Effect of a multidisciplinary intervention on the quality of life in maintenance hemodialysis patients

doi:10.3969/j.issn.1004-583X.2024.09.006

Abstract

Abstract:

Objective To investigate the effect of a multidisciplinary intervention on the quality of life in patients with maintenance hemodialysis (MHD). Methods A total of 100 MHD patients admitted to the Department of Hemodialysis, Shanghai Pudong Hospital from January 2020 to December 2022 were included. They were randomly assigned 1∶1 into the intervention group (n=50) and control group (n=50). A multidisciplinary team which comprised nephrologists, nutritionists, and nurses was responsible for managing MHD patients the intervention group, while those in the control group received a standard daily care from the nursing team. After 12 months of intervention, 1 case in each group withdrew, and finally, 49 eligible cases were included in each group. The self-management ability, quality of life, and nutritional status were compared between two groups. Results There were no significant differences in general information, quality of life, self-management ability, and nutritional status between the two groups before intervention (P>0.05). After intervention, the self-management score and quality of life score of the intervention group were significantly higher than those of the control group (P<0.05). Body mass index, serum albumin, serum ferritin, and total cholesterol were significantly better than those in the control group (P<0.05). Conclusion A multidisciplinary intervention effectively improves the nutritional status, self-management ability and quality of life of MHD patients.

Key words: kidney failure, chronic, continuous renal replacement therapy, multidisciplinary team, quality of life

CLC Number:

R692.5

Guo Xiaocui, Yu Xiaojuan, Shen Xia, Ye Shuiying, Zhou Dongchi, Lai Bihong. Effect of a multidisciplinary intervention on the quality of life in maintenance hemodialysis patients[J]. Clinical Focus, 2024, 39(9): 803-807.

Add to citation manager EndNote|Ris|BibTeX

URL: https://huicui.hebmu.edu.cn/EN/10.3969/j.issn.1004-583X.2024.09.006

https://huicui.hebmu.edu.cn/EN/Y2024/V39/I9/803

Figures/Tables 3

Tab.1 General data between the two groups

组别	例数	年龄(岁)	性别[例(%)]		HD时间(年)
组别	例数	年龄(岁)	男	女	HD时间(年)
干预组	49	55.80±8.20	29(59.2)	20(40.8)	2.40±0.70
对照组	49	53.60±5.80	30(61.2)	19(38.8)	2.80±0.80
$t$ /χ²值		1.121	0.218		1.052
P值		0.115	0.891		0.291

Tab.1 General data between the two groups

组别	例数	年龄(岁)	性别[例(%)]		HD时间(年)
组别	例数	年龄(岁)	男	女	HD时间(年)
干预组	49	55.80±8.20	29(59.2)	20(40.8)	2.40±0.70
对照组	49	53.60±5.80	30(61.2)	19(38.8)	2.80±0.80
$t$ /χ²值		1.121	0.218		1.052
P值		0.115	0.891		0.291

Tab.2 Self-management and SF-36 health survey scales scores between the two groups

组别	例数	自我管理评分(分)		SF-36评分健康调查量表(分)
组别	例数	干预前	干预12个月后	干预前	干预12个月后
干预组	49	58.51±6.53	64.76±8.05	527.16±95.36	632.48±106.24
对照组	49	57.12±6.32	59.98±6.99	492.32±102.43	541.56±121.67
$t$ 值		1.082	3.170	1.760	3.980
P值		0.282	0.002	0.082	<0.001

Tab.2 Self-management and SF-36 health survey scales scores between the two groups

组别	例数	自我管理评分(分)		SF-36评分健康调查量表(分)
组别	例数	干预前	干预12个月后	干预前	干预12个月后
干预组	49	58.51±6.53	64.76±8.05	527.16±95.36	632.48±106.24
对照组	49	57.12±6.32	59.98±6.99	492.32±102.43	541.56±121.67
$t$ 值		1.082	3.170	1.760	3.980
P值		0.282	0.002	0.082	<0.001

Tab.3 Nutritional status between the two groups

组别	例数	BMI(kg/m²)		ALB(g/L)		SF(g/L)		TC(mol/L)
组别	例数	干预前	干预12个月后	干预前	干预12个月后	干预前	干预12个月后	干预前	干预12个月后
干预组	49	16.39±4.12	19.43±5.58	34.25±5.62	39.12±5.36	1.37±0.26	1.69±0.37	4.12±1.45	5.66±2.16
对照组	49	16.14±3.97	17.21±4.36	33.98±5.25	36.68±4.12	1.42±0.31	1.51±0.42	3.85±1.26	4.58±2.24
$t$ 值		0.309	2.217	0.248	2.552	0.874	2.274	0.994	0.323
P值		0.758	0.029	0.805	0.012	0.384	0.025	2.454	0.016

Tab.3 Nutritional status between the two groups

组别	例数	BMI(kg/m²)		ALB(g/L)		SF(g/L)		TC(mol/L)
组别	例数	干预前	干预12个月后	干预前	干预12个月后	干预前	干预12个月后	干预前	干预12个月后
干预组	49	16.39±4.12	19.43±5.58	34.25±5.62	39.12±5.36	1.37±0.26	1.69±0.37	4.12±1.45	5.66±2.16
对照组	49	16.14±3.97	17.21±4.36	33.98±5.25	36.68±4.12	1.42±0.31	1.51±0.42	3.85±1.26	4.58±2.24
$t$ 值		0.309	2.217	0.248	2.552	0.874	2.274	0.994	0.323
P值		0.758	0.029	0.805	0.012	0.384	0.025	2.454	0.016

