Skip Navigation


NDT Advance Access originally published online on December 12, 2006
Nephrology Dialysis Transplantation 2007 22(3):845-850; doi:10.1093/ndt/gfl700
This Article
Right arrow Abstract Freely available
Right arrow FREE Full Text (PDF) Freely available
Right arrow All Versions of this Article:
22/3/845    most recent
gfl700v1
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in ISI Web of Science
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to My Personal Archive
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow Search for citing articles in:
ISI Web of Science (4)
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Right arrow Disclaimer
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Thong, M. S. Y.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Thong, M. S. Y.
Social Bookmarking
Add to CiteULike   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us  
What's this?

© The Author [2006]. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of ERA-EDTA. All rights reserved. For Permissions, please email: journals.permissions@oxfordjournals.org

Social support predicts survival in dialysis patients

Melissa S. Y. Thong1, Adrian A. Kaptein2, Raymond T. Krediet3, Elisabeth W. Boeschoten4, Friedo W. Dekker1 for the Netherlands Cooperative Study on the Adequacy of Dialysis (NECOSAD) Study Group

1Department of Clinical Epidemiology and 2Department of Medical Psychology, Leiden University Medical Centre, Leiden, 3Department of Nephrology, Academic Medical Centre, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam and 4Hans Mak Institute, Naarden, The Netherlands

Correspondence and offprint requests to: Melissa Thong, Department of Clinical Epidemiology, Leiden University Medical Centre, PO Box 9600, 2300 RC Leiden, The Netherlands. Email: S.Y.M.Thong{at}lumc.nl



   Abstract
Top
 Abstract
Introduction
 Subjects and method
 Results
 Discussion
 Appendix 1.
 Acknowledgements
 References
 
Background. Social support is a consistent predictor of survival, as evidenced in empirical studies in patients with cancer or cardiovascular disease. In the area of renal diseases, this topic has not yet been studied extensively. This study, therefore, aimed to investigate the association between social support and survival for patients on dialysis.

Methods. Between December 1998 and January 2002, 528 incident haemodialysis (HD) and peritoneal dialysis (PD) patients from multiple centres in The Netherlands were consecutively recruited as part of the NECOSAD-2 study. Patients completed the Social Support List (SSL) at 3 months after the start of dialysis. The SSL measured two aspects of social support: interaction and discrepancy. Cox regression analysis was used to estimate all-cause mortality risk from baseline till censor date on 1 January 2005.

Results. Perceiving a discrepancy between expected and received social support was associated with increased mortality: social companionship (RRadj: 1.06, 95% CI: 1.00–1.13), daily emotional support (RRadj: 1.10, 95% CI: 1.02–1.18), and total support (RRadj: 1.02, 95% CI: 1.00–1.04). This association was similar for PD and HD patients. Social support (interaction) was not associated with survival, neither in the whole sample nor when stratified by therapy modality.

Conclusions. These results point to the importance of psychosocial risk factors for mortality in patients on dialysis. More efforts are needed to improve support for these patients.

Keywords: dialysis; ESRD; mortality; social support



   Introduction
Top
 Abstract
 Introduction
Subjects and method
 Results
 Discussion
 Appendix 1.
 Acknowledgements
 References
 
Mortality in dialysis patients is positively associated with age, comorbidity, inflammation and a number of other factors related to atherosclerosis [1–3]. As these factors are often non-modifiable, research is also focusing on potential modifiable psychosocial factors such as social support as possible mediator for survival amongst dialysis patients. Having access to social support, be it from the spouse, family members, friends, colleagues or the community, has been consistently linked to better health outcomes for patients with various chronic illnesses [4–6].

Compared with chronic illnesses like cancer or cardiovascular disease, there is a paucity of research addressing the association between social support and mortality rates in dialysis patients. A literature search in this area identified three relevant studies, which all described an increased risk of mortality with lower levels of social support [7–9]. These associations could be mediated by better dietary [10] and treatment [9,11] compliance, and the promotion of a sense of well-being [7]. Interpretation of the results should be made with caution as these studies are limited by small sample size, focus mainly on haemodialysis (HD) or use prevalent instead of incident patients.

