

4 (5%)

3 (7%)

1 (3%)

 

  Primary school

3 (4%)

2 (5%)

1 (3%)

 

2 (2%)

1 (2%)

1 (3%)

 

  Secondary school

40 (48%)

19 (43%)

21 (55%)

 

33 (40%)

18 (41%)

15 (38%)

 

  College or training certification

25 (30%)

15 (34%)

10 (26%)

 

36 (43%)

18 (41%)

18 (46%)

 

  University – undergraduate

4 (5%)

3 (7%)

1 (3%)

 

5 (6%)

3 (7%)

2 (5%)

 

  University – postgraduate

6 (7%)

2 (5%)

4 (11%)

 

3 (4%)

1 (2%)

2 (5%)

 

  Missing

1 (1%)

0 (0%)

1 (3%)

 

–

–

–

 

 Ethnicity n (%)*^

   

3.72

   

3.73

  White British

75 (91%)

38 (87%)

37 (94%)

 

77 (93%)

39 (89%)

38 (97%)

 

  White Other

1 (1%)

1 (2%)

0 (0%)

 

1 (1%)

1 (2%)

0 (0%)

 

  Asian Pakistani

2 (2%)

1 (2%)

1 (3%)

 

2 (2%)

1 (2%)

1 (3%)

 

  Asian Other

3 (4%)

3 (7%)

0 (0%)

 

2 (2%)

2 (5%)

0 (0%)

 

  Mixed/Multiple ethnic groups

–

–

–

 

1 (1%)

1 (2%)

0 (0%)

 

  Missing

2 (2%)

1 (2%)

1 (3%)

 

–

–

–

 

 Employment status n (%)^

   

0.32

   

1.86

  Retired

44 (53%)

23 (52%)

21 (55%)

 

45 (54%)

23 (52%)

22 (56%)

 

  Working full-time

20 (24%)

10 (23%)

10 (26%)

 

15 (18%)

7 (16%)

8 (21%)

 

  Working part-time

5 (6%)

3 (7%)

2 (5%)

 

10 (12%)

6 (14%)

4 (10%)

 

  Unable to work

12 (14%)

7 (16%)

5 (13%)

 

6 (7%)

3 (7%)

3 (8%)

 

  Do not work

–

–

–

 

6 (7%)

4 (9%)

2 (5%)

 

  Missing

2 (2%)

1 (2%)

1 (3%)

 

1 (1%)

1 (2%)

0 (0%)

 

Dialysis characteristics

 Type of patient n (%)^

   

1.53

    

  Incident patient

54 (65%)

28 (64%)

26 (67%)

 

–

–

–

 

  Prevalent patient

6 (7%)

2 (4%)

4 (10%)

 

–

–

–

 

  Missing

23 (28%)

14 (32%)

9 (23%)

 

–

–

–

 

 Start of dialysis^

   

10.30

    

  Planned

52 (63%)

22 (50%)

30 (77%)

 

–

–

–

 

  Unplanned

4 (5%)

1 (2%)

3 (8%)

 

–

–

–

 

  Missing

27 (32%)

21 (48%)

6 (15%)

 

–

–

–

 

 Mode of dialysis n (%)^

   

1.76

    

  HD

50 (60%)

29 (66%)

21 (54%)

 

–

–

–

 

  PD

24 (29%)

10 (23%)

14 (36%)

 

–

–

–

 

  Missing

9 (11%)

5 (11%)

4 (10%)

 

–

–

–

 

 Type of access at pre-dialysis n (%)^

  

11.69

    

  AVF

27 (33%)

12 (27%)

15 (38%)

 

–

–

–

 

  Tesio line

7 (8%)

3 (7%)

4 (10%)

 

–

–

–

 

  PD catheter

21 (25%)

7 (16%)

14 (36%)

 

–

–

–

 

  Missing

28 (34%)

22 (50%)

6 (16%)

 

–

–

–

 

Clinical variables

eGFRM (SD)

9.2 (3.3)

10.0 (4.0)

8.5 (2.2)

0.04

–

–

–

 

  Haemoglobin g/L M (SD)

107.9 (15.9)

109.9 (15.2)

105.8 (16.6)

0.27

–

–

–

 

  Serum albumin g/L M (SD)

37.9 (6.0)

39.0 (6.3)

36.7 (5.5)

0.10

–

–

–

 

 Comorbidity risk n (%)^

   

2.25

    

  Low

23 (28%)

12 (27%)

11 (28%)

 

–

–

–

 

  Medium

42 (50%)

20 (45%)

22 (56%)

 

–

–

–

 

  High

10 (12%)

6 (14%)

4 (10%)

 

–

–

–

 

  Missing

8 (10%)

6 (14%)

2 (5%)

     

 Primary renal diagnosis n (%)^

   

8.70

    

  Glomerulonephritis

10 (12%)

5 (11%)

2 (13%)

 

–

–

–

 