References 25

[1]	Coluzzi F. Assessing and treating chronic pain in patients with end-stage renal disease[J]. Drugs, 2018, 78(14):1459-1479. doi: 10.1007/s40265-018-0980-9 pmid: 30206801
[2]	苗金红, 张晓雅, 王晓星, 等. 决策辅助在终末期肾脏病患者透析方式选择中的研究进展[J]. 中国血液净化, 2020, 19(10):703-705.
[3]	余丹霞, 黄红, 邱强. 维持性血液透析患者左心室舒张功能障碍的危险因素分析[J]. 中国血液净化, 2024, 23(3):189-192.
[4]	苟玉琦, 李沛窈, 彭静涵, 等. 终末期肾病病人安宁疗护需求研究进展[J]. 护理研究, 2023, 37(14):2564-2569.
[5]	Muz G, Taşcı S. Effect of aromatherapy via inhalation on the sleep quality and fatigue level in people undergoing hemodialysis[J]. Appl Nurs Res, 2017(37):28-35.
[6]	李秀梅, 李豪, 郭兰英, 等. 运动疗法对维持性血液透析患者运动能力及生命质量的影响[J]. 中国实用护理杂志, 2022, 38(28):2178-2183.
[7]	吴瑞琪, 杨蕾. 中医五行音乐疗法对维持性血液透析患者焦虑抑郁及生活质量的影响[J]. 河南中医, 2021, 41(12):1890-1894.
[8]	崔艳秋, 费丁家, 谢娟娟, 等. 芳香疗法对维持性血液透析病人生活质量影响的系统评价[J]. 护理研究, 2021, 35(14):2504-2511.
[9]	俞金海, 郑有弟, 张艳. 高通量血液透析治疗尿毒症的meta分析[J]. 基层医学坛, 2023, 27(19):42-45,96.
[10]	宋晓雨. 全程管理对维持性血液透析患者生活质量的评价[D]. 长春: 长春中医药大学, 2024.
[11]	Hynes DM, Fischer M, Fitzgibbon M, et al. Integrating a medical home in an outpatient dialysis setting: Effects on health-related quality of life[J]. J Gen Intern Med, 2019, 34(10):2130-2140. doi: 10.1007/s11606-019-05154-9 pmid: 31342329
[12]	段云卉, 贾凯, 宋新, 等. 早期肠内营养干预对老年COPD患者营养状态和免疫功能的影响[J]. 中国老年学杂志, 2021, 41(6):1204-1207.
[13]	刘宁徽. MDT模式下营养干预对维持性血液透析患者营养状况的影响[J]. 临床护理杂志, 2023, 22(3):54-57.
[14]	李鲁, 王红妹, 沈毅. SF-36健康调查量表中文版的研制及其性能测试[J]. 中华预防医学杂志, 2002, 36(2): 38-42.
[15]	姜敏敏, 李鲁. SF-36 量表在血透患者中的性能测试[J]. 中国行为医学科学, 2003, 12(1):31-33.
[16]	王爱平, 冯茂玲. 血液透析患者自我管理行为问卷的开发[J]. 中国卫生统计, 2005, 22(6):368-372.
[17]	Hussien H, Apetrii M, Covic A. Health-related quality of life in patients with chronic kidney disease[J]. Expert Rev Pharmacoecon Outcomes Res, 2021, 21(1):43-54.
[18]	Zhan L. Quality of life:Conceptual and measurement issues[J]. J Adv Nurs, 1992, 17(7): 795-800. pmid: 1644975
[19]	黄少娟, 韩晓苇, 聂琴琪. 心理干预对青年血透患者生存质量影响的调查分析[J]. 护理实践与研究, 2010, 7(3):122-124.
[20]	周宏. 浅谈整体护理干预对尿毒症患者的心理状态和生活质量的影响[J]. 当代医药论丛, 2014, 12(9):104-105.
[21]	缪妙, 王昱, 鲍晓荣. 维持性血液透析患者营养不良与预后关系研究[J]. 中国中西医结合肾病杂志, 2022, 23(10):904-906.
[22]	Marquez-Herrera RM, Cueto-Manzano AM, Cortes-Sanabria L. Role of dietitian in prevention and treatment of early chronic kidney disease[J]. Rev Med Inst Mex Seguro Soc, 2017, 55(Suppl 2):S175-181.
[23]	陈亚民. 维持性血液透析患者心理护理干预的效果分析[J]. 护士进修杂志, 2012, 18(27):1699-1700.
[24]	汤芳丽, 王菁. 多学科交叉融合协作式运动疗法管理在维持性血液透析者中的应用[J]. 中国血液净化, 2021, 20(6):420-422,430.
[25]	许世林, 刘云, 文罗娜, 等. 多学科协作干预方案对维持性血液透析伴高磷血症患者血磷的影响[J]. 护理学报, 2020, 27(6):61-64.