Skip to main content
JJOS Demo Journals
HomeJournalsTransactions on Intelligent Computing SystemsVolume 3, Issue 110.58304/q9p2vz96
Transactions on Intelligent Computing Systems
Article

Predictors of self-care in kidney transplant patients according to preoperative dialysis: A comparative study: methods and sensitivity checks

Mateus Duarte1*, Aiko Yoon2, Mikael Olsen2

1School of Public Health, Sapienza Mediterranea, Italy

2School of Economics, Han River Institute for Advanced Study, South Korea

* Corresponding author.

Trans. Intell. Comput. Syst. 2025, 3(1), e3591; https://doi.org/10.58304/q9p2vz96

Abstract

Preemptive kidney transplantation (PKT) is associated with reduced dialysis-related morbidity and improved graft survival, which has led to an increase in the prevalence of PKT. The distinct clinical pathways of PKT and non-preemptive kidney transplantation (NPKT) patients may affect their ability to perform self-care, a key factor in post-transplant recovery. However, there is ongoing controversy regarding which group demonstrates better self-care abilities, highlighting the need to explore the factors influencing self-care in each group.

This study aims to identify and compare predictors of self-care in PKT and NPKT groups.

Keywords:Keywords Kidney transplantPreemptive kidney transplantSelf-careTransplant patient

Abbreviations

Cr

Creatinine

ESRD

End-stage renal disease

DM

Diabetes mellitus

KT

Kidney transplantation

NPKT

Non-preemptive kidney transplantation

PKT

Preemptive kidney transplantation

QOL

Quality of life

1 Introduction

The global incidence of end-stage renal disease (ESRD) is rising due to an aging population, the growing prevalence of chronic illnesses (e.g., diabetes mellitus [DM] and hypertension), increased consumption of processed foods, and various environmental factors (e.g., air pollution) [[1], [2], [3]]. In 2020, Taiwan, China had the world's highest ESRD incidence, affecting 525 individuals per million, while South Korea ranked fourth with a rate of 355 individuals per million [4].

ESRD, a condition characterized by diminished renal function, necessitates one of three treatments: hemodialysis, peritoneal dialysis, or kidney transplantation (KT). KT is identified as the most efficacious treatment for ESRD, enhancing both lifespan and quality of life (QOL) [[5], [6], [7], [8], [9]]. Preemptive kidney transplantation (PKT), where the transplant occurs before the initiation of dialysis, is considered advantageous in several aspects [10]. By avoiding the onset of dialysis, PKT not only eliminates the complications and costs associated with dialysis but also has been shown to contribute to improved clinical outcomes, including lower rates of graft rejection and enhanced long-term patient survival [[11], [12], [13]]. This approach accounts for 30 % of KT surgeries worldwide [14].

Although PKT is widely considered advantageous, the clinical and psychological experiences of PKT and non-preemptive kidney transplantation (NPKT) patients differ substantially, warranting further investigation into how these differences may impact patient outcomes.

KT necessitates complex self-care requirements to minimize the risk of transplant rejection and other post-transplantation complications [15,16]. Essential self-care practices for KT recipients include accurate administration of immunosuppressants, infection prevention, and early detection, transplant rejection identification, dietary management, balancing activity with rest, and regulating body weight and blood pressure [14]. Noncompliance with these practices leads to a 1.5-fold and 65 % higher risk of transplant rejection and KT failure, respectively [17]. Patient outcomes underscore the significance of self-care, leading to concerted efforts to raise awareness and promote self-care compliance among KT recipients [[18], [19], [20], [21], [22]]. However, roughly 30–50 % of these patients do not strictly adhere to their immunosuppressant regimens, largely due to a knowledge gap regarding their benefits [[23], [24], [25], [26]]. This suggests that KT patients may find self-care daunting, highlighting the continued need for initiatives to boost self-care practices.

Studies on self-care predictors in KT patients have identified several key factors: post-transplantation durations, comprehension of health-related information, support from healthcare professionals and family, as well as stress and depression [[27], [28], [29], [30], [31]]. Notably, the psychological impact of stress and the social dynamics of support play pivotal roles in the self-care behaviors of transplant recipients. Stress manifests as a multifactorial symptom in these patients, stemming from a complex interplay of physical problems—such as cardiovascular disease, cancer, DM, osteoporosis, infections, and weight gain due to long-term immunosuppressant use—and psychological factors, including fear of rejection, resumption of dialysis, and uncertainties about the future [8,[32], [33], [34], [35]]. The degree of perceived stress is significantly correlated with adopting health-promoting behaviors. A heightened level of stress negatively impacts self-care [29,36]; however, a moderate stress level can catalyze patients [37], fostering self-regulation and resilience in self-care, thereby aiding their treatment [38]. It is necessary to closely scrutinize the stress levels in KT patients and further investigate the potential impact of stress on their self-care behaviors.

Moreover, social support from family and healthcare providers is vital components in fostering effective self-care among KT recipients. Recent advancements in community healthcare and the continuation of nursing care have highlighted the crucial role of social support in this patient group [39]. It is widely accepted that health outcomes strongly correlate with the extent of social support; enhanced support generally leads to improved health [40,41]. In the context of KT recipients, the emphasis on self-care is critical to ensuring the transplanted organ's functionality and preventing rejection [17]. Accordingly, social support is pivotal in bolstering these self-care routines [41]. Key sources of this support are family members and healthcare professionals, who encourage patient adherence to self-care practices and create an optimal environment for such care [31,42]. Therefore, it is essential to examine the degree of social support KT patients receive and determine its potential impact on their adherence to self-care regimens.

Patients receiving PKT who do not require pre-transplant dialysis may have a different perception of KT than those receiving non-preemptive kidney transplantation (NPKT). PKT recipients often perceive kidney failure as an acute rather than a chronic condition, with their disease trajectory shortened by the absence of dialysis [43,44]. In contrast, NPKT patients endure a longer and more complex pre-transplant pathway, marked by the physical and emotional challenges of dialysis [45,46]. These differing experiences may influence not only the patients' perceptions of their illness but also their approach to post-transplant care, including adherence to medical regimens and lifestyle modifications.

Furthermore, the literature presents a degree of controversy regarding which group demonstrates better post-transplant outcomes [[47], [48], [49]]. Some studies suggest that PKT patients exhibit better clinical outcomes and higher adherence to post-transplant care, likely due to the greater prevalence of factors commonly associated with better adherence, such as higher socioeconomic status and educational attainment, among those who receive preemptive transplantation [[50], [51], [52]]. However, other research posits that the experience of dialysis may prompt NPKT patients to be more diligent in their self-care, as they are more acutely aware of the consequences of non-adherence [53]. Given this controversy, it is critical to examine the predictors that may influence self-care and other patient outcomes in PKT and NPKT recipients. Therefore, this study aimed to identify predictors of self-care with a focus on preoperative dialysis to establish a foundation for developing improved nursing interventions and educational programs for transplant patients.

2 Methods

2.1 Study design and participant selection

We conducted a descriptive study to identify and compare the factors influencing self-care post-KT in both PKT and NPKT patients. A convenience sampling method was used to recruit participants from a tertiary hospital in Seoul, where patients received regular outpatient follow-ups at the organ transplantation center. Eligible participants met the following criteria: (a) underwent KT at 18 years of age or older; (b) could communicate and complete the questionnaire independently; (c) consented to participate in the study; (d) had a minimum of 1 year elapsed since their KT surgery; (e) for NPKT patients, had undergone regular dialysis for at least 6 months preoperatively.

Participants were excluded if they had a history of multiple organ transplants, had undergone KT more than once, were unable to communicate due to visuospatial or mental disorders, were undergoing renal replacement therapy post-transplantation, were diagnosed with transplant failure or had their transplanted kidney removed.