Understanding how having social support at the start of dialysis treatment is associated with survival and well-being may have important clinical benefits for this patient population as it can inform clinical practice for the promotion or improvement of patients’ support networks. Using a large sample from the Netherlands Co-operative Study on the Adequacy of Dialysis (NECOSAD-2) [12,13], our study examined the effect of social support at the commencement of dialysis on survival rates amongst patients on dialysis.



   Subjects and method
Top
 Abstract
 Introduction
 Subjects and method
Results
 Discussion
 Appendix 1.
 Acknowledgements
 References
 
Patients
Incident dialysis patients with informed consent were consecutively recruited between December 1998 and January 2002 from multiple centres as part of the NECOSAD-2 study. Eligibility included being over 18 years of age, having had no previous history of renal replacement therapy, and surviving the initial 3 months of dialysis. This study was approved by all local medical ethics committees.

Measurements
Data on demographics, underlying cause of kidney failure, body mass index (BMI), serum albumin level, residual renal function and comorbidity were collected at baseline. The primary cause of kidney disease was classified using the European Renal Association-European Dialysis and Transplantation Association codes. Residual renal function parameters included the residual glomerular filtration rate (rGFR) (calculated as the mean renal clearance of urine and creatinine corrected for body surface), and the Kt/Vurea/week (calculated as renal urea clearance corrected for the urea distribution volume according to Watson et al. [14]). Patients’ comorbidities were classified using the 3-point Davies score [15] which was determined by the number and type of comorbid conditions present. Nutritional status was measured with the 7-point Subjective Global Assessment (SGA) scale [16]. Functional status of the patients was assessed by dialysis staff using the Karnofsky scale [17]. Two items from the Kidney Disease and Quality of Life Short Form (KDQOL-SF) were used as depression indicators: ‘Have you felt so down in the dumps that nothing can cheer you up?’ and ‘Have you felt downhearted and blue?’ [18]. Patients rated these two items on a 6-point scale (1 = all the time; 6 = never). A score of ≤3 for any one of the two items was considered an indication of depression.

Social support was assessed using the self-administered Social Support List (SSL) [19], a validated instrument that has been used with kidney transplant patients [20] and other population samples [21,22]. Patients were given the SSL during their baseline visit at 3 months from start of dialysis, with instructions to return the filled questionnaire via pre-paid post within a week. Thirty- four items from the SSL were used as a measure of two aspects of social support: ‘Interaction’ (SSL-I) measures the frequency of social support that the patient receives; and ‘Discrepancy’ (SSL-D) is the perceived difference in social support between that which is desired and what is received by the patient. Both SSL-I and SSL-D assess three types of social support (Appendix 1): ‘social companionship’ measures the frequency of social activities such as telephone calls, visits and invitations from friends that patients received; ‘Daily emotional support’ pertains to shows of affection received; and ‘Emotional support with problems’ refers to acts of motivation, encouragement, comfort, advice giving and/or problem solving received. Patients rated items from the three subscales using a 4-point scale (1 = seldom/never; 4 = very often) on the frequency in which they received social support (interaction). The sum of the items in each subscale forms the subscale score. A total support score is obtained by summing the three subscale scores. High scores indicate that patients report receiving good social support. For the discrepancy score, patients rated their perceived discrepancy between the desired and received level of social support on a 4-point scale (1 = ‘I miss it; would like more’; 4 = ‘Happens too often; wish it was less’). Item-scores were recoded to calculate the discrepancy in patients’ desired and actual level of support received. Higher discrepancy scores suggest lower level of perceived support. The SSL has good reliability, ranging from 0.81 to 0.91 for the different aspects of social support in both the interaction and discrepancy subscales [19]; in our study, the Cronbach {alpha} for the various aspects of social support in both subscales were between 0.82 and 0.94.

