Skip to main content
Download PDF

Benefit finding in chronic kidney disease patients receiving hemodialysis: a cross-sectional study

BMC Nephrology volume 25, Article number: 46 (2024) Cite this article

Abstract

Background and objectives

The psychological problems of hemodialysis (HD) patients are prominent, and benefit finding (BF) have been proven beneficial to physical and mental health, fewer researchers explored BF in HD patients. The aim of this study was to investigate the current status of BF in patients with chronic kidney disease and to analyze the factors influencing it in order to provide a reference for subsequent interventions.

Methods

A cross-sectional study was done on 246 HD patients by convenience sampling in the hemodialysis center of a 3 A hospital in Shanghai from March to September 2019. The measures include General Information Questionnaire, Benefit Finding Scale, Perceived Social Support Scale, General Self-efficacy Scale, and Simplified Coping Style scale.

Results

The median (interquartile range, IQR) score of BF was 66 (IQR = 19) and it was lower compared with other chronic diseases. Significant differences in BF scores were found between different age groups, HD duration categories, and understanding degrees of HD. Taking BF as the dependent variable, the results of multiple linear regression analysis showed that age, duration of HD, family support, other support, positive coping, and self-efficacy entered the regression equation to explain 43.8% of the total variation. Social support played an indirect effect in the relationship between positive coping and BF, accounting for 54.1% of the total effect.

Conclusion

The BF of HD patients is worrisome and affected by many factors. Medical staff could pay attention to the positive psychology of HD patients, and construct individualized interventions according to the influencing factors to improve their BF level and achieve physical and mental health.

Peer Review reports

Introduction

Hemodialysis (HD) is the most common treatment regime for patients with acute and chronic renal failure [1], and the proportion of HD patients worldwide increased by 43.1% in 2017 compared to 1990 [2]. China is one of the countries with the largest number of HD patients in the world. The corresponding number of Chinese prevalent dialysis patients in 2016 was approximately 578,000 [3], and the number continues to rise year by year. HD can prolong the survival time and improve the survival rate of patients with end-stage renal disease. However, HD patients experience a high burden of physical and emotional symptoms resulting in poor quality of life [4]. A study showed that long-term HD would lead to poorer mental health and declining quality of life in patients [5]. Some studies have shown that 41% of HD patients had symptoms of depression [6], and about 12.6% suffered from depression and anxiety at the same time [7]. These reports suggest an urgent need to attach importance to the psychological status of HD patients.

Benefit Finding (BF) was first put forward by Taylor in 1983 as an important and novel concept in positive psychology [8]. It refers to the perception of an individual’s positive response to adverse life events, manifested as positive cognitive and behavioral reactions [8]. BF had been explored and proven mainly in cancer patients [9,10,11], family caregivers [11, 12], and other fields [10, 13, 14]. It was less explored in patients with renal disease and only one study investigated 319 renal transplant patients and found BF was present from the pre-transplant stage to the post-transplant stage [15]. The BF in patients during the illness can be represented as follows, such as seeking meaning in life, living in the present, paying more attention to health, and perceiving support from others. Studies have proved that BF can help patients improve their physical and mental health, and leads to higher life satisfaction [16].

BF is reported to be affected by a variety of factors. In terms of demographic factors, such as age, education level, and economic income, no consensus has been reached yet [17]. However, negative emotions such as anxiety and depression were negatively correlated with BF [18, 19]. Moreover, previous studies have reported that BF is positively correlated with social support [20], positive coping [21] and general self-efficacy [11] in patients. Specifically, the perceived social support of individuals may not be equal to the social support they actually receive [22], but positive coping may lead patients to more easily perceive social support, so as to more actively deal with negative events and improve BF [12]. Besides, social support and positive coping are respectively positive influencing factors of BF, but as we know, there is still no study has explored the relationship between BF, social support, and positive coping in HD patients. Based on the above, the hypothesis of this study is that the level of BF in HD patients is related with social support, self-efficacy and coping style, and social support plays an indirect effect between positive coping and BF.