2.2 Data collection

Data collection occurred between March 22 and August 29, 2022, from patients who had undergone KT and were undergoing regular follow-up visits at the organ transplantation center. Using the G∗Power 3.1 software for F tests, linear multiple regression analysis, with an effect size of 0.15, a power of 0.80, and a significance level of 0.05, the calculated sample size was determined to be 98 for both PKT and NPKT patients. Considering a dropout rate, a total of 108 participants were selected for each group. Participants were provided with a self-reported written questionnaire. The researchers directly collected the completed questionnaires and reviewed them to ensure all responses were provided. Out of the 228 questionnaires, 19 were excluded either because the respondents did not meet the inclusion criteria or left sections unanswered. This resulted in a final tally of 209 valid questionnaires for analysis, consisting of 101 PKT and 108 NPKT patients.

2.3 Ethical considerations

This study was approved by the Institutional Review Board of Samsung Medical Center in Seoul (IRB No.: 2022-01-192-001). Informed consent was obtained from patients who agreed to participate in the study, and each participant signed the informed consent form after being fully informed of the study's purpose and procedures. Participants were also informed of their rights to withdraw from the survey at any time and request the deletion of their data. All collected information was strictly managed in accordance with the Personal Information Protection Act, and it was used solely for the purposes of this study.

2.4 Measurement

2.4.1 Stress

Stress was evaluated utilizing a modified 37-item stress scale adapted from the 44-item Kidney Transplant Recipient Stress Scale developed by Hayward et al. [54] and modified by Cho [55]. The items encompass stress related to medication, infection, rejection, lifestyle adjustments, social interaction, and finances. The items scored on a 5-point Likert scale (1 = “strongly disagree” to 5 = “strongly agree”), span a cumulative range from 37 to 185, with higher scores signifying heightened stress. The Cronbach's ⍺ was 0.88 in the study by Cho [55] and 0.94 in this study.

2.4.2 Social support

The level of social support was gauged using a 24-item scale developed by Kim et al. [56] specifically for KT patients. This scale comprises 12 items each for family support and healthcare provider support and utilizes the same 5-point Likert scale. Total scores fall within 24–120, with higher scores indicating greater perceived social support. Cronbach's ⍺ coefficients were 0.94 and 0.92 for family support and healthcare provider support, respectively, during development, and 0.95 and 0.93 in this study.

2.4.3 Self-care

Self-care was measured using a 20-item scale created by Kim [57] and designed for KT patients. The scale encompasses two items for medication administration, five for diet, three for infection prevention, eight for daily activities, and two for rejection; each is scored on the same 5-point Likert scale. The total score varies from 20 to 100, with higher scores representing superior self-care compliance. The Cronbach's ⍺ was 0.84 upon the scale's creation and 0.86 in this study.

2.4.4 Demographic and disease-specific characteristics

Demographic characteristics included gender, age, educational level, marital status, religious affiliation, employment status, average monthly income, and the number of cohabitating family members. Disease-specific characteristics included the post-transplantation duration, type of donor, ABO compatibility, type of dialysis, duration of dialysis, incidences of readmission, motivation for surgery, source of transplantation information, underlying diseases, and most recent creatinine (Cr) level.

2.5 Data analysis

The collected data were analyzed using SPSS version 28.0 (SPSS, Chicago, IL, USA). Each of the four measures–stress, social support, self-care, and demographics characteristics–was analyzed independently to understand their distinct contributions and relationships to self-care outcomes. Descriptive statistics were used to summarize the baseline characteristics of the participants, including means, standard deviations, frequencies, and percentages for each of four measures. The independent t-test and chi-square test were employed to evaluate group differences. Indices of stress, social support, and self-care for both cohorts were quantitatively described using means and standard deviations, with intergroup variances evaluated through independent t-tests and ANOVA. Scheffe's post hoc test was applied following the ANOVA for further comparisons. Data not adhering to the normal distribution were evaluated using the Mann–Whitney U and Kruskal–Wallis tests. Multiple regression analysis was utilized to ascertain predictors of self-care within both groups.

3 Results

3.1 Comparison of demographic and disease-specific characteristics between PKT and NPKT groups

In this study, 59.8 % of the participants were male, with an average age of 51.22 ± 11.59 years. The majority of the participants (82.8 %) were with spouse, more than half had an undergraduate degree (53.6 %), and two-thirds were employed (66.5 %). The average number of cohabiting family members was 2.89 ± 1.13.

In the PKT group (N = 101), 57.4 % were male, averaging 49.52 ± 11.03 years. Among these participants, 80.2 % were married, and 59.4 % held at least a bachelor's degree. Unemployment was reported by 30.7 % of these patients, and 50.5 % identified as non-religious. Roughly half (49.5 %) reported an average monthly income of 5.01 million KRW or higher, and the mean number of family members living in the same household was 3.14 ± 1.12. The average time since the KT was 45.44 ± 38.57 months, with spouses being the most common donors (41.6 %). The most frequent motivation for surgery was recommendations from healthcare providers and family, each cited by 39.6 % of PKT patients, and 73.3 % of patients were ABO compatible.

The NPKT group (N = 108) consisted of 62.0 % males, with an average age of 52.80 ± 11.92 years. Within this group, 36.1 % of participants reported being unemployed, while 48.1 % fell within the monthly income bracket of 2.01–4.99 million KRW. The average household size was slightly smaller, with a mean of 2.65 ± 1.20 cohabiting family members. In this group, the mean duration post-KT was 47.43 ± 38.22 months, and a majority of these patients (54.6 %) received their organs from a deceased donor. A substantial majority (88.0 %) had previously undergone hemodialysis, with the mean dialysis duration being 62.41 ± 42.86 months. ABO compatibility was predominantly yes (95.4 %), and the most common motivation for surgery was self-decision, reported by 49.1 % of NPKT patients.

There were differences in monthly income (p = .013), cohabiting family members (p = .004), type of donor (p < .001), ABO compatibility (p < .001), and motivation for surgery (p < .001) between PKT and NPKT groups (Table 1, Table 2).

Table 1 Comparison of demographic characteristics between PKT and NPKT groups (N = 209).

Total
PKT (N = 101)
NPKT (N = 108)
χ2p
n (%)n (%)n (%)
GenderMale125 (59.8)58 (57.4)67 (62.0)0.46.497
Female84 (40.2)43 (42.6)41 (38.0)
Age (years)<4034 (16.3)20 (19.8)14 (13.0)5.66.129
41–5050 (23.9)28 (27.7)22 (20.4)
51–6072 (34.9)34 (33.7)39 (36.1)
≥6052 (24.9)19 (18.8)33 (30.6)
Mean (±SD)51.22 (±11.59)49.52 (±11.03)52.80 (±11.92)
Marital statusWith spouse173 (82.8)81 (80.2)92 (85.2)0.91.340
Without spouse36 (17.2)20 (19.8)16 (14.8)
Educational level≤High school59 (28.2)21 (20.8)38 (35.2)5.35.069
Undergraduate112 (53.6)60 (59.4)52 (48.1)
≥Graduate28 (18.2)20 (19.8)18 (16.7)
Employment statusYes139 (66.5)70 (69.3)69 (63.9)0.69.407
No70 (33.5)31 (30.7)39 (36.1)
ReligionYes110 (52.6)50 (49.5)60 (55.6)0.77.381
No99 (47.4)51 (50.5)48 (44.4)
Monthly income (10,000 KRW)≤20032 (15.3)10 (9.9)22 (20.4)8.62.013
201–50093 (44.5)41 (40.6)52 (48.1)
≥50184 (40.2)50 (49.5)34 (31.5)
Cohabiting family members≤120 (9.6)6 (5.9)14 (13.0)10.82.004
266 (31.6)24 (23.8)42 (38.9)
≥3123 (58.9)71 (70.3)52 (48.1)
Mean (±SD)2.89 (±1.13)3.14 (±1.12)2.65 (±1.20)

PKT = Preemptive kidney transplant; NPKT = Non-preemptive kidney transplant.