Statistical analyses
Cox proportional hazard models were used to determine the associations between social support and mortality, with adjustments for demographics, comorbidity, serum albumin (as an indicator for chronic inflammation or malnutrition), functional ability, depressive symptoms and treatment modality. Patients were followed till death or censor. Reasons for censoring included loss to follow-up, transplantation or end of follow-up on 1 January 2005. Significance levels were determined at P ≤ 0.05.



   Results
Top
 Abstract
 Introduction
 Subjects and method
 Results
Discussion
 Appendix 1.
 Acknowledgements
 References
 
Of the 606 eligible patients, 528 (87%) returned the SSL as per instructions. Reasons for non-response were poor health or being not fluent in Dutch. Patients were followed up for an average of 910.8 days (±563.4 days). Mean sample age was 58.8 years (±14.3), with 59% male and 68% married or living together (Table 1). Females, elderly (≥65 years), and HD patients perceived having slightly better emotional support with problems (5% higher score, i.e., 0.2SD), but no differences on other social support dimensions were observed. Baseline covariates such as age, treatment modality, education level, employment, primary cause of kidney disease, comorbidity, SGA scores, serum albumin, Karnofsky scores, and depression indicators were significantly associated with mortality in univariate analyses.


View this table:
[in this window]
[in a new window]

  		Table 1. Baseline characteristics and relative risk for mortality

 
A total of 189 patients died during follow-up. The main cause of death was due to cardiovascular reasons (23.6%).

The social support interaction subscales were positively associated with each other, and negatively associated with the social support discrepancy subscales (Table 2). No correlations were found between the social support variables and clinical variables such as BMI, serum albumin, and Kt/V. Indication of depression was negatively correlated with social companionship (interaction) and daily emotional support (interaction), and positively associated with all three of the social support discrepancy variables.


View this table:
[in this window]
[in a new window]

  		Table 2. Pearson correlations between social support variables, depression indicator and clinical variables

 
Table 3 shows the hazard estimates between social support and mortality for the whole sample. The adjusted hazard ratios suggest there were no significant associations between any of the three aspects of social support (interactions) and survival.


View this table:
[in this window]
[in a new window]

  		Table 3. RR of aspects of social support on all-cause mortality from baseline to end of follow-up

 
The association between discrepancy in social support and mortality suggests that patients who perceived receiving insufficient social support have an increased mortality risk (Table 3). A 1-point adjusted increase in the discrepancy score for social companionship, daily emotional support and total support was associated with a 6%, 10% and 2% increase in mortality risk, respectively. The risk associated with discrepancy in emotional support with problems was reduced to non-significance following adjustments.

The effect of social support on mortality was similar in HD when compared with peritoneal dialysis (PD) patients. However, due to the smaller sample in each category following stratification, the confidence intervals (CI) in both subgroups were slightly wider (data not shown). Only daily emotional support (discrepancy) remained significant for HD patients after adjustments.



   Discussion
Top
 Abstract
 Introduction
 Subjects and method
 Results
 Discussion
Appendix 1.
 Acknowledgements
 References
 
Our study, using a large sample of incident dialysis patients, suggests that higher discrepancy between received and expected level of types of social support such as social companionship, daily emotional support and total support, was associated with higher mortality. These risks remained even after controlling for possible confounders such as age, gender, education level, marital status, comorbidity, serum albumin level, depression indicators, functional ability and treatment modality.

Social support affects health through behavioural, physiological and psychological mechanisms [23]. Provision of social support can be through emotional means, tangible efforts, information sharing or advice giving.

The disease characteristics of end-stage renal disease (ESRD) and its treatments are functionally debilitating, affecting social relationships and activities of daily living [24]. Discrepancy in social support expectations between patients and their family and friends results if patients hope to minimize lifestyle changes within the restrictions of dialysis whilst their support network might be unaware or unsure of how to cope with the patients’ treatment and dietary needs [25]. Our results suggest an increased mortality risk amongst patients who perceive that they have insufficient supportive interactions. Our results are consistent with that of Christensen et al. [7] who reported that higher perceived family support was associated with lower mortality in HD patients.

