4.5 Article

Illness representations are associated with fluid nonadherence among hemodialysis patients

期刊

JOURNAL OF PSYCHOSOMATIC RESEARCH
卷 68, 期 2, 页码 203-212

出版社

PERGAMON-ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.jpsychores.2009.08.010

关键词

Fluid adherence; Dialysis; Illness representations; Illness perception; Dry weight

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objective: Patients with end-stage renal disease are required to limit fluid and salt intake. We examined illness representations [common-sense model (CSM)] among a sample of hemodialysis (HD) patients, investigating whether fluid-adherent patients held illness representations different from those of nonadherent patients. We also explored the utility of illness perceptions in predicting fluid nonadherence after controlling for clinical parameters, including residual renal function (KRU). Methods: Illness perceptions were assessed [Revised Illness Perception Questionnaire (IPQ-R)] in 99 HD patients. Clinical parameters were collected and averaged over a 3-month period prior to and including the month of IPQ-R assessment. Depression scores, functional status, and comorbidity were also collected. Fluid nonadherence was defined using inter-dialytic weight gain (IDWG) and dry weight (ideal weight). Patients in the upper quartile of percent weight gain were defined as nonadherent (IDWG 3.21% dry weight). Results: Nonadherent patients had timeline perceptions significantly lower than those of adherent patients. Logistic regression models were computed in order to identify predictors of fluid nonadherence. After several demographic and clinical variables, including age, gender, and KRU, had been controlled for, lower consequence perceptions predicted nonadherence. Conclusions: Illness representations appear to predict fluid nonadherence among HD patients. Extending the CSM to investigate specific perceptions surrounding treatment behaviors may be useful and merits attention in this setting. (C) 2010 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据