Table 2 Comparison of disease-specific characteristics between PKT and NPKT groups (N = 209).

Total
PKT (N = 101)
NPKT (N = 108)
χ2p
n (%)n (%)n (%)
Post-transplantation duration (months)<36110 (52.6)52 (51.5)58 (53.7)0.44.802
36–7168 (32.5)35 (34.7)33 (30.6)
≥7231 (14.8)14 (13.9)17 (15.7)
Mean (±SD)46.46 (±38.31)45.44 (±38.57)47.43 (±38.22)
Type of donorSpouse59 (28.2)42 (41.6)17 (15.7)75.52<.001
Offspring19 (9.1)10 (9.9)9 (8.3)
Parents24 (11.5)17 (16.8)7 (6.5)
Other47 (22.5)31 (30.7)16 (14.8)
Deceased60 (28.7)1 (1.0)59 (54.6)
ABO compatibilityYes177 (67.3)74 (73.3)103 (95.4)19.66<.001
No86 (32.7)27 (26.7)5 (4.6)
Type of dialysisHemodialysisN/AN/A95 (88.0)
Peritoneal dialysis11 (10.2)
Both2 (1.9)
Duration of dialysis (month)<36N/AN/A34 (31.5)
36–7128 (25.9)
≥7246 (42.6)
Mean (±SD)62.41 (±42.86)
ReadmissionYes123 (51.7)55 (54.5)68 (63.0)1.56.212
No101 (48.3)46 (45.5)40 (37.0)
Motivation for surgerySelf73 (34.9)20 (19.8)53 (49.1)21.41<.001
Healthcare provider62 (29.7)40 (39.6)22 (20.4)
Family71 (34.0)40 (39.6)31 (28.7)
Other3 (1.4)1 (1.0)2 (1.9)
Source of transplantation information†Internet101 (48.3)55 (54.5)46 (42.6)
Healthcare provider126 (60.3)55 (54.5)71 (65.7)
Other39 (18.7)15 (14.9)24 (22.2)
Underlying diseaseYes149 (71.3)67 (66.3)82 (75.9)2.35.126
No60 (28.7)34 (33.7)26 (24.1)
Cr level††Normal (0.5–0.9 mg/㎗)103 (49.3)51 (50.5)52 (48.1)4.93.085
Abnormal81 (38.8)43 (42.6)38 (35.2)
Unknown25 (12.0)7 (6.9)18 (16.7)

†Multiple choice. ††Most recent creatinine level. PKT = Preemptive kidney transplant; NPKT = Non-preemptive kidney transplant; KT = Kidney transplant; Cr = Creatinine.

3.2 Stress

The stress levels were similar between PKT and NPKT groups. The mean stress score for PKT group was 97.23 ± 24.16, while for NPKT group it was 96.13 ± 24.02, with no significant difference between the two groups (p = .742) (Table 3).

3.3 Social support

Both family support and healthcare provider support were significantly higher in the PKT group compared to the NPKT group. The mean family support score was 53.77 ± 6.09 in PKT group, which was significantly higher than 49.06 ± 10.65 in the NPKT group (p < .001). Healthcare provider support was higher in the PKT group with a mean score of 49.45 ± 7.70, compared to 46.74 ± 8.72 in the NPKT group (p = .009) (Table 3).

Table 3 Comparison of stress, social support, and self-care between PKT and NPKT groups (N = 209).

Total
PKT (N = 101)
NPKT (N = 108)
tp
Mean (±SD)Mean (±SD)Mean (±SD)
Stress96.66 (±24.03)97.23 (±24.16)96.13 (±24.02)0.33.742
Social support Healthcare provider support99.38 (±14.95)103.22 (±11.71)95.80 (±16.72)3.74<.001
 Family support51.33 (±9.04)53.77 (±6.09)49.06 (±10.65)3.96<.001
 Healthcare provider support48.05 (±8.33)49.45 (±7.70)46.74 (±8.72)2.38.009
Self-care83.87 (±9.70)84.20 (±9.49)83.56 (±9.92)0.47.319

PKT = Preemptive kidney transplant; NPKT = Non-preemptive kidney transplant.

3.4 Self-care

There was no significant difference in self-care ability between the PKT and NPKT groups (p = .319). The mean self-care scores for PKT group were 84.20 ± 9.49, while for NPKT group, they were 83.56 ± 9.92 (Table 3).

However, in the PKT group, there were significant differences in self-care according to gender, marital status, and employment status. On the other hand, in the NPKT group, there were significant differences in self-care according to gender, marital status, employment status, religion, and the duration post-KT. A subsequent Scheffe's post hoc analysis disclosed that patients who had undergone transplantation surgery less than 36 months ago demonstrated significantly better self-care than those whose transplantation occurred more than 72 months ago (Table 4, Table 5)

Table 4 Self-care differences by demographic characteristics within PKT and NPKT groups.

PKT (N = 101)
NPKT (N = 108)
Mean (±SD)t or F or χ2 or ZpMean (±SD)t or F or χ2 or Zp
GenderMale82.33 (10.31)−2.46.02182.09 (±10.66)−2.00.048
Female86.72 (±7.66)85.98 (±8.16)
Age (year)<4081.40 (±10.08)1.39.25080.79 (±6.84)5.05.168†
40–4983.18 (±10.15)82.50 (±10.08)
50–5985.06 (±7.55)82.85 (±11.84)
≥6087.11 (±10.62)86.30 (±8.03)
Marital statusWith spouse85.22 (±8.93)−2.23.02884.74 (±9.43)−2.90.004††
Without spouse80.05 (±10.73)76.81 (±10.28)
Educational level≤High school85.57 (±10.25)0.37.69184.87 (±11.44)2.82.245†
Undergraduate83.57 (±9.61)82.77 (±8.94)
≥Graduate84.65 (±8.52)83.11 (±9.46)
Employment statusYes82.97 (±8.85)−2.33.020††81.64 (±9.82)−2.96.003††
No86.97 (±10.41)86.97 (±9.28)
ReligionYes85.60 (±9.34)−1.48.14285.27 (±9.77)−2.33.020††
No82.82 (±9.51)81.44 (±9.81)
Monthly income (10,000KRW)≤20088.40 (±10.00)1.25.29283.91 (±10.28)0.68.511
201–50084.34(±10.14)82.48(±10.07)
≥50183.24(±8.76)85.00(±9.56)
Cohabiting family members≤191.50 (±8.87)4.75.093†81.64 (±13.66)1.33.515†
283.42 (±11.20)85.26 (±7.22)
≥383.85 (±8.76)82.71 (±10.63)

†Kruskal-Wallis test; ††Mann-Whitney test. PKT = Preemptive kidney transplant; NPKT = Non-preemptive kidney transplant.

Table 5 Self-care differences by disease-specific characteristics within PKT and NPKT groups.