That social companionship is important to our sample is consistent with previous research of dialysis patients using different cohorts, or in patients with other chronic illnesses [9,26,27]. Feeling socially isolated can induce stress and anxiety, which in turn can produce physiological changes, such as a compromised immune system [28], which if prolonged, could lead to higher morbidity and mortality [29].

Perceiving inadequacy in daily emotional support or shows of affection was associated with higher mortality in our sample. This finding again suggests that in view of the tremendous changes brought on by dialysis, patients might develop feelings of guilt and of being a burden to family and loved ones [24]. This in turn could increase patients’ need for shows of affection and acceptance from their support network.

Both receiving and perceiving having inadequate emotional support with problems were not associated with mortality in our study. Although receiving encouragement and advice from one's social support network can facilitate lifestyle change, it can also interfere. It interferes when the instances of support were deemed non-supportive by the patient despite the provider's best intentions, and could signify the failure of the provider to understand the patient's needs [30]. Patients might consider encouragement and advice giving as undesired criticism or control by their loved ones [31]. Viewed in this context, our patients might consider that being told to persevere in their illness, advice giving, or being given a nudge in the right direction, as being unhelpful or even a source of conflict.

We found no significant differences between HD and PD patients in the frequency of supportive interactions received and mortality. However, HD patients perceived receiving less sufficiency of daily emotional support compared with PD patients. This is of interest as it could be again related to the point discussed above regarding feelings of guilt and burden associated with dialysis. Compared with PD, patients on HD might require more help with transportation, financial support and home management [32].

This study does have limitations. Social support needs can be dynamic [33]. We measured social support once at baseline whilst the follow-up period could be up to 6 years. Thus, our data might reflect the needs of patients at the early stages of dialysis and may not be representative over time.

Previous research suggests that depression is significantly associated with mortality in dialysis patients [34,35]. Depression was also found to be associated with lower levels of perceived social support in HD patients [36]. In our study, depression indicators were significantly associated with mortality, and were included in our model for adjustment. However, the association between social support and mortality remained similar when we excluded depression indicators from the model (results not shown). This suggests that possible depression is not an important factor in our study.

Understanding that patients on dialysis require different types of social support has important clinical implications. Clinical care providers could tailor intervention programmes to improve social support based on patients’ needs, such as recommendations to appropriate programmes like self-help groups [37] or psycho-educational programmes [38–41] designed to promote self-efficacy in coping with dialysis. Besides providing relevant medical information regarding lifestyle changes due to dialysis, clinical care providers should also highlight to patients and family/caregivers the relational dynamics involved in lifestyle changes [31]. Patients and their family/caregivers could be made aware of potential conflicts that could arise when communicating encouragement and support for lifestyle change.

ESRD patients undergoing dialysis could require different types of social support depending on their social environment and the severity of the illness. Future studies could provide a longitudinal assessment with several points of data collection to chart for possible changes in social support needs since the start of dialysis and its association with survival.

In conclusion, this study suggests that patients’ perception regarding the adequacy of their social support is an independent predictor of mortality. Different aspects of social support have varying levels of importance to the patients. To improve the long-term outcome of dialysis patients, efforts to prepare patients psychologically for the demands of dialysis treatment should be an integral part of their clinical care.



   Appendix 1.
Top
 Abstract
 Introduction
 Subjects and method
 Results
 Discussion
 Appendix 1.
Acknowledgements
 References
 

Items in the Social Support List (SSL) subscales

Scale Item (Does it ever happen to you that people*....)
Social companionship – ask you to join in?
– just call you up or just chat to you?
– drop in for a (pleasant) visit?
– go shopping, to the movies or sports matches, or just go out for a day with you?
– invite you to a party or to dinner?
Daily emotional support – are affectionate towards you?
– cuddle/hug you?
– lend you a friendly ear?
– show that they are fond of you?
Emotional support with problems – stand by you?
– perk you up or cheer you up?
– give you a nudge in the right direction
– give you good advice
– tell you to persevere?
– comfort you?
– help you to clarify your problems?
– reassure you?