This study aims to investigate the current situation of BF in patients with chronic kidney disease who are receiving HD, analyze its influencing factors, and provide a preliminary reference for improving the mental health of those patients and developing targeted nursing intervention measures.

Materials and methods

Study Design

This is a cross-sectional study to explore the influencing factors of BF in HD patients.

Participants

All the subjects were patients who had received HD treatment for a long time and were willing to participate in this study in the hemodialysis center of a 3A hospital in Shanghai from March to September 2019.

The inclusion criteria were as follows: [1] Patients who are diagnosed with chronic kidney disease undergoing hemodialysis; [2] Age ≥ 18 years; [3] Who can conduct a conversation consciously; [4] Without hearing or cognitive impairments. The exclusion criteria were as follows: [1] Patients who received kidney transplantation; [2] Patients who are in a critical condition; [3] Patients with a functional or organic mental illness; [4] Those who do not cooperate after explanation by the investigator.

A total of 17 independent variables were included in this study. The sample size was determined to be at least 204 based on the principle that 5–10 times the number of independent variables [23] and a 20% loss rate. A total of 260 questionnaires were handed out by convenience sampling, and 246 valid questionnaires were collected (effective rate = 94.6%). Among those invalid questionnaires, not all items or scales were completed.

Measures

  1. (1)

    General Information Questionnaire.

Self-designed general information questionnaire included general demographic data on gender, age, religious belief, marital status, education level, medical insurance, and disease-related data on self-perceived disease severity, understanding of degree, and duration of HD.

  1. (2)

    Benefit Finding Scale, BFS.

Benefit Finding Scale was developed by our research team [24] to measure the BF. The scale comprised 26 items with six dimensions, including Spiritual Growth, Appreciation of Living and Life, Awareness of Social Support, Personal Growth, Altruistic Behavior, and Health behavior changes. Each item is responded to on a 5-point Likert scale ranging from 0 to 4 (from “not at all” to “extremely”), with higher total scores indicating more BF experiences. This scale has been applied to 1007 patients with chronic diseases at least, which showed good utility [13, 14, 25]. The Cronbach’s α coefficient of the scale was 0.948 and the coefficients of each dimension were 0.700, 0.864, 0.776, 0.894, 0.859 and 0.838 in this study.

  1. (3)

    Perceived Social Support Scale, PSSS.

It was developed by Blumenthal et al. in 1987 and used to measure the degree of social support an individual feels from various sources [26]. In this study, we applied its Chinese version [27], and it contains 12 items with three dimensions, including family support, friend support, and other support. The response options were on a 7-point Likert scale, ranging from “strongly disagree” (1 point) to “strongly agree” (7 points). A higher total score indicates a higher level of perceived support. The Cronbach’s α coefficient of the scale was 0.937 and the coefficients of each dimension were 0.914, 0.873 and 0.882 in this study.

  1. (4)

    General Self-efficacy Scale, GSES.

The scale was originally developed by Schwarzer and Born [28], has been translated into several languages and is widely used in the world. We applied the Chinese version of the scale translated and revised by Wang et al. in 2001 in this study, which is a single-dimension scale with ten items [29]. Each item was on a 4-point Likert scale (1 = completely incorrect, 2 = relatively correct, 3 = mostly correct, and 4 = completely correct). The Cronbach’s α coefficient of the scale was 0.923 in this study.

  1. (5)

    Simplified Coping Style Questionnaire, SCSQ.

It was compiled by Xie [30], with 20 items in 2 dimensions, including positive coping and negative coping. Each item is responded to on a 4-point Likert scale ranging from 0 to 3, with higher total scores indicating the participant tends to adopt this coping style. The scale is widely used in the Chinese clinical field. The Cronbach’s α coefficient of Simplified Coping Style Questionnaire in this study was 0.854, and of positive coping and negative coping dimension was 0.869 and 0.708 respectively.