PKT (N = 101)
NPKT (N = 108)
Mean (±SD)t or F or χ2 or ZpMean (±SD)t or F or χ2 or Zp
Post-transplantation duration (month)<36a85.21 (±8.80)1.75.17986.83 (±7.38)3.86.024 (a>c)†
36–71b84.40 (±9.82)81.85 (±9.20)
≥72c79.93 (±10.59)69.18 (±15.82)
Type of donorSpouse85.55 (±8.84)1.87.12287.12 (±9.60)8.03.090††
Offspring86.90 (±7.16)86.11 (±12.23)
Parents80.82 (±9.27)80.57 (±4.47)
Other82.84 (±10.50)80.25 (±10.20)
Deceased100.0083.41 (±9.92)
ABO compatibilityYes84.41 (±9.47)0.36.71883.55 (±9.53)−0.05.957
No83.63 (±9.68)83.80 (±17.80)
Type of dialysisHemodialysisN/Aﾠﾠ83.78 (±9.52)0.31.855††
Peritoneal dialysis82.09 (±13.76)
Both81.50 (±9.19)
Duration of dialysis (month)<36N/Aﾠﾠ85.09 (±10.35)2.03.363††
36–7183.64 (±9.95)
≥7282.39 (±9.65)
ReadmissionYes84.27 (±9.60)−0.25.889§84.10 (±9.17)−0.41.679§
No84.11 (±9.46)82.65 (±11.16)
Motivation for surgerySelf84.20 (±8.20)0.82.845††83.45 (±9.61)1.32.724††
Healthcare provider82.93 (±10.36)84.09 (±7.62)
Family84.28 (±9.43)82.90 (±11.99)
Other92.0091.00 (±8.49)
Underlying diseaseYes83.64 (±9.91)0.83.41184.00 (±9.83)−1.01.314§
No85.29 (±8.62)82.19 (±10.28)
Cr level||Normal85.45 (±9.99)1.35.181§85.12 (±8.38)1.58.118§
Abnormal82.63 (±10.32)81.18 (±11.84)

†Scheffe test; ††Kruskal-Wallis test; §Mann-Whitney test. ||Most recent creatinine level. 0.5-0.9mg/dl. PKT = Preemptive kidney transplant; NPKT = Non-preemptive kidney transplant; KT = Kidney transplant; Cr = Creatinine.

3.5 Predictors of self-care

To elucidate the predictors of self-care, variables that exhibited significant disparity in association with self-care and key study parameters (stress, social support) were incorporated into a regression analysis. The normality of these variables was verified prior to the analysis.

In the PKT cohort, the correlations among the independent variables did not exceed 0.9, with the tolerance index ranging from 0.791 to 0.991, comfortably above the threshold of 0.1, and a variance inflation factor between 1.009 and 1.265, well below the critical limit of 10. This confirmed the absence of multicollinearity. Additionally, a Durbin–Watson statistic of 1.771, proximal to 2, confirmed the absence of residual correlations, thus substantiating the regression model's acceptability.

Likewise, in the NPKT cohort, the correlation among the independent variables remained below 0.9. The tolerance values varied between 0.628 and 0.917, and the variance inflation factor ranged from 1.091 to 1.593, again confirming the absence of multicollinearity. The Durbin–Watson statistic, at 2.054, confirmed the absence of autocorrelation among residuals, rendering the regression model acceptable.

Within the PKT group, marital status (β = .19, p = .033) and family support (β = .28, p = .006) identified as significant predictors of self-care. Specifically, participants who were married and received higher levels of family support exhibited better self-care behaviors, with these two factors explaining 20.7 % of the variance in self-care outcomes.

In contrast, the NPKT group identified marital status (β = .31, p = .001), employment status (β = .29, p = .007), post-transplantation duration (less than 36 month) (β = −.22, p = .015), post-transplantation duration (36–72 month) (β = −.33, p = .001), and stress levels (β = −.20, p = .028) as significant self-care predictors. Participants who were married, employed, had a shorter time since transplantation and reported lower stress levels demonstrated higher self-care. These parameters explained 24.6 % of the observed variance (Table 6, Table 7).

Table 6 Factors influencing self-care in PKT patients (N = 101).

VariablesBSEβtp
(Constant)39.049.414.15<.001
Gender (Female)2.551.83.131.40.166
Marital status (With spouse)4.582.12.192.16.033
Employment status (No)2.721.95.131.39.168
Stress0.060.04.161.71.091
Family support0.440.16.282.83.006
Healthcare provider support0.200.12.161.63.107
R2 = .255, Adj R2 = .207, Durbin-Watson = 1.771, F = 5.36, p < .001

Dummy variables (reference: Gender = Male; Marital status = Without spouse; Employment status = Yes). PKT = Preemptive kidney transplant.

Table 7 Factors influencing self-care in NPKT patients (N = 108).

VariablesBSEβtp
(Constant)77.526.9311.18<.001
Gender (Female)−1.052.16−.05−0.49.627
Marital status (With spouse)8.532.48.313.44.001
Employment status (No)5.942.14.292.77.007
Religion (No)−0.631.86−.03−0.34.736
Post-transplantation duration (month)
 <36−4.811.95−.22−2.47.015
 36–72−8.822.45−.33−3.60.001
Stress−0.080.04−.20−2.24.028
Family support0.010.09.010.14.888
Healthcare provider support0.160.12.141.33.187
R2 = .309, Adj R2 = .246, Durbin-Watson = 2.054, F = 4.88, p < .001

Dummy variables (reference: Gender = Male; Marital status = Without spouse; Employment status = Yes; Religion = Yes; Post-transplantation duration (month) ≥72); NPKT = Non-preemptive kidney transplant; KT = Kidney transplant.

4 Discussion

This study aimed to explore the general and disease-specific characteristics, stress levels, social support, and self-care among PKT and NPKT groups, as well as identify predictors of self-care, thereby proposing strategies to enhance self-care in KT patients and providing evidence for the development of efficacious nursing interventions to improve QOL.

In our study cohort, the average age was 51.22 ± 11.59 years, with 24.9 % aged 60 or above. This highlights the current trend of an increasing number of older patients undergoing KT. The 2019 Annual Statistics report from the Korea Network for Organ Sharing indicated a significant increase of 179.2 % in organ transplants in patients aged 65 or above, from 250 cases in 2015 to 448 in 2019. Similarly, the 2021 Annual Data Report from the United States Renal Data System demonstrated a consistent rise in KT among older adults aged 65 and over (5,095 in 2019) [4]. KT is no longer seen as contraindicated in older age groups, with survival rates, QOL improvement, and financial benefits comparable to those of younger recipients [[58], [59], [60], [61]]. Considering that older patients frequently present with comorbidities, personalized treatment, and management support are essential [[62], [63], [64]]. Additionally, older adults often have ingrained lifestyle habits that can affect adherence to self-care protocols [65]. As such, to promote self-care adherence among older adults, healthcare providers must account for these patients' personal, socioeconomic, and environmental characteristics and understand their specific self-care needs in a manner that respects their autonomy. Moreover, providing tailored educational interventions suitable for older adults is crucial to guiding them toward effective self-care rather than adhering to potentially harmful lifestyle habits.

Significant disparities were observed between the PKT and NPKT groups regarding monthly income, number of cohabiting family members, donor type, ABO compatibility, and surgery motivation. Approximately half (49.5 %) of the PKT group reported a monthly income of 5.01 million KRW or above. In contrast, a slightly lower percentage (48.1 %) of the NPKT group reported an income within the 2.01–4.99 million KRW range.

While there was no statistically significant difference in employment status between the PKT and NPKT groups (p = .407), the income disparity may still be partially related to employment patterns. Previous research indicates that employment is more prevalent among PKT recipients, potentially due to the shorter recovery time and reduced dialysis-related fatigue, which enhances their ability to maintain stable employment [[66], [67], [68]].

In addition to employment status, donor type and ABO compatibility likely contributed to income differences between the groups. The PKT group predominantly received organs from living donors (99.0 %), bore the full costs associated with surgery and subsequent treatment. Furthermore, ABO incompatible transplantations necessitate additional preoperative therapeutic plasma exchange and immunosuppressant therapy, which results in longer hospital stays and increased expenses [69]. These factors may contribute to the higher proportion of high-income patients in the PKT group, where the rates of living donor and ABO-incompatible transplantations were also greater.

However, it is important to recognize that other factors, such as educational level, health status, and the presence of comorbidities, may also influence income and employment outcomes in kidney transplant patients. Research shows that younger age, better health, and the absence of comorbidities are significant predictors of sustained employment among kidney transplant recipients [68,70]. Further exploration into these factors could provide a more comprehensive understanding of the financial disparities between PKT and NPKT groups.