*‘people’ refers to all the people the patient associates with, such as family, friends, acquaintances, neighbours, colleagues, etc.



   Acknowledgements
Top
 Abstract
 Introduction
 Subjects and method
 Results
 Discussion
 Appendix 1.
 Acknowledgements
References
 
We thank the nursing staff of the participating dialysis centres and the staff of the NECOSAD trial office fo their invaluable assistance in the collection and management of data for this study. This work was supported in part by unrestricted grants from Baxter Healthcare and the Dutch Kidney Foundation.

The Netherlands Cooperative Study on the Adequacy of Dialysis (NECOSAD) Study Group: A. J. Apperloo, J. A. Bijlsma, M. Boekhout, W. H. Boer, P. J. M. van der Boog, H. R. Büller, M. van Buren, F. Th. de Charro, C. J. Doorenbos, M. A. van den Dorpel, A. van Es, W. J. Fagel, G. W. Feith, C. W. H. de Fijter, L. A. M. Frenken, W. Grave, J. A. C. A. van Geelen, P. G. G. Gerlag, J. P. M. C. Gorgels, R. M. Huisman, K. J. Jager, K. Jie, W. A. H. Koning-Mulder, M. I. Koolen, T. K. Kremer Hovinga, A. T. J. Lavrijssen, A. J. Luik, J. van der Meulen, K. J. Parlevliet, M. H. M. Raasveld, F. M. van der Sande, M. J. M. Schonck, M. M. J. Schuurmans, C. E. H. Siegert, C. A. Stegeman, P. Stevens, J. G. P. Thijssen, R. M. Valentijn, G. H. Vastenburg, C. A. Verburgh, H. H. Vincent, P. F. Vos.

Conflict of interest statement. None declared.



   References
Top
 Abstract
 Introduction
 Subjects and method
 Results
 Discussion
 Appendix 1.
 Acknowledgements
 References
 