Data collection

This study complied with the Declaration of Helsinki for studies with human participants and was approved by the relevant Ethics Committee. Two researchers were trained in charge of questionnaires distribution uniformly before data collection, and selecting patients meeting the criteria after obtaining the consent of the hospital department leaders. The significance and purpose of the study were explained to the patients. Assurances of refusal or withdrawal from the study were provided to all participants without any negative consequences and signed written informed consent was obtained for this study.

Data analysis

All analyses were performed using IBM SPSS software version 26 (IBM SPSS Inc. Chicago, Illinois, USA). The general demographic characteristics were described using counts and percentages. The scores of questionnaire scales were described using the median (interquartile range, IQR) rather than means and SD because data was not normally distributed. Differences between demographic variables were compared using analysis of variance (ANOVA) or non-parametric test (Mann-Whitney U test or Kruskal-Wallis H test) as appropriate. Spearman rank correlation coefficient was used to analyze the correlation among different questionnaire scale scores. Multiple linear regression analysis was performed with the BF score as the dependent variable and variables that were statistically significant (p < 0.05) in the univariate analysis of variance and correlation analysis as independent variables. The indirect effects of social support between positive coping and BF were analyzed by using hierarchical regression analysis and input method. The significance level was set to 0.05.

Results

Comparison of BF scores of patients with different demographic characteristics

The demographic characteristics information and results of univariate analysis about 246 HD patients investigated in this study are shown in Table 1. The age (Z = 6.151, p = 0.046), duration of HD (F = 4.608, p = 0.011), and understanding degree of HD (Z = 12.970, p = 0.005) differed at the BF level and were statistically significant.

Table 1 Demographic characteristics of participants (N = 246)
Full size table

Scores of BF and each dimension

The median (interquartile range, IQR) BF score of 246 patients was 66 (IQR = 19), with a score range of 0 to 104, and the scores of each dimension and item were shown in Table 2.

Table 2 The median scores of benefit finding and its six dimensions
Full size table

Correlation analysis between BF and other variables

The results of Spearman correlation analysis showed that BF was positively correlated with disease knowledge, self-efficacy, social support and its three dimensions, and positive coping. The results were statistically significant, as detailed in Table 3.

Table 3 Correlation analysis among medical variables
Full size table

Analysis of the influencing factors of BF

The assignment of the respective variables is shown in Table 4. The results showed that eight variables were included in the influence factor model (p < 0.05) and could collectively explain 43.8% of the total variation in BF, as shown in Table 5.

Table 4 Coding independent variables
Full size table
Table 5 The multiple linear regression results of benefit finding
Full size table

Indirect effects of social support

As shown in Table 6, the regression analysis was first conducted with social support as the dependent variable, control variable as the first-tier predictor variable, and positive coping as the second-tier predictor variable. The results showed that β = 0.910 (p < 0.001) and R² = 0.482. Then, the regression analysis was conducted with BF as the dependent variable, control variable as the first-tier predictor variable, and positive coping as the second-tier predictor variable. The results showed that β = 1.130 (p < 0.001) and R² = 0.447. Finally, regression analysis with BF as the dependent variable, control variable as the first-tier predictor variable, and positive coping and social support as the second-tier predictor variable showed that β = 0.518 (p = 0.001) and R² = 0.624. The above results indicate that the indirect effect of social support in the BF of HD patients was well established, accounting for 54.1% of the total effect.