In terms of donor type, a significant portion (41.6 %) of the PKT group received an organ from their spouse, compared to a much smaller percentage (15.7 %) in the NPKT group, where more than half (54.6 %) received organs from deceased donors. The spousal relationship likely affects the level of emotional and practical support available post-transplant. This dynamic, where the spouse may act as both caregiver and donor, requires further investigation to determine how it impacts self-care behaviors. The increased of spousal donors can be attributed, in part, to the rise of ABO-incompatible transplantations, which has allowed for greater flexibility in matching [71]. Furthermore, “family persuasion” was cited as the main motivation for surgery by roughly 39.6 % of PKT patients. Particularly in spousal transplantation scenarios, the donating spouse often becomes a significant advocate for the transplant [71], reinforcing previous findings suggesting that the degree of intimacy between donor and recipient is a crucial factor in deciding to undergo KT [72].

Examining the comparison of major study variables scores between the PKT and NPKT cohorts, PKT group demonstrated greater levels of family support (53.77 ± 6.09 out of 60) compared to their NPKT counterparts (48.96 ± 10.65 out of 60). The median wait time for transplantation in the United States stood at 4 years in 2011 [73], with approximately 18 % of patients experiencing a wait of 5 years or more by 2016. A similar trend was observed in Korea, with the average waiting time reaching 5 years in 2013 [74]. This study noted an average dialysis duration of 5 years or more for NPKT group. Yun and Lee's [75] research supports the premise that family support diminishes when dialysis extends beyond 5 years. Thus, these observations substantiate the hypothesis that prolonged dialysis induces alterations in family dynamics [76], and the degree of family support tends to diminish with an increase in dialysis duration [75].

Concerning the variations in self-care regarding general and disease-specific characteristics, it was noted that female patients attained better self-care than male patients. This aligns with numerous studies that reveal females exhibit superior levels of self-care knowledge and practice than males, and our findings corroborate this conclusion [[77], [78], [79], [80]]. The observed discrepancy may be linked to men's higher engagement in social activities, such as employment, which may impede their adherence to self-care protocols.

Considering the predictors of self-care relative to preoperative dialysis status, marital status, and family support, they emerged as predictors explaining 20.7 % of the variance in the PKT group. Conversely, marital status, employment status, post-transplantation duration, and stress level were identified as predictors accounting for 24.6 % of the variance in the NPKT group. However, several other potential factors may account for the remaining variance observed but were not the focus of this study. These could include variables such as the patient's level of health literacy, access to post-transplant care, psychological resilience, and the presence of comorbid conditions. Future research should explore these additional factors to provide a more comprehensive understanding of the predictors influencing self-care in kidney transplant patients.

Within the PKT cohort, a significant predictor of self-care was observed family support, demonstrating that elevated family support resulted in improved self-care adherence. This observation corroborates prior research, emphasizing family support's influential role in enhancing health behavior compliance among pre-dialysis patients with chronic kidney failure [81]. Enhanced family support bolsters a positive perception of health status, subsequently fostering adherence to self-care [82]. Unlike NPKT patients, who consistently received support from their families during the dialysis period before transplantation, PKT patients received support from their families after transplantation, and it is thought that they greatly valued the role of their families in post-transplant self-care. Despite these findings, it remains challenging to discern which specific aspects of family support—be it emotional expressions of love, assistance with lifestyle habits such as dietary and medication adherence, financial support, or the general presence and emotional involvement of family members—most significantly impact self-care practices. Consequently, we recommend further research that explicitly categorizes and measures the various dimensions of family support. Such studies should aim to distinguish the differential effects of these support types on patient outcomes, thus enabling a more nuanced understanding of how family dynamics contribute to the health management of transplant recipients.

In the NPKT cohort, employment status emerged as a significant predictor of self-care, with unemployed patients exhibiting increased self-care adherence. The unique experiences of NPKT patients who underwent extended dialysis before transplant, regardless of gender, limited their social engagement. As these patients reintegrated into social activities, including employment, the physical burdens and fatigue they incurred presumably negatively impacted their self-care adherence. These findings align with earlier studies positing difficulties in resuming work post-transplant, with challenges escalating with longer preoperative dialysis durations [[83], [84], [85]]. Therefore, it is imperative to develop effective interventions assisting NPKT patients in self-care, coupled with institutional and policy support promoting post-transplant societal and occupational reintegration. Interestingly, other studies propose a positive correlation between employment and self-care [86,87], indicating a need for further research to elucidate this complex relationship.

For NPKT group, it is crucial to consider the post-KT to improve self-care. Our findings reveal improved self-care engagement in the early post-transplantation stages, a trend similarly observed, albeit insignificantly, in PKT group. This reflects previous studies indicating a decline in treatment adherence as time since transplantation increases [27,86,88,89]. Bae and Kim [27] further elucidated that self-care compliance areas decline variably with time post-transplantation. Similarly, Noh and Park [19] highlighted evolving unmet postoperative needs over time post-KT, advocating for time-conscious nursing interventions to foster self-care in KT patients. Therefore, it is imperative to pinpoint factors contributing to declining self-care over time in both NPKT and PKT cohorts and to develop nursing intervention protocols to augment self-care.

In addition, NPKT group exhibiting high-stress levels exhibited poorer self-care. Dialysis patients bear significant stress, primarily due to dietary restrictions, the continual treatment burden, and future uncertainties [90]. While NPKT patients experience fewer restrictions post-KT, they still grapple with dietary constraints, prolonged immunosuppressive medication usage, concerns over potential immunosuppressive side effects, fear of graft loss, and future uncertainties [91]. These persistent stressors manifest as physical and psychological symptoms, hindering the treatment journey [92] and serving as barriers to self-care. Hence, identifying major stressors for NPKT patients and devising effective nursing strategies to manage them is paramount.

The presence of a spouse was found to significantly influence self-care outcomes in both PKT and NPKT groups. The emotional support derived from a spouse is a significant facilitator of self-care behaviors in KT patients [93]. This can be attributed to the mutual sharing of health-related knowledge and the encouragement of beneficial health behaviors [94]. This assertion aligns with prior research, where it was established that transplant patients with a supportive spouse demonstrated improved compliance with self-care practices [71,88,93]. Moreover, studies in other health conditions similarly underscore the significance of spousal support. For instance, in patients with multiple sclerosis (MS), spouses have been shown to enhance intrinsic motivation for physical activity, prompting the development of partner-oriented interventions that foster competence, autonomy, and relationship strength [95]. Similarly, in patients with type 2 diabetes, higher confidence in a spouse's ability to provide dietary support correlated with greater relationship satisfaction, further illustrating the emotional and practical benefits of spousal involvement in chronic disease management [96]. Given the evidence from both transplant and non-transplant patient populations, healthcare providers, especially registered nurses, should emphasize the crucial role of spouses in post-transplant care. This involves training spouses to assist in medication management, recognize signs of complications, and provide emotional support, thereby improving the overall management of the patient's condition.

For patients lacking spousal support, it is critical to establish tailored interventions designed to replicate the psychosocial benefits typically provided by a spouse. These interventions could include peer support groups and enhanced community resource engagement, which are vital in maintaining the quality of care and outcomes for these individuals. Recognizing the instrumental role of spousal support in the self-care of KT patients, healthcare providers must proactively identify and leverage comparable support mechanisms. This approach ensures that KT patients, particularly those without a spouse, receive continuous encouragement and assistance in adopting and maintaining health-promoting behaviors. Effective implementation of these targeted interventions is essential for fostering robust support networks that enhance patient outcomes.

