↓ Skip to main content

Beyond quality of life: a cross sectional study on the mental health of patients with chronic kidney disease undergoing dialysis and their caregivers

Overview of attention for article published in Health and Quality of Life Outcomes, April 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (58th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
3 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page
reddit
1 Redditor

Citations

dimensions_citation
59 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
236 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Beyond quality of life: a cross sectional study on the mental health of patients with chronic kidney disease undergoing dialysis and their caregivers
Published in
Health and Quality of Life Outcomes, April 2017
DOI 10.1186/s12955-017-0646-4
Pubmed ID
Authors

Beatriz dos Santos Pereira, Neimar da Silva Fernandes, Nayara Pires de Melo, Renata Abrita, Fabiane Rossi dos Santos Grincenkov, Natália Maria da Silva Fernandes

Abstract

Patients with terminal chronic kidney disease (CKDT) requiring renal replacement therapies (RRT) undergo important changes in living habits and frequently need caregiving. These patients and their caregivers are risk groups for the development of physical and psychological symptoms. This study aimed to evaluate the prevalence of anxiety, depression, stress, fatigue, social support, and quality of life in patients with CKD and their caregivers. This cross sectional study was conducted with 21 patients and their caregivers, from January to September 2015. We included patients aged over 18 years, with at least 6 months on dialysis treatment, and caregivers who were family members. The participants' social, demographic, clinical, laboratory, and psychological variables were evaluated. A descriptive analysis and an examination of the association between patients and caregivers were performed. Among patients, we observed that 38.1% had symptoms that indicated anxiety and depression. The average score for practical social support was 3.15 ± 0.769 and that for emotional social support was 3.16 ± 0.79. As for fatigue, 14.3% of patients reported being 'extremely tired' and 14.3% reported that they engaged in all the activities they usually performed before the illness. Further, 57.1% presented stress, and of these, 66.7% were at the resistance stage, with predominance of psychological symptoms in 60.0%. The quality of life domain in terms of functional capacity (FC) presented a correlation with haemoglobin level (r = 0.581, p = 0.006) and non-anaemic patients presented better FC. Among caregivers, we observed symptoms that indicated anxiety and depression in 33.3% of the sample. Caregivers exhibited an average score of 2.88 ± 0.77 for practical social support and 3.0 ± 0.72 for emotional social support. Further, 14.3% reported being 'extremely tired' and 28.8% reported that they engaged in all activities that they usually performed before the patient's illness. When comparing the two groups (patients vs. caregivers), we observed that they presented similar results for the presence of anxiety, depression, and fatigue. Caregivers received less social support than patients did. Both groups presented similar predominance of stress levels; however, patients presented more predominance of psychological symptoms. With reference to quality of life, patients and caregivers presented similar results on the social aspects, vitality, mental health, and mental domains. The mental health characteristics of patients and caregivers were similar, and within the context of dialysis for renal disease, both must undergo specific interventions.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 236 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 236 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 37 16%
Student > Master 35 15%
Student > Ph. D. Student 18 8%
Researcher 15 6%
Other 12 5%
Other 45 19%
Unknown 74 31%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Nursing and Health Professions 63 27%
Medicine and Dentistry 35 15%
Psychology 20 8%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 5 2%
Sports and Recreations 5 2%
Other 27 11%
Unknown 81 34%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 23 November 2022.
All research outputs
#14,177,027
of 23,172,045 outputs
Outputs from Health and Quality of Life Outcomes
#1,136
of 2,191 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#167,423
of 310,503 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Health and Quality of Life Outcomes
#27
of 70 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,172,045 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 37th percentile – i.e., 37% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,191 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.5. This one is in the 46th percentile – i.e., 46% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 310,503 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 44th percentile – i.e., 44% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 70 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 58% of its contemporaries.