Table 6 The indirect effect of social support on positive coping and BF
Full size table

Discussion

BF in HD patients

The level of BF in HD patients needs further attention and help to improve. The results of this study showed that the median (interquartile range, IQR) BF score of HD patients was 66 (IQR = 19), a lower level especially compared with the older adults with chronic diseases (78.85 ± 16.70) [13] and stroke patients (97.47 ± 17.64) [14] in China. On the six dimensions of the scale, Altruistic behavior and Appreciation of living and life showed the higher scores, and Spiritual growth dimension had the lowest score. The possible reason for BF lower scores may be heterogeneity of population or disease, to be specific, the average age of participants in our study was younger than theirs, and some studies on cancer survivors had proved that elderly adults showed more BF [10, 18]. In addition, HD patients have to go to the hospital three or more times a week for dialysis, and it takes 4 to 6 h more once a time, which means HD patients have a more tremendous impact on daily life than other chronic diseases. patients showed positive psychological changes after HD, which were similar to previous studies of post-traumatic growth in HD patients, and this positive change is similar to the concept of Personal Growth and Appreciation of Living and Life [31]. Altruistic behavior can’t happen without the patient’s environment in China, a dialysis room is usually big and composed of more than six beds, which provides convenient environmental conditions for the occurrence of altruistic behavior. In such a multi-person dialysis room environment, HD patients can interact with others, because of the similar conditions, their psychological distance is narrowed, and they are more willing to communicate with each other [24]. In the process of helping others, people can often gain self-identity and value [32]. For example, Patients tend to share disease-related knowledge and encourage each other while receiving dialysis treatment. Other researchers have linked altruism to meaning in life, and people have a more intuitive sense of value, purpose, and direction when helping others [33]. For Spiritual growth dimension, what we want to evaluate is the patient’s mentality of recognizing the inevitability of the occurrence and accepting of the process HD. However, as the time of HD patients increases and their physical conditions deteriorate, most of them refuse to discuss or think about death, and cannot accept the fact that they are ill and eventually die after long-term hemodialysis [34]. At the same time, people are still sensitive to the topic of death in Chinese culture, and most of them take an avoidance attitude [35]. Therefore, in the investigation of this study, HD patients scored the lowest in spiritual dimension. What’s more, in this study, only 17 (6.9%) patients were religious, religious belief and spirituality in current studies are often assessed using an entry on religion (In research, religion and spirituality are often assessed with a single item on religious affiliation.) [36], This may partly explain the lowest spiritual dimension scores in HD patients in this study.

Influencing factors of BF in HD patients

However, in this study, we found that the BF of HD patients was related to their Age, Duration of HD and Understanding degree of HD (p < 0.05). The results of this study showed that ages from 18 to 39 in HD patients presented the highest BF level, which was in line with Lv et al.(2017) for chemotherapy-phase breast cancer patients [37]. The second highest BF level was seen in the older group (≥ 60 years old), and the middle-aged group (40–59 years) had the lowest BF scores. According to the analysis of general demographic information, it can be assumed that the reasons may be that younger patients had fewer complications, healthier bodies, and intact family structures, which make them appreciate more of daily life in their lives, change unhealthy habits and feel more confident about their future. In addition, they were willing to accept new things. Middle-aged people faced a heavier burden in life than older adults [38]. Duration of HD was another significant factor affecting BF level found in this study, unlike the result of De Vries et al. (2019) in renal transplant patients [15], which no between-person effect was found for time on dialysis on BF. The consideration may be such patients have reached the worst critical stage of disease, when they are more concerned about how to prolong their lives but less about getting psychological benefits from the disease. The results showed that the BF score of HD patients with dialysis duration < 1 year was the lowest score of 63 (IQR = 27), they would be full of fear and anxiety when just accept dialysis treatment at the beginning, resulting in fewer benefits from the disease [39]. The HD patients with 1–5 years dialysis time had the highest BF scores of 67 (IQR = 18). With the prolongation of dialysis time, the patients further get the knowledge and skills related to HD, gradually get used to dialysis every time. In addition, patients also know more friends who have the same experience (on dialysis), and encourage and help each other. At this stage, their psychology develops in a positive direction, and BF level is improved. Patients with dialysis duration > 5 years BF score was 65 (IQR = 19), after 5 years of dialysis, complications increased [40] and negative emotions repeatedly appeared [5, 41], then BF scores decreased.