4.1 Strengths and limitations of the study

Our study provides significant insights by identifying self-care predictors according to preoperative dialysis status and demonstrating the varying predictors between NPKT and the rapidly increasing PKT patient population. This further underscores the need for customized nursing strategies to promote post-transplant self-care tailored to individual patient characteristics. However, when considering the generalizability of these results, several factors need to be taken into account. Firstly, the study was conducted within a specific healthcare setting and geographical location, which may have particular healthcare policies, transplant protocols, and patient demographics. While data were collected from a single institution, this hospital is one of the largest kidney transplant centers in South Korea, known for handling a high volume of transplant cases, which strengthens the relevance of the findings. However, despite this, the generalizability of our results to different regions or healthcare systems may still be limited. Further studies are needed in diverse settings to validate our findings and to see if similar predictors emerge in other populations. Additionally, our research focused on self-care predictors among patients categorized by preoperative dialysis status, which might not encompass all factors influential in other transplant patient groups, such as those defined by age, ethnicity, or other comorbid conditions. Researchers and practitioners should be cautious in applying these findings to broader transplant populations without considering these variations. By expanding on these points, future research could explore the extent to which these predictors of self-care apply across broader KT patient populations, thus enhancing the external validity of our study and supporting the development of universally effective post-transplant care strategies.

4.2 Implications for nursing practice and health policy

Drawing from our findings, we propose three key recommendations. First, the presence of a spouse significantly enhances self-care practices in KT patients. Therefore, it is critical to identify and engage alternative support systems for patients without spousal support to positively impact their self-care practices. Second, our findings reveal a progressive decline in self-care over time post-transplantation. Hence, periodic monitoring of self-care levels among KT patients and ongoing interventions to help maintain optimal self-care practices are crucial. Finally, we confirmed that the types of treatment that can be selected, such as transplantation from a living donor and ABO-incompatible transplantation, differ depending on the patient's socioeconomic level. Consequently, policy interventions and financial support are necessary to ensure that patients with ESRD are not disadvantaged by their socioeconomic status when considering KT.

5 Conclusions

Our findings indicate a varying set of self-care predictors according to the preoperative dialysis status of the patients. Among patients with PKT, we identified marital status and family support as crucial predictors. Conversely, in NPKT patients, predictors encompass marital status, employment status, post-transplantation duration, and stress levels. Therefore, it is essential for nursing strategies designed to bolster post-KT self-care to consider these disease-associated characteristics alongside the preoperative dialysis status.

CRediT authorship contribution statement

Hyeiyeon Im: Writing – review & editing, Writing – original draft, Methodology, Formal analysis, Data curation, Conceptualization. Hye-Young Jang: Writing – review & editing, Supervision, Formal analysis, Conceptualization.

Data availability

Data will be available on request.

Funding

This research did not receive any specific funding.

Declaration of Competing Interest

The authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this paper.

