The effect of transportation modality to dialysis facilities on health-related quality of life among hemodialysis patients: results from the Japanese Dialysis Outcomes and Practice Pattern Study.
HRQOL
J-DOPPS
health-related quality of life
hemodialysis
quality of life
transportation
transportation modality
Journal
Clinical kidney journal
ISSN: 2048-8505
Titre abrégé: Clin Kidney J
Pays: England
ID NLM: 101579321
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
Aug 2020
Aug 2020
Historique:
received:
09
03
2019
accepted:
22
07
2019
entrez:
8
9
2020
pubmed:
9
9
2020
medline:
9
9
2020
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
For hemodialysis (HD) patients, travel to the dialysis facility is an issue that can affect their quality of life (QOL), both physically and mentally. However, evidence on this association of transportation modality with health-related QOL (HRQOL) is scarce. We conducted a cohort study among maintenance HD patients participating in the Japanese Dialysis Outcomes and Practice Pattern Study Phase 5. The study included patients who were functionally independent and able to walk. The primary exposure was the means of transportation to the dialysis facility, categorized into three groups, namely transportation by other drivers (Group 1), transportation via self-driving (Group 2) and transportation by bicycle or walking with or without public transportation (Group 3). The primary outcomes were physical and mental health composite scores (PCS and MCS) in the 12-item Short Form at 1 year after study initiation. Among 1225 eligible patients (Group 1, 34.4%; Group 2, 45.0%; Group 3, 20.7%), 835 were analyzed for the primary outcomes. Linear regression analyses revealed that patients in Groups 2 and 3 had significantly higher PCS and MCS at 1 year than those in Group 1 {adjusted mean differences of PCS 1.42 [95% confidence interval (CI) 0.17-2.68] and 1.94 [95% CI 0.65-3.23], respectively, and adjusted mean differences of MCS 2.53 [95% CI 0.92-4.14] and 2.20 [95% CI 0.45-3.95], respectively}. Transportation modality was a significant prognostic factor for both PCS and MCS after 1 year in maintenance HD patients.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
For hemodialysis (HD) patients, travel to the dialysis facility is an issue that can affect their quality of life (QOL), both physically and mentally. However, evidence on this association of transportation modality with health-related QOL (HRQOL) is scarce.
METHODS
METHODS
We conducted a cohort study among maintenance HD patients participating in the Japanese Dialysis Outcomes and Practice Pattern Study Phase 5. The study included patients who were functionally independent and able to walk. The primary exposure was the means of transportation to the dialysis facility, categorized into three groups, namely transportation by other drivers (Group 1), transportation via self-driving (Group 2) and transportation by bicycle or walking with or without public transportation (Group 3). The primary outcomes were physical and mental health composite scores (PCS and MCS) in the 12-item Short Form at 1 year after study initiation.
RESULTS
RESULTS
Among 1225 eligible patients (Group 1, 34.4%; Group 2, 45.0%; Group 3, 20.7%), 835 were analyzed for the primary outcomes. Linear regression analyses revealed that patients in Groups 2 and 3 had significantly higher PCS and MCS at 1 year than those in Group 1 {adjusted mean differences of PCS 1.42 [95% confidence interval (CI) 0.17-2.68] and 1.94 [95% CI 0.65-3.23], respectively, and adjusted mean differences of MCS 2.53 [95% CI 0.92-4.14] and 2.20 [95% CI 0.45-3.95], respectively}.
CONCLUSIONS
CONCLUSIONS
Transportation modality was a significant prognostic factor for both PCS and MCS after 1 year in maintenance HD patients.
Identifiants
pubmed: 32897276
doi: 10.1093/ckj/sfz110
pii: sfz110
pmc: PMC7467582
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Pagination
640-646Informations de copyright
© The Author(s) 2019. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of ERA-EDTA.
Références
Am J Kidney Dis. 2004 Nov;44(5 Suppl 2):54-60
pubmed: 15486875
Am J Kidney Dis. 2008 Apr;51(4):641-50
pubmed: 18371540
Pharmacoeconomics. 2000 Nov;18(5):419-23
pubmed: 11151395
Gerontologist. 1970 Spring;10(1):20-30
pubmed: 5420677
CMAJ. 2007 Oct 23;177(9):1039-44
pubmed: 17954893
J Epidemiol Community Health. 2006 Apr;60(4):357-63
pubmed: 16537355
Aging Ment Health. 2015;19(6):548-59
pubmed: 25266062
Am J Epidemiol. 2009 Aug 15;170(4):519-27
pubmed: 19584129
Kidney Int. 2014 Jan;85(1):158-65
pubmed: 23802192
Am J Kidney Dis. 1996 Jun;27(6):844-7
pubmed: 8651249
Artif Organs. 2009 Jan;33(1):61-8
pubmed: 19178442
Clin J Am Soc Nephrol. 2010 Aug;5(8):1480-8
pubmed: 20430940
Hemodial Int. 2015 Jul;19(3):439-46
pubmed: 25643587
Med Care. 1996 Mar;34(3):220-33
pubmed: 8628042
Am J Epidemiol. 2010 Nov 15;172(10):1155-65
pubmed: 20843864
Am J Kidney Dis. 2019 Mar;73(3):372-384
pubmed: 30579710
Am J Kidney Dis. 2009 Dec;54(6):1098-107
pubmed: 19782455
JAMA. 1995 Jan 4;273(1):59-65
pubmed: 7996652
Am J Kidney Dis. 2004 Nov;44(5 Suppl 2):7-15
pubmed: 15486868
Kidney Int. 2014 Jun;85(6):1275-82
pubmed: 24107848
Kidney Int. 2003 Nov;64(5):1903-10
pubmed: 14531826
Semin Nephrol. 2006 Jan;26(1):68-79
pubmed: 16412831
Nephron. 2015;130(2):105-12
pubmed: 26044799
Nephrol Nurs J. 2017 Jul-Aug;44(4):309-315
pubmed: 29160965
Am J Epidemiol. 2014 Feb 1;179(3):323-34
pubmed: 24318278
Am J Kidney Dis. 2003 Mar;41(3):605-15
pubmed: 12612984
J Am Soc Nephrol. 2001 Dec;12(12):2797-806
pubmed: 11729250