Self-Efficacy was a promoting factor of BF in our study, which was consistent in Chinese patients with cancer and their family caregivers [42]. It is a strong perception and a source of motivation that drives individuals to overcome challenges and ultimately succeed [43]. Previous studies have shown that there is a strong correlation between self-efficacy and coping strategies [44], and are more inclined to adopt positive coping styles when face stressful events [45]. Social support in HD patients was another positive factor, which had been replicated in previous studies [12, 18], all the dimensions scores of social support and BF were positively correlated respectively, with family support and other support eventually entering the influence factors model of BF. The reason might be that family support was one of the strongest emotional and material support for HD patients, which was related to Chinese traditional family values. Friends were the main component of patients’ social relations, and medical staff was their medical trust subjects. A qualitative study found that positive interactions with family members and friends could make HD patients experience a greater sense of meaning in life and hope for the future [46], the feelings mentioned above are all similar to the concept of BF. Community and public groups provided them with the support of social relations, such as patient communication organizations, relevant protection policies, and companies that support patients to continue working. Those help patients to enhance confidence, bring hope in life, face the disease more positively, then improve their BF level. The results showed that there was a positive correlation between Positive Coping and BF, which was similar to the results in female breast cancer survivors [9]. Social Support was a mediating variable between Positive Coping and BF and played an indirect effect. We considered that HD patients receiving insufficient internal support because of tremendous stress, and they tended to seek external help. Patients who coped with HD positively might receive more social support and feel internally not struggling with the disease alone. Then they could rationalize their mindset and had more confidence in mobilizing the patients to adopt a positive approach to the disease, thus demonstrating a higher level of BF.

Strengths and limitations

This study was the first to explore the cross-sectional study of HD patients with BF experience and investigated the demographic factors, duration of HD, understanding degree of HD, self-efficacy, social support, and disease coping as possible predictors and the relationship of the BF, also explored the Social Support as an indirect effect between the Positive Coping with BF. It provided a reference for future more scientific and reasonable psychological promotion programs for HD patients.

The results of the study and conclusion should be carefully referenced. First, the research used convenient sampling in a 3 A hospital in Shanghai, which may not be a good representative of the BF status of HD patients in other cities in China, and a larger sample and multi-center investigation were still needed. In addition, BF was a psychological change indicator with the further dynamic development of the disease course, which required strict longitudinal study to determine the trajectory.

Conclusion

Our study reported that although the BF of HD patients investigated was not satisfactory, HD patients could experience positive changes from disease. Medical staff can attach importance to the influence factors of BF by providing patients with adequate emotional assistance and information to help the patients enhance self-efficacy, perceive social support and learn positive coping in dealing with problems during dialysis and then improving quality of life. In the future, the mechanism of patients’ BF and the main influencing factors can be further focused on and explored according to the influencing factors of BF, and formulated intervention strategies to provide a scientific basis for promoting their BF.

Data availability

All data generated or analysed during this study are included in this published article and its supplementary information files.

References

  1. Thurlow JS, Joshi M, Yan G, Norris KC, Agodoa LY, Yuan CM, et al. Global epidemiology of end-stage kidney disease and disparities in kidney replacement therapy. Am J Nephrol. 2021;52(2):98–107.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Collaboration GCKD. Global, regional, and national burden of chronic kidney disease, 1990–2017: a systematic analysis for the global burden of Disease Study 2017. Lancet. 2020;395(10225):709–33.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Zhang L, Zhao MH, Zuo L, Wang Y, Yu F, Zhang H et al. China Kidney Disease Network (CK-NET) 2016 Annual Data Report. Kidney Int Suppl (2011). 2020;10(2):e97-e185.