  Polycystic

9 (11%)

6 (14%)

3 (8%)

 

–

–

–

 

  Diabetes

7 (8%)

4 (9%)

3 (8%)

 

–

–

–

 

  Renal vascular disease

5 (6%)

4 (9%)

1 (3%)

 

–

–

–

 

  Hypertension

4 (5%)

2 (5%)

2 (5%)

 

–

–

–

 

  Pyelonephritis

3 (4%)

3 (7%)

0 (0%)

 

–

–

–

 

  Other

4 (5%)

3 (7%)

1 (3%)

 

–

–

–

 

  Uncertain

7 (8%)

4 (9%)

3 (8%)

 

–

–

–

 

  Missing

34 (41%)

13 (30%)

21 (54%)

     

Quality of life

 WHOQOL General QOL

2.8 (0.9)

2.8 (0.9)

2.8 (0.8)

0.94

3.5 (0.9)

3.5 (0.9)

3.6 (0.9)

0.47

 WHOQOL Physical

46.4 (21.9)

44.46 (23.1)

48.3 (20.7)

0.44

67.3 (21.3)

66.0 (21.1)

68.7 (21.6)

0.58

 WHOQOL Psychological

61.7 (18.6)

60.1 (17.4)

63.2 (19.9)

0.48

66.0 (18.6)

64.5 (19.1)

67.5 (18.2)

0.50

 WHOQOL Social

63.2 (21.1)

61.2 (20.6)

65.3 (21.7)

0.40

64.8 (16.7)

62.3 (18.3)

67.4 (14.6)

0.18

 WHOQOL Environmental

67.4 (15.1)

65.6 (14.6)

69.2 (15.6)

0.29

67.8 (15.9)

65.0 (15.2)

70.8 (16.2)

0.11

Psychological and relationship variables

 HADS Anxiety

6.9 (4.3)

7.1 (4.3)

6.7 (4.3)

0.73

7.1 (4.0)

6.4 (3.8)

7.8 (4.2)

0.13

 HADS Depression

6.8 (4.2)

6.9 (4.3)

6.7 (4.1)

0.83

5.1 (4.1)

5.4 (4.3)

4.7 (3.9)

0.46

 Dialysis expectations

3.3 (0.7)

3.3 (0.7)

3.4 (0.7)

0.62

3.2 (0.5)

3.1 (0.4)

3.2 (0.6)

0.46

 Accepting dialysis

3.3 (0.6)

3.3 (0.6)

3.3 (0.6)

0.82

3.4 (0.7)

3.4 (0.6)

3.4 (0.7)

0.71

 Dyadic relationship characteristics

3.9 (0.6)

4.1 (0.6)

3.8 (0.7)

0.09

3.8 (0.6)

3.9 (0.6)

3.7 (0.5)

0.13

 Relationship satisfaction

4.4 (0.9)

4.4 (0.9)

4.5 (0.9)

0.79

4.4 (0.7)

4.3 (0.8)

4.4 (0.7)

0.71

Symptoms

 Symptom severity

20.9 (11.5)

22.1 (13.3)

19.8 (9.5)

0.39

9.3 (8.7)

9.2 (9.1)

9.3 (8.4)

0.97

 Number of symptoms

9.3 (4.2)

9.0 (4.8)

9.5 (3.6)

0.58

4.8 (3.6)

4.4 (3.8)

5.2 (3.4)

0.29

  1. Note. AVF arteriovenous fistula, HADS Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale, HD haemodialysis, PD peritoneal dialysis, eGFR estimated glomerular filtration rate, QOL quality of life, WHOQOL World Health Organization’s Quality of Life Short Form (BREF). Incident patient means a patient starting dialysis for the first time; prevalent refers to a patient who has been on a form of renal replacement therapy before but who intends to start dialysis due to a failing transplant. QOL was measured using the WHOQOL-BREF with scoring range of 1–5 for General QOL and 1–100 for its four domains. Anxiety and depression were assessed using the HADS, scoring range 0–21. Dialysis expectations, accepting dialysis, dyadic relationship characteristics and relationship satisfaction were assessed using study specific measures designed by the research team, each with a scoring range of 1–5. Symptoms were measured using the Palliative care Outcomes Scale – Symptoms (POS-S). Patients completed the renal version (17 items, severity symptom score range 0–68), and partners completed the general version (14 items, severity symptom score range 0–56). High scores on the WHOQOL-BREF indicate good QOL. High scores on dialysis expectations, accepting dialysis, DRC and relationship satisfaction suggest high expectations of dialysis, being accepting of dialysis, cohesive relationships characteristics between patients and partners, and satisfaction in the couple’s relationship. High scores on the HADS and POS-S suggest the presence of anxiety, depression and high symptom burden
  2. * Ethnicity codes taken from those used in UK renal units
  3. ^ Chi-squared
Back to article page

BMC Nephrology

ISSN: 1471-2369

Contact us