References

  1. 1 AlalawiF.et al.Epidemiology of end-stage renal disease in Dubai: single-center dataSaudi J Kidney Dis Transpl28520171119112510.4103/1319-2442.21512628937072
  2. 2 AlicicR.Z.et al.Diabetic kidney disease: challenges, progress, and possibilitiesClin. J. Am. Soc. Nephrol.121220172032204510.2215/CJN.1149111628522654PMC5718284
  3. 3 LewQ.L.J.et al.Red meat intake and risk of ESRDJ. Am. Soc. Nephrol.281201730431210.1681/ASN.201603024827416946PMC5198288
  4. 4 JohansenK.L.et al.US renal data system 2021 annual data report: epidemiology of kidney disease in the United StatesAm. J. Kidney Dis.7942022A8A1210.1053/j.ajkd.2022.02.00135331382PMC8935019
  5. 5 PosseltJ.et al.Improved cognitive function after kidney transplantation compared to hemodialysisTher. Apher. Dial.256202193193810.1111/1744-9987.1362533497026
  6. 6 JordakievaG.et al.Employment status and associations with workability, quality of life and mental health after kidney transplantation in AustriaInt J Environ Res Public Health1742020125410.3390/ijerph1704125432075277PMC7068411
  7. 7 RyuJ.H.et al.Better health-related quality of life in kidney transplant patients compared to chronic kidney disease patients with similar renal functionPLoS One1610202110.1371/journal.pone.0257981PMC848971034606505
  8. 8 AugustineJ.Kidney transplant: new opportunities and challengesCleve. Clin. J. Med.852201813814410.3949/ccjm.85gr.1800129425089
  9. 9 ParkS.et al.Characteristics of kidney transplantation recipients over time in South KoreaThe Korean J Intern Med3562020145710.3904/kjim.2019.29232218102PMC7652657
  10. 10 SakhujaA.et al.Underutilization of timely kidney transplants in those with living donorsAm. J. Transplant.16320161007101410.1111/ajt.1359226845755
  11. 11 GotoN.et al.Association of dialysis duration with outcomes after transplantation in a Japanese cohortClin. J. Am. Soc. Nephrol.113201649750410.2215/CJN.0867081526728589PMC4791830
  12. 12 Prezelin-ReyditM.et al.Preemptive kidney transplantation is associated with transplantation outcomes in children: results from the French kidney replacement therapy registryTransplantation1062202240141110.1097/TP.000000000000375733821599
  13. 13 KasiskeB.L.et al.Preemptive kidney transplantation: the advantage and the advantagedJ. Am. Soc. Nephrol.13520021358136410.1097/01.Asn.0000013295.11876.C911961024
  14. 14 FishbaneS.NairV.Opportunities for increasing the rate of preemptive kidney transplantationClin. J. Am. Soc. Nephrol.13820181280128210.2215/CJN.0248021829769181PMC6086706
  15. 15 JungS.W.et al.Risk of malignancy in kidney transplant recipients: a nationwide population-based cohort studyBMC Nephrol.231202216010.1186/s12882-022-02796-616035484531PMC9047256
  16. 16 DevineP.A.et al.Cardiovascular risk in renal transplant recipientsJ. Nephrol.323201938939910.1007/s40620-018-0549-430406606PMC6482292
  17. 17 TaberD.J.et al.The impact of health care appointment non-adherence on graft outcomes in kidney transplantationAm. J. Nephrol.4512017919810.1159/00045355427907919PMC5214896
  18. 18 AghakhaniN.et al.Self-care education program as a new pathway toward improving quality of life in kidney transplant patients: a single-blind, randomized, controlled trialExp Clin Transplant193202122423010.6002/ect.2020.004432967605
  19. 19 NohS.H.ParkJ.S.Development of postoperative self care mobile app for kidney transplantation patientsJ Korea Academia-Industrial Cooperation Soc1712201631632610.5762/KAIS.2016.17.12.316
  20. 20 Been‐DahmenJ.M.J.et al.Self‐management challenges and support needs among kidney transplant recipients: a qualitative studyJ. Adv. Nurs.741020182393240510.1111/jan.1373029869342
  21. 21 MollazadehF.Hemmati MaslakpakM.The effect of teach-back training on self management in kidney transplant recipients: a clinical trialInt J Community Based Nurs Midwifery62201814615529607343PMC5845118
  22. 22 HwangY.H.ParkS.J.A concept analysis of compliance in kidney transplant recipient including compliance with immunosuppressive medicationJ Korean Biol Nurs Sci20202335
  23. 23 ChenT.et al.Follow-Up factors contribute to immunosuppressant adherence in kidney transplant recipientsPatient Prefer. Adherence1620222811281910.2147/PPA.S38324336284546PMC9588292
  24. 24 MoradiO.et al.Pattern and associated factors of adherence to immunosuppressive medications in kidney transplant recipients at a referral center in IranPatient Prefer. Adherence13201972973810.2147/PPA.S19896731190755PMC6514256
  25. 25 GanjaliR.et al.Factors associated with adherence to immunosuppressive therapy and barriers in Asian kidney transplant recipientsImmunoTargets Ther.82019536210.2147/ITT.S21276031807474PMC6844196
  26. 26 CossartA.R.et al.Investigating barriers to immunosuppressant medication adherence in renal transplant patientsNephrology241201910211010.1111/nep.1321429278439
  27. 27 BaeS.J.KimM.Y.Self-care adherence in kidney transplant recipients: convergence factors and elapsed time analysisJ Digit Converg153201725926610.14400/JDC.2017.15.3.259
  28. 28 JeonM.K.ParkY.H.Structural equation modeling of self-management of liver transplant recipientsJ Korean Acad Nurs475201766367510.4040/jkan.2017.47.5.66329151563
  29. 29 ChandlerJ.L.et al.Associations between medication nonadherence and perceived stress among kidney transplant recipientsProg. Transplant.274201739639710.1177/152692481773202329187130PMC7802737
  30. 30 UyarB.The analysis of immunosuppressant therapy adherence, depression, anxiety, and stress in kidney transplant recipients in the post-transplantation periodTranspl. Immunol.75202210168610.1016/j.trim.2022.10168610168635961441
  31. 31 JeongH.W.SoH.S.Structural equation modeling of self-care behaviors in kidney transplant patients based on self-determination theoryJ Korean Acad Nurs486201873174210.4040/jkan.2018.48.6.73130613060
  32. 32 LowJ.K.et al.Stressors and coping resources of Australian kidney transplant recipients related to medication taking: a qualitative studyJ. Clin. Nurs.2611–1220171495150710.1111/jocn.1343527323293
  33. 33 ForteC.C.et al.Risk factors associated with weight gain after kidney transplantation: a cohort studyPLoS One1512202010.1371/journal.pone.0243394PMC776945633370293
  34. 34 SprangersB.et al.Risk factors associated with post-kidney transplant malignancies: an article from the Cancer-Kidney International NetworkClin Kidney J113201831532910.1093/ckj/sfx12229942495PMC6007332
  35. 35 ParkW.Y.et al.Progression of osteoporosis after kidney transplantation in patients with end-stage renal diseaseTransplant. Proc.49520171033103710.1016/j.transproceed.2017.03.03828583521
  36. 36 KimY.M.YooK.H.A correlational study on the knowledge, stress and self-care performance among tuberculosis patientsJ Korean Acad Soc Nurs Educ253201936637710.5977/jkasne.2019.25.3.366
  37. 37 ParkM.J.KimJ.H.JungM.S.A qualitative study on the stress of university students for preparing employmentKorean J. Counsel.101200941743510.15703/kjc.10.1.200903.417
  38. 38 SelyeH.The stress syndromeAm. J. Nurs.6531965979910.1097/00000446-196503000-00034
  39. 39 YangQ.et al.Meta-analysis for social support degree of kidney transplant recipients: evidence from ChinaJ Healthc Eng202120219998947999894910.1155/2021/999894734422252PMC8378972
  40. 40 SuW.et al.Correlation between unhealthy emotions and social support in patients with threatened abortion after in vitro fertilization-embryo transferNursing Practice and Research17520209092
  41. 41 ZhaoS.M.et al.Quality of life, adherence behavior, and social support among renal transplant recipients in China: a descriptive correlational studyTransplant. Proc.501020183329333710.1016/j.transproceed.2018.05.02630577203
  42. 42 ChaeY.R.et al.Relationships among family support, medical staff support, sick role behavior and physiological indicators in hemodialysis patientsKorean J Health Promot2012020243210.15384/kjhp.2020.20.1.24
  43. 43 MoranA.et al.Waiting for a kidney transplant: patients' experiences of haemodialysis therapyJ. Adv. Nurs.673201150150910.1111/j.1365-2648.2010.05460.x20955183
  44. 44 Yngman-UhlinP.et al.Life in standby: hemodialysis patients' experiences of waiting for kidney transplantationJ. Clin. Nurs.251–22016929810.1111/jocn.1299426443674
  45. 45 BujangM.A.et al.Depression, anxiety and stress among patients with dialysis and the association with quality of lifeAsian J Psychiatr182015495210.1016/j.ajp.2015.10.00426549864
  46. 46 CanaudB.et al.Fluid and hemodynamic management in hemodialysis patients: challenges and opportunitiesJ Bras Nefrol414201955055910.1590/2175-8239-jbn-2019-013531661543PMC6979572
  47. 47 YuS.et al.To wait or not to wait: the survival benefit of preemptive kidney transplantation after accounting for lead time biasAm. J. Transplant.202020295
  48. 48 IrishG.L.et al.Quantifying lead time bias when estimating patient survival in preemptive living kidney donor transplantationAm. J. Transplant.191220193367337610.1111/ajt.1547231132214
  49. 49 Prezelin-ReyditM.et al.Prolonged dialysis duration is associated with graft failure and mortality after kidney transplantation: results from the French transplant databaseNephrol. Dial. Transplant.343201853854510.1093/ndt/gfy03929579221
  50. 50 PatzerR.E.et al.Racial and ethnic differences in pediatric access to preemptive kidney transplantation in the United StatesAm. J. Transplant.1372013176917812373138910.1111/ajt.12299PMC3763919
  51. 51 PatzerR.E.et al.Racial disparities in pediatric access to kidney transplantation: does socioeconomic status play a role?Am. J. Transplant.12220123693782222603910.1111/j.1600-6143.2011.03888.xPMC3951009