  4. Scherer JS, Combs SA, Brennan F, Sleep Disorders. Restless legs syndrome, and Uremic Pruritus: diagnosis and treatment of common symptoms in Dialysis patients. Am J Kidney Dis. 2017;69(1):117–28.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Ma SJ, Wang WJ, Tang M, Chen H, Ding F. Mental health status and quality of life in patients with end-stage renal disease undergoing maintenance hemodialysis. Ann Palliat Med. 2021;10(6):6112–21.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Lacson E Jr., Bruce L, Li NC, Mooney A, Maddux FW. Depressive affect and hospitalization risk in incident hemodialysis patients. Clin J Am Soc Nephrol. 2014;9(10):1713–9.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  7. Al-Shammari N, Al-Modahka A, Al-Ansari E, Al-Kandari M, Ibrahim KA, Al-Sanea J, et al. Prevalence of depression, anxiety, and their associations among end-stage renal disease patients on maintenance hemodialysis: a multi-center population-based study. Psychol Health Med. 2021;26(9):1134–42.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Taylor SE. Adjustment to threatening events: a theory of cognitive adaptation. Am Psychol. 1983;38(11):1161–73.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Bi W, Wang H, Yang G, Zhu C. A longitudinal cohort study on benefit finding evolution in Chinese women breast cancer survivals. Sci Rep. 2021;11(1):20640.

    Article  ADS  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  10. Lassmann I, Dinkel A, Marten-Mittag B, Jahnen M, Schulwitz H, Gschwend JE, et al. Benefit finding in long-term prostate cancer survivors. Support Care Cancer. 2021;29(8):4451–60.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  11. Zhu L, Ranchor AV, Helgeson VS, van der Lee M, Garssen B, Stewart RE, et al. Benefit finding trajectories in cancer patients receiving psychological care: predictors and relations to depressive and anxiety symptoms. Br J Health Psychol. 2018;23(2):238–52.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Qiu X, Zhang K, Zhang Y, Sun L. Benefit Finding and related factors of patients with early-stage Cancer in China. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2022;19(7).

  13. Zhang L. Study on Status of Benefit Finding and its Influencing Factors Among Elderly Patients with Chronic Diseases [M.D. thesis]. Shanghai, China: Naval Medical University; 2018.

  14. Wang XL. Study on Satus and Influencing Factors of Benefit Finding among Elderly Stroke Patients [M.D. thesis]. Xinxiang, China: Xinxiang Medical University; 2021.

  15. de Vries AM, Helgeson VS, Schulz T, Almansa J, Westerhuis R, Niesing J, et al. Benefit finding in renal transplantation and its association with psychological and clinical correlates: a prospective study. Br J Health Psychol. 2019;24(1):175–91.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Cox CR, Swets JA, Gully B, Xiao J, Yraguen M, Death, Concerns. Benefit-Finding, and well-being during the COVID-19 pandemic. Front Psychol. 2021;12:648609.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  17. Zhu P, Chen C, Liu X, Gu W, Shang X. Factors associated with benefit finding and mental health of patients with cancer: a systematic review. Support Care Cancer. 2022.

  18. Wang Y, Zhu X, Yang Y, Yi J, Tang L, He J, et al. What factors are predictive of benefit finding in women treated for non-metastatic breast cancer? A prospective study. Psychooncology. 2015;24(5):533–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Wen KY, Ma XS, Fang C, Song Y, Tan Y, Seals B, et al. Psychosocial correlates of benefit finding in breast cancer survivors in China. J Health Psychol. 2017;22(13):1731–42.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Rong H, Yin M, Ren P, Li Y, Qu H, Chen X. Spirituality as a Mediator between Social Support and Benefit Finding among Advanced Cancer patients. Cancer Nurs. 2022.

  21. Llewellyn CD, Horney DJ, McGurk M, Weinman J, Herold J, Altman K, et al. Assessing the psychological predictors of benefit finding in patients with head and neck cancer. Psychooncology. 2013;22(1):97–105.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Chen Y. Study on the current situation of benefit finding and its influencing factors among spouses of women with breast cancer [D]. Yangzhou University; 2021.