  1. Shlipak MG, Fried LF, Cushman M, et al. (2005) Cardiovascular mortality risk in chronic kidney disease: Comparison of traditional and novel risk factors. JAMA 293:1737–1745.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  2. Korevaar JC, van Manen JG, Dekker FW, et al. (2004) Effect of an increase in C-reactive protein level during a hemodialysis session on mortality. J Am Soc Nephrol 15:2916–2922.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  3. Lok CE, Oliver MJ, Rothwell DM, et al. (2004) The growing volume of diabetes-related dialysis: A population based study. Nephrol Dial Transplant 19:3098–3103.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  4. Hemingway H and Marmot M. (1999) Evidence based cardiology: Psychosocial factors in the aetiology and prognosis of coronary heart disease: systematic review of prospective cohort studies. Br Med J 318:1460–1467.[Free Full Text]
  5. Uchino BN. (2006) Social support and health: A review of physiological processes potentially underlying links to disease outcomes. J Behav Med 29:377–387.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]
  6. van Dam HA, van der Horst FG, Knoops L, et al. (2005) Social support in diabetes: a systematic review of controlled intervention studies. Patient Educ Couns 59:1–12.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]
  7. Christensen AJ, Wiebe JS, Smith TW, et al. (1994) Predictors of survival among hemodialysis patients: Effect of perceived family support. Health Psychol 13:521–525.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]
  8. McClellan WM, Stanwyck DJ, Anson CA. (1993) Social support and subsequent mortality among patients with end-stage renal disease. J Am Soc Nephrol 4:1028–1034.[Abstract]
  9. Kimmel PL, Peterson RA, Weihs KL, et al. (1998) Psychosocial factors, behavioral compliance and survival in urban hemodialysis patients. Kidney Int 54:245–254.[Web of Science][Medline]
  10. Oka M and Chaboyer W. (1999) Dietary behaviors and sources of support in hemodialysis patients. Clin Nurs Res 8:302–317.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  11. O'Brien ME. (1990) Compliance behavior and long-term maintenance dialysis. Am J Kidney Dis 15:209–214.[Web of Science][Medline]
  12. Merkus MP, Jager KJ, Dekker FW, et al. (2000) Predictors of poor outcome in chronic dialysis patients: The Netherlands Cooperative study on the adequacy of dialysis. Am J Kidney Dis 35:69–79.[Web of Science][Medline]
  13. Merkus MP, Jager KJ, Dekker FW, et al. (1999) for the Necosad Study Group. Quality of life over time in dialysis: The Netherlands Cooperative study on the adequacy of dialysis. Kidney Int 56:720–728.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]
  14. Watson PE, Watson ID, Batt RD. (1980) Total body water volumes for adult males and females estimated from simple anthropometric measurements. Am J Clin Nutr 33:27–39.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  15. Davies SJ, Phillips L, Russell GI, et al. (1995) Comorbidity, urea kinetics, and appetite in continuous ambulatory peritoneal dialysis patients: their interrelationship and prediction of survival. Am J Kidney Dis 26:353–361.[Web of Science][Medline]
  16. Visser R, Dekker FW, Boeschoten EW, et al. (1999) Reliability of the 7-point subjective global assessment scale in assessing nutritional status of dialysis patients. Adv Perit Dial 15:222–225.[Medline]
  17. Karnofsky DA and Burcherval JH. (1949) The clinical evaluation of chemotherapeutic agents in cancer. In Macleod CM (Ed.). Evaluation of chemotherapeutic agents in cancer(Columbia University Press, New York) pp. 191–205.
  18. Lopes AA, Bragg J, Young E, et al. (2002) Depression as a predictor of mortality and hospitalization among hemodialysis patients in the United States and Europe. Kidney Int 62:199–207.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]
  19. van Sonderen E. (1993) Het meten van sociale steun met de Sociale Steun Lijst-Interacties (SSL-I) en de Sociale Steun Lijst-Discrepancies (SSL-D), een handleiding. (Noordelijk Centrum voor Gezondheidsvraagstukken, Groningen) [Assessing social support with the Social Support List-Interactions (SSL-I) and the social support list-discrepancies, a manual].
  20. Rosenberger J, van Dijk JP, Nagyova I, et al. (2006) Predictors of perceived health status in patients after kidney transplantation. Transplantation 81:1306–1310.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]
  21. Prins JB, Bos E, Huibers MJH, et al. (2004) Social support and the persistence of complaints in chronic fatigue syndrome. Psychother Psychosom 73:174–182.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]
  22. Wijnberg-Williams BJ, Kamps WA, Klip EC, Hoekstra-Weebers JEH. (2006) Psychological distress and the impact of social support on fathers and mothers of pediatric cancer patients: long-term prospective results. J Pediatr Psychol 31:785–792.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  23. Schwarzer R, Knoll N, Rieckmann N. (2004) Social support. In Kaptein A and Weinman J (Eds.). Health Psychology(Blackwell Publishing, Oxford) pp. 158–181.
  24. Rounds KA and Israel BA. (1985) Social networks and social support: living with chronic renal disease. Patient Educ Couns 7:227–247.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]
  25. Polaschek N. (2003) Living on dialysis: concerns of clients in a renal setting. J Adv Nurs 41:44–52.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]
  26. Brummett BH, Barefoot JC, Siegler IC, et al. (2001) Characteristics of socially isolated patients with coronary artery disease who are at elevated risk for mortality. Psychosom Med 63:267–272.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  27. Murberg TA and Bru E. (2001) Social relationships and mortality in patients with congestive heart failure. J Psychosom Res 51:521–527.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]
  28. Steptoe A, Owen N, Kunz-Ebrecht SR, et al. (2004) Loneliness and neuroendocrine, cardiovascular, and inflammatory stress responses in middle-aged men and women. Psychoneuroendocrinology 29:593–611.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]
  29. House JS. (2001) Social isolation kills, but how and why? Psychosom Med 63:273–274.[Free Full Text]
  30. Revenson TA, Schiaffino KM, Majerovitz SD, Gibofsky A. (1991) Social support as a double-edged sword: the relation of positive and problematic support to depression among rheumatoid arthritis patients. Soc Sci Med 33:807–813.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]
  31. Goldsmith DJ, Lindholm KA, Bute JJ. (2006) Dilemmas of talking about lifestyle changes among couples coping with a cardiac event. Soc Sci Med 63:2079–2090.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]
  32. Gurklis JA and Menke EM. (1995) Chronic hemodialysis patients’ perceptions of stress, coping, and social support. ANNA 22:381–388.
  33. Kamphuis HC, Verhoeven NW, Leeuw R, et al. (2004) ICD: a qualitative study of patient experience the first year after implantation. J Clin Nurs 13:1008–1016.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]
  34. Kimmel PL, Peterson RA, Weihs KL, et al. (2000) Multiple measurements of depression predict mortality in a longitudinal study of chronic hemodialysis patients. Kidney Int 57:2093–2098.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]
  35. Einwohner R, Bernardini J, Piraino B. (2004) The effect of depressive symptoms on survival in peritoneal dialysis patients. Perit Dial Int 24:256–263.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  36. Gençöz T and Astan G. (2006) Social support, locus of control, and depressive symptoms in hemodialysis patients. Scand J Psychol 47:203–208.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]
  37. Davison KP, Pennebaker JM, Dickerson SS. (2000) Who talks? The social psychology of illness support groups. Am Psychol 55:205–217.[CrossRef][Medline]
  38. Friend R, Singletary Y, Mendell N, et al. (1968) Group participation and survival among patients with end-stage renal disease. Am J Public Health 76:670–672.[CrossRef]
  39. Tsay SL, Lee YC, Lee YC. (2005) Effects of an adaptation training programme for patients with end-stage renal disease. J Adv Nurs 50:39–46.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]
  40. Klang B, Björvell H, Berglund J, et al. (1998) Predialysis patient education: effects on functioning and well-being in uraemic patients. J Adv Nurs 28:36–44.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]
  41. Hener T, Weisenberg M, Har-Even D. (1996) Supportive versus cognitive-behavioral intervention programs in achieving adjustment to home peritoneal kidney dialysis. J Consult Clin Psychol 64:731–741.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]
Received for publication: 26. 6.06
Accepted in revised form: 27.10.06


Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us    What's this?


This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
 Nephrol Dial TransplantHome page
P. Roderick, C. Byrne, A. Casula, R. Steenkamp, D. Ansell, R. Burden, D. Nitsch, and T. Feest
Survival of patients from South Asian and Black populations starting renal replacement therapy in England and Wales
Nephrol. Dial. Transplant., July 21, 2009; (2009) gfp348v1.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 Nephrol Dial TransplantHome page
E. J. Gordon and J. C. Caicedo
Ethnic advantages in kidney transplant outcomes: the Hispanic Paradox at work?
Nephrol. Dial. Transplant., April 1, 2009; 24(4): 1103 - 1109.
[Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 Nephrol Dial TransplantHome page
T. O. van den Beukel, F. W. Dekker, and C. E. H. Siegert
Increased survival of immigrant compared to native dialysis patients in an urban setting in the Netherlands
Nephrol. Dial. Transplant., November 1, 2008; 23(11): 3571 - 3577.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 CJASNHome page
J. Spinale, S. D. Cohen, P. Khetpal, R. A. Peterson, B. Clougherty, C. M. Puchalski, S. S. Patel, and P. L. Kimmel
Spirituality, Social Support, and Survival in Hemodialysis Patients
Clin. J. Am. Soc. Nephrol., November 1, 2008; 3(6): 1620 - 1627.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

This Article
Right arrow Abstract Freely available
Right arrow FREE Full Text (PDF) Freely available
Right arrow All Versions of this Article:
22/3/845    most recent
gfl700v1
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in ISI Web of Science
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to My Personal Archive
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow Search for citing articles in:
ISI Web of Science (4)
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Right arrow Disclaimer
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Thong, M. S. Y.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Thong, M. S. Y.
Social Bookmarking
Add to CiteULike   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us  
What's this?