Farklı diyaliz modalitelerinin hasta yakını yaşam kalitesi üzerindeki etkileri

Cenk Gökalp

doi:10.19161/etd.887292

TR EN

Farklı diyaliz modalitelerinin hasta yakını yaşam kalitesi üzerindeki etkileri

Öz

Amaç: Kronik hastalığa sahip hastaların bakımlarından sorumlu olan yakınlarının bakım süreci sebebiyle fiziksel, zihinsel ve duygusal olarak etkilendikleri bilinmektedir. Bu çalışmada, hemodiyaliz ve periton diyalizi hastalarının bakımlarıyla ilgilenen yakınlarının yaşam kalitelerinin uygulanan tedavi modalitelerinden ne şekilde etkilendiği araştırıldı. Gereç ve Yöntem: Kronik hemodiyaliz ve periton diyalizi uygulanan hastaların birincil derece bakımlarından sorumlu yakınlarının yaşam kaliteleri SF-36 sağlık anketi ile değerlendirildi. Bulgular: Hemodiyaliz hastalarının bakımından sorumlu hasta yakınlarının fiziksel fonksiyon, fiziksel rol kısıtlaması ve duygusal rol kısıtlaması skorlarının, periton diyalizi hasta yakınları ile karşılaştırıldığında, istatistiksel olarak anlamlı bir şekilde düşük olduğu gözlendi (p=0,002, p=0,019, p=0,017). Sonuç: Periton diyalizi, hemodiyaliz ile karşılaştırıldığında, sadece hastalara değil aynı zamanda hasta yakınlarına da daha iyi yaşam kalitesi sağlamaktadır.

Anahtar Kelimeler

The impact of different dialysis modalities on caregivers’ quality of life

Abstract

Aim: Caregivers responsible for the care of patients with chronic disorders are affected physically, mentally, and emotionally due to the care process. In this study, we investigated the effect of hemodialysis and peritoneal dialysis modalities on the quality of life of their caregivers. Materials and Methods: The quality of life of the caregivers responsible for primary care for patients who underwent chronic hemodialysis and peritoneal dialysis was evaluated using the SF-26 health survey. Results: Physical function, physical role limitation, and emotional role limitation scores of hemodialysis caregivers were statistically lower compared with peritoneal dialysis caregiver’s scores (p=0.002, p=0.019, p=0.017). Conclusion: Compared with hemodialysis, peritoneal dialysis provides a better quality of life not only for patients but also for their caregivers.

Keywords

References

Carney EF. The impact of chronic kidney disease on global health. Nat Rev Nephrol. 2020; 16 (5): 251.
Saran R, Robinson B, Abbott KC, Agodoa LYC, Bragg-Gresham J, Balkrishnan R, et al. US Renal Data System 2018 Annual Data Report: Epidemiology of Kidney Disease in the United States. Am J Kidney Dis. 2019; 73 (3 Suppl 1): A7-A8.
Queeley GL, Campbell ES. Comparing Treatment Modalities for End-Stage Renal Disease: A Meta-Analysis. Am Health Drug Benefits. 2018; 11 (3): 118-27.
Demiral Y, Ergor G, Unal B, Semin S, Akvardar Y, Kivircik B, et al. Normative data and discriminative properties of short form 36 (SF-36) in Turkish urban population. BMC Public Health. 2006; 6: 247.38 Ege Tıp Dergisi / Ege Journal of Medicine
Pinar R. Reliability and construct validity of the SF-36 in Turkish cancer patients. Qual Life Res. 2005; 14 (1): 259-64.
Ng JK, Li PK. Chronic kidney disease epidemic: How do we deal with it? Nephrology (Carlton). 2018; 23 Suppl 4: 116-20.
Trinh E, Chan CT, Perl J. Dialysis modality and survival: Done to death. Semin Dial. 2018; 31 (4): 315-24.
Tang SCW, Lai KN. Peritoneal dialysis: the ideal bridge from conservative therapy to kidney transplant. J Nephrol. 2020. 2020 Jul 11: 1–6.

Chuasuwan A, Pooripussarakul S, Thakkinstian A, Ingsathit A, Pattanaprateep O. Comparisons of quality of life between patients underwent peritoneal dialysis and hemodialysis: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Health Qual Life Outcomes. 2020; 18 (1): 191.
Jacquet S, Trinh E. The Potential Burden of Home Dialysis on Patients and Caregivers: A Narrative Review. Can J Kidney Health Dis. 2019; 6: 2054358119893335.
Aguiar R, Pei M, Qureshi AR, Lindholm B. Health-related quality of life in peritoneal dialysis patients: A narrative review. Semin Dial. 2019; 32 (5): 452-62.
Li H, Xie L, Yang J, Pang X. Symptom burden amongst patients suffering from end-stage renal disease and receiving dialysis: A literature review. Int J Nurs Sci. 2018; 5 (4): 427-31.
Sajadi SAM, Ebadi AP, Moradian STP. Quality of Life among Family Caregivers of Patients on Hemodialysis and its Relevant Factors: A Systematic Review. Int J Community Based Nurs Midwifery. 2017; 5 (3): 206-18.
Morishita S, Tsubaki A, Shirai N. Physical function was related to mortality in patients with chronic kidney disease and dialysis. Hemodial Int. 2017; 21 (4): 483-9.
Bardak S, Demir S, Aslan E, Turgutalp K, Celikcan HD, Dolarslan ME, et al. The other side of the coin in renal replacement therapies: the burden on caregivers. Int Urol Nephrol. 2019; 51 (2): 343-9.
Belasco AG, Sesso R. Burden and quality of life of caregivers for hemodialysis patients. Am J Kidney Dis. 2002; 39 (4): 805-12.
Fan SL, Sathick I, McKitty K, Punzalan S. Quality of life of caregivers and patients on peritoneal dialysis. Nephrol Dial Transplant. 2008; 23 (5): 1713-9.
Ware JE, Jr., Sherbourne CD. The MOS 36-item short-form health survey (SF-36). I. Conceptual framework and item selection. Med Care. 1992; 30 (6): 473-83.

Details

Primary Language

Turkish

Subjects

Health Care Administration

Journal Section

Research Article

Authors

Cenk Gökalp ^*
0000-0003-3909-7973
Türkiye

Publication Date

March 31, 2021

Submission Date

September 15, 2020

Acceptance Date

November 17, 2020

Published in Issue

Year 2021 Volume: 60 Number: 1

DOI

https://doi.org/10.19161/etd.887292

IZ

https://izlik.org/JA79FD34FM

Cite

RIS / Bibtex

Vancouver

1.Cenk Gökalp. Farklı diyaliz modalitelerinin hasta yakını yaşam kalitesi üzerindeki etkileri. EJM. 2021 Mar. 1;60(1):32-8. doi:10.19161/etd.887292