  52. 52 AtkinsonM.A.et al.Mode of initial renal replacement therapy and transplant outcomes in the chronic kidney disease in children (CKiD) studyPediatr. Nephrol.352020101510213179709510.1007/s00467-019-04416-2PMC7278892
  53. 53 FennellR.S.et al.Demographic and medical predictors of medication compliance among ethnically different pediatric renal transplant patientsPediatr. Transplant.55200134334810.1034/j.1399-3046.2001.00027.x11560753
  54. 54 HaywardM.et al.An instrument to identify stressors in renal transplant recipientsANNA J.162198981852673074
  55. 55 ChoY.S.A Study on Stress and the Quality of Life of Kidney Transplant Recipients1999Korean J Adult Nurs215226
  56. 56 KimO.et al.A Study on the Correlation between Perceived Social Support and the Quality of Life of Hemodialysis Patients1993Seoul National UniversitySeoulUnpublished master’s thesis
  57. 57 KimS.Predicting Factors on Self-Care Behavior in Kidney Transplantation Patients2012Korea UniversitySeoulUnpublished master’s thesis
  58. 58 SegallL.et al.Criteria for and appropriateness of renal transplantation in elderly patients with end-stage renal disease: a literature review and position statement on behalf of the European renal association-European dialysis and transplant association descartes working group and European renal best practiceTransplantation100102016e55e6510.1097/TP.000000000000136727472096
  59. 59 WongG.et al.Comparative survival and economic benefits of deceased donor kidney transplantation and dialysis in people with varying ages and Co-MorbiditiesPLoS One71201210.1371/journal.pone.0029591PMC326116022279541
  60. 60 GandolfiniI.et al.Frailty and sarcopenia in older patients receiving kidney transplantationFront. Nutr.6201916910.3389/fnut.2019.0016916931781571PMC6861371
  61. 61 GrivaK.et al.The impact of treatment transitions between dialysis and transplantation on illness cognitions and quality of life - a prospective studyBr. J. Health Psychol.174201281282710.1111/j.2044-8287.2012.02076.x22536819
  62. 62 StoutN.L.Sabo WagnerS.Antineoplastic therapy side effects and polypharmacy in older adults with cancerTop. Geriatr. Rehabil.3512019153010.1097/TGR.000000000000021231011239PMC6474376
  63. 63 Markle‐ReidM.et al.Community program improves quality of life and self‐management in older adults with diabetes mellitus and comorbidityJ. Am. Geriatr. Soc.662201826327310.1111/jgs.1517329178317PMC5836873
  64. 64 CaversD.et al.Living with and beyond cancer with comorbid illness: a qualitative systematic review and evidence synthesisJ Cancer Surviv131201914815910.1007/s11764-019-0734-z30685822PMC6394454
  65. 65 WillemsD.Managing one's body using self-management techniques: practicing autonomyTheor. Med. Bioeth.2112000233810.1023/A:100999501867710927967
  66. 66 KirkeskovL.et al.Employment of patients with kidney failure treated with dialysis or kidney transplantation-a systematic review and meta-analysisBMC Nephrol.221202134810.1186/s12882-021-02552-234686138PMC8532382
  67. 67 Van Der MeiS.F.et al.Factors determining social participation in the first year after kidney transplantation: a prospective studyTransplantation846200772973710.1097/01.tp.0000281409.35702.5317893606
  68. 68 VisserA.et al.Employment and ability to work after kidney transplantation in The Netherlands: the impact of preemptive versus non-preemptive kidney transplantationClin. Transplant.369202210.1111/ctr.14757PMC978819235716362
  69. 69 YuH.et al.ABO incompatible living donor kidney transplantation with rituximab and plasmapheresis: a single center experienceKorean J Nephrol2011386393
  70. 70 BohlkeM.et al.Predictors of employment after successful kidney transplantation - a population-based studyClin. Transplant.224200840541010.1111/j.1399-0012.2008.00797.x18363736
  71. 71 KimO.ChoiK.Experiences of ABO-incompatible living donor kidney transplantation recipientsTransplantation1015S-32017S4810.1097/01.tp.0000520373.68699.84
  72. 72 GillP.LowesL.Gift exchange and organ donation: donor and recipient experiences of live related kidney transplantationInt. J. Nurs. Stud.451120081607161710.1016/j.ijnurstu.2008.03.00418462738
  73. 73 SaranR.et al.US renal data system 2017 annual data report: epidemiology of kidney disease in the United StatesAm. J. Kidney Dis.7132018A72947715710.1053/j.ajkd.2018.01.002PMC6593155
  74. 74 ChongH.J.et al.Waiting for a kidney transplant: the experience of patients with end-stage renal disease in South KoreaJ. Clin. Nurs.257–8201693093910.1111/jocn.1310726994991
  75. 75 YunS.J.LeeY.H.Factors influencing uncertainty in dialysis patient by duration of dialysisKorean J Adult Nurs246201259760610.7475/kjan.2012.24.6.0597
  76. 76 ParkK.S.et al.Quality of life in children with end-stage renal disease based on a PedsQL ESRD modulePediatr. Nephrol.271220122293230010.1007/s00467-012-2262-122832667
  77. 77 SimM.K.SonS.Y.The effects of an individual educational program on self-care knowledge and self-care behavior in kidney transplantation patientsJ East-West Nurses Res181201291710.14370/jewnr.2012.18.1.009
  78. 78 HwangY.H.ChoeM.A study on the compliance of kidney transplantation recipientsJ Korean Crit Care Nurs422011152510.1097/00007890-199301000-00010
  79. 79 HamedanM.S.AlihaJ.M.Relationship between immunosuppressive medications adherence and quality of life and some patient factors in renal transplant patients in IranGlob J Health Sci64201420510.5539/gjhs.v6n4p20524999131PMC4825472
  80. 80 HurJ.The development of hemodiafiltration treatment compliance indicators and discriminant standards, development of hemodiafiltration treatment compliance measurement - convergent form(HDFTCM-CF) : focused on on-line hemodiafiltrationJ Digit Converg137201526928210.14400/JDC.2015.13.7.269
  81. 81 MckillopG.JoyJ.Patients' experience and perceptions of polypharmacy in chronic kidney disease and its impact on adherent behaviourJ. Ren. Care394201320020710.1111/j.1755-6686.2013.12037.x24245971
  82. 82 KimY.ParkS.Factors influencing self-care behaviors of renal dialysis patientsKorean J. Stress Res.274201932032710.17547/kjsr.2019.27.4.320
  83. 83 EppenbergerL.et al.Back to work? Socioeconomic status after kidney transplantationSwiss Med. Wkly.14531322015w1416910.4414/smw.2015.14169w1416926219088
  84. 84 DanuserB.et al.Employment 12 months after kidney transplantation: an in-depth bio-psycho-social analysis of the Swiss Transplant CohortPLoS One12e0175161201710.1371/journal.pone.017516117-12:14, Art. e0175161<0175117PMC540783328448501
  85. 85 JarlJ.et al.Effects of kidney transplantation on labour market outcomes in SwedenTransplantation102820181375138110.1097/TP.000000000000222829697576
  86. 86 LeeJ.L.ParkH.A study on self-efficacy, coping, and compliance in patients with kidney transplantationKorean J Adult Nurs2712015112010.7475/kjan.2015.27.1.11
  87. 87 JeonY.H.ParkG.J.Relationships between specific self-efficacy, family support, and self-care performance for patients with stomach cancer after gastrectomyJ Korea Academia-Industrial Cooperation Soc1912018456465
  88. 88 LeeJ.A.et al.Factors affecting treatment adherence of kidney transplantation recipientsJ Korea Content Assoc1922019619628
  89. 89 GermaniG.et al.Nonadherent behaviors after solid organ transplantationTransplant. Proc.431201131832310.1016/j.transproceed.2010.09.10321335213
  90. 90 SeoN.S.et al.Relationships between fatigue, sleep disturbance, stress, self-efficacy and depression in hemodialysis patientsJ Korean Clin Nurs Res192201328529710.22650/JKCNR.2013.19.2.285
  91. 91 De Souza RibeiroM.D.N.et al.Feelings, experiences and expectations of kidney transplant individuals and challenges for the nurseRev. Bras. Enferm.741202110.1590/0034-7167-2020-039233787800
  92. 92 Perales-MontillaC.M.et al.The influence of emotional factors on the report of somatic symptoms in patients on chronic haemodialysis: the importance of anxietyNefrologia336201381682510.3265/Nefrologia.pre2013.Aug.1209724241369
  93. 93 KhezerlooS.et al.Predictors of self-management among kidney transplant recipientsUrol. J.164201936637010.22037/uj.v0i0.506131364096
  94. 94 ChenY.C.et al.The roles of social support and health literacy in self‐management among patients with chronic kidney diseaseJ. Nurs. Scholarsh.503201826527510.1111/jnu.1237729569423
  95. 95 StoeckelK.KasserS.L.Spousal support underlying self-determined physical activity in adults with multiple sclerosisDisabil. Rehabil.44720221091109710.1080/09638288.2020.179256432668992
  96. 96 LafontaineM.F.et al.Spousal support and relationship happiness in adults with type 2 diabetes and their spousesCan. J. Diabetes446202048148610.1016/j.jcjd.2020.05.00632651049

Appendix A Supplementary data

The following is the Supplementary data to this article:
Multimedia component 1

Acknowledgments

This research is a revision of the first author's master's thesis from Hanyang University.

Appendix A

Supplementary data to this article can be found online at https://doi.org/10.1016/j.heliyon.2024.e40237.

Author Contributions

  • Mikael Olsen: Formal analysis, Conceptualization, Investigation, Software

Declarations

Competing Interests

The authors declare no competing interests.

Data Availability

The datasets generated and analyzed during the study are available from the corresponding author on reasonable request.

Demonstration content: the full text of this article is adapted from “Predictors of self-care in kidney transplant patients according to preoperative dialysis: A comparative study” by Im and colleagues (Heliyon, 2024; https://doi.org/10.1016/j.heliyon.2024.e40237), which is available under a Creative Commons license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).

Download
PDFJATS XML