  23. Ni P, Chen JL, Liu N. The sample size estimation in quantitative nursing research. Chin J Nurs. 2010;45(04):378–80.

    Google Scholar 

  24. Yan H, Yang J, Luo C, Zhang L, Tian Y, Cui S, et al. Development and Psychometric Assessment of the Benefit Finding Scale for Chinese older adults with chronic diseases. Res Gerontol Nurs. 2023;16(1):44–52.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Zhong MM, Ma JF, Tian TT, Peng JQ, Liao ZD, Zhou YL. Reliability and validity of Benefit Finding questionnaires in young and middle-aged stroke patients. Chin Evidence-based Nurs. 2022;8(09):1210–4.

    Google Scholar 

  26. Blumenthal JA, Burg MM, Barefoot J, Williams RB, Haney T, Zimet G. Social support, type A behavior, and coronary artery disease. Psychosom Med. 1987;49(4):331–40.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Huang L, Jiang QJ, Ren WH. A study on the correlation between coping styles, social support and psychosomatic symptoms in cancer patients. Chin MENTAL HEALTH J. 1996;10(04):160–1.

    Google Scholar 

  28. Schwarzer R, Born A. Optimistic self-beliefs: Assessment of general perceived self-efficacy in thirteen cultures. World Psychol. 1997;3:177–90.

    Google Scholar 

  29. Wang CK, Hu ZF, Liu Y, PSYCHOLOGY. Evidences for reliability and validity of the Chinese Version of General Self-Efficacy Scale. CHINESE JOURNAL OF APPLIED; 2001. pp. 37–40. 01.

  30. Xie YN. A preliminary study of the reliability and validity of the brief coping style scale. Chin J Clin Psychol. 1998(02):53–4.

  31. Cui C, Wang K, An J, Jin C. Current status and influencing factors of post-traumatic growth in maintenance hemodialysis. Int J Nurs Sci. 2017;4(4):362–6.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  32. Ajibade I, Boateng GO. Predicting why people engage in pro-sustainable behaviors in Portland Oregon: the role of environmental self-identity, personal norm, and socio-demographics. J Environ Manage. 2021;289:112538.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. Wang Y, Ge J, Zhang H, Wang H, Xie X. Altruistic behaviors relieve physical pain. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2020;117(2):950–8.

    Article  ADS  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  34. Jia-li F, Yue K, Ting-ting Y, Su-hua S, Zhe-yuan X, Lin W. The perception and experience of dying among elderly hemodialysis patients near the end of life: a qualitative research. Chin J Nursin. 2015;50(11):1291–7.

    Google Scholar 

  35. Lei L, Zhao H, Ran L, Wang L, Luo Y. Influencing factors of attitudes towards death and demands for death education among community-dwelling Chinese older adults: a cross-sectional study. BMC Public Health. 2022;22(1):1242.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  36. Vieten C, Lukoff D. Spiritual and religious competencies in psychology. Am Psychol. 2022;77(1):26–38.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  37. Lv Q, Liu M. Study on the level of Benefit Finding and its influencing factors in female patients with breast Cancer during chemotherapy. Mod Prev Med. 2017;44(14):2537–40.

    ADS  Google Scholar 

  38. Ma Y, Yu H, Sun H, Li M, Li L, Qin M. Economic burden of maintenance hemodialysis patients’ families in Nanchong and its influencing factors. Annals of Palliative Medicine. 2020;9(6):3877–84.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  39. Cohen SD, Cukor D, Kimmel PL. Anxiety in patients treated with Hemodialysis. Clin J Am Soc Nephrology: CJASN. 2016;11(12):2250–5.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  40. Bello AK, Okpechi IG, Osman MA, Cho Y, Htay H, Jha V, et al. Epidemiology of haemodialysis outcomes. Nat Rev Nephrol. 2022;18(6):378–95.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  41. Marthoenis M, Syukri M, Abdullah A, Tandi TMR, Putra N, Laura H, et al. Quality of life, depression, and anxiety of patients undergoing hemodialysis: significant role of acceptance of the illness. Int J Psychiatry Med. 2021;56(1):40–50.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  42. Li Q, Lin Y, Zhou H, Xu Y, Yang L, Xu Y. Factors moderating the mutual impact of benefit finding between Chinese patients with cancer and their family caregivers: a cross-sectional study. Psychooncology. 2018;27(10):2363–73.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  43. Bakan G, Inci FH. Predictor of self-efficacy in individuals with chronic disease: stress-coping strategies. J Clin Nurs. 2021;30(5–6):874–81.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  44. Geng Z, Ogbolu Y, Wang J, Hinds PS, Qian H, Yuan C. Gauging the effects of Self-efficacy, Social Support, and coping style on self-management behaviors in Chinese Cancer survivors. Cancer Nurs. 2018;41(5):E1–e10.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  45. Chirico A, D’Aiuto G, Penon A, Mallia L, Lucidi MDEL. Self-efficacy for coping with Cancer enhances the Effect of Reiki Treatments during the Pre-surgery phase of breast Cancer patients. Anticancer Res. 2017;37(7):3657–65.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  46. Raj R, Brown B, Ahuja K, Frandsen M, Jose M. Enabling good outcomes in older adults on dialysis: a qualitative study. BMC Nephrol. 2020;21(1):28.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

The authors thank all investigators and supporters involved in this study.

Funding

This work was supported by Naval Medical University [grant numbers 2021MS02].

Author information

Author notes

  1. Jie Yang, Hong-Li Yan and Yong-Qi Li contributed equally to this work and share first authorship.

Authors and Affiliations

  1. School of Nursing, Naval Medical University, Shanghai, China

    Jie Yang, Yong-Qi Li, Lei Zhang, Yan-Lin Gong, Jing Wu & Jing Chu

  2. School of Health Services Management, Southern Medical University, Guangzhou, China

    Hong-Li Yan

  3. Department of Pain Rehabilitation, Qingdao Special Servicemen Recuperation Center of PLA NAVY, Qingdao, China

    Xiao-Yan Qiu

  4. Trauma Surgery, Hospital of Chinese People’s Armed Police Force, Jiaxing, China

    Yi-He Tian

  5. Department of Nursing, Southern Medical University, Guangzhou, China

    Chen-Ling Luo

Authors
  1. Jie Yang
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Hong-Li Yan
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Yong-Qi Li
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Lei Zhang
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Xiao-Yan Qiu
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Yi-He Tian
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Yan-Lin Gong
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  8. Chen-Ling Luo
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  9. Jing Wu
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  10. Jing Chu
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

Conceptualization, J.C. J.W. and C.-L, L.; Methodology, J.C., J.W.; Investigation, J.Y., H.-L.Y., X.-Y.Q., L.Z., and Y.-H.T.; Formal analysis, J.Y., Y.-Q.L. and Y.-L.G.; Writing-original draft, J.Y., H.-L.Y., and Y.-Q.L.; Writing - review & editing, J.Y., H.-L.Y., and Y.-Q.L.; Funding acquisition, J.C.; Supervision, J.C. and J.W.; All authors read and approved the final draft.

Corresponding authors

Correspondence to Jing Wu or Jing Chu.

Ethics declarations

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing interests.

Ethics approval and consent to participate

This study passed an ethical review by the Medical Ethics Committee of Changhai Hospital, Naval Medical University. All subject were explained the significance and purpose of the study, and assurances of refusal or withdrawal from the study were provided to all participants without any negative consequences and signed written informed consent was obtained for this study.

Consent for publication

Not Applicable.

Additional information

Publisher’s Note

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

Electronic supplementary material

Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.

Supplementary Material 1

Rights and permissions

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article’s Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article’s Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/. 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 in a credit line to the data.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Yang, J., Yan, HL., Li, YQ. et al. Benefit finding in chronic kidney disease patients receiving hemodialysis: a cross-sectional study. BMC Nephrol 25, 46 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1186/s12882-024-03480-7

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s12882-024-03480-7

Keywords

BMC Nephrology

ISSN: 1471-2369

Contact us