Evaluation of individual quality of life among hemodialysis patients: nominated themes using SEIQoL-adapted

Abstract

Background

Quality of life (QoL) has become an important issue for patients with chronic renal failure diseases who are permanently undergoing hemodialysis. In this study, an adapted schedule for the evaluation of individual quality of life (SEIQoL-adapted) was used to evaluate QoL among hemodialysis patients, to explore their views about the most important aspects of life satisfaction.

Methods and results

A multiple approach design and convenience sampling were applied to recruit 53 patients from a hemodialysis unit in Iran. Data were collected through structured interviews and then analyzed using conventional content analysis. A total score for QoL was calculated using scale guideline. The most important aspects of life were health, family, financial status, living conditions, leisure activities, relationships and socializing, religious and spiritual issues, medical knowledge, and therapies or treatments. The calculated mean QoL score was 66.2, indicating a relatively high life satisfaction. Males had higher QoL scores than females in both married and single groups. Moreover, the relationships between the QoL scores and education, job and marital status were not statistically significant.

Conclusion

The SEIQoL-adapted revealed reasonable lay definitions of QoL in a group of patients following chronic renal failure. The patients’ views of the aspects of life could be used by health policy makers, clinicians, and caregivers as a reliable guide to the most important priorities for treatment and medical interventions.

Keywords:

• quality of life
• SEIQoL-adapted
• renal dialysis

Supplementary materials

Information and tips for using and scoring the SEIQoL-adapted scale

Using the SEIQoL-adapted¹

1. I want you to name five things that are very important for your quality of life.

2. Now I want you to say which of these things is the most important for you, ie, which would you put in first place, then second place, and so on.

3. Now I want you to say how satisfied you are with each thing. You can be very satisfied, satisfied, dissatisfied, or very dissatisfied.

Common items important for people’s quality of life reported to us included health, family, friends, being independent, getting out and about, doing activities, watching TV, money, etc.

Each item was coded individually and then grouped items together after data to collection.

Scoring the SEIQoL-adapted

• Very satisfied = 4

• Satisfied = 3

• Dissatisfied = 2

• Very dissatisfied = 1

Some respondents provided answers on one item, some on two, some on three, four, and five. The distribution of the overall quality of life scores for those providing answers to different number of items were all standardized to a range from 25 to 100. The following score was given to the rank of each item, dependent on how many items participants reported.

If the participants named five items, then the overall score (S) was: $\begin{array}{l}\text{Total score}=(\text{item}1\times \text{satisfaction score})\\ +(\text{item}2\times \text{satisfaction score})\\ +(\text{item}3\times \text{satisfaction score})\\ +(\text{item}4\times \text{satisfaction score})\\ +(\text{item}5\times \text{satisfaction score}).\end{array}$

• Rank 1, score = 10

• Rank 2, score = 7

• Rank 3, score = 5

• Rank 4, score = 2

• Rank 5, score = 1

$\mathrm{S}=10\times (\mathrm{A})+7\times (\mathrm{B})+5\times (\mathrm{C})+2\times (\mathrm{D})+1\times (\mathrm{E}),$where A, B, C, D, and E are the ranks of the five items.

If the participants named four items, then the overall score was: $\begin{array}{l}\text{Total score}=(\text{item}1\times \text{satisfaction score})\\ +(\text{item}2\times \text{satisfaction score})\\ +(\text{item}3\times \text{satisfaction score})\\ +(\text{item}4\times \text{satisfaction score}).\end{array}$

• Rank 1, score = 10

• Rank 2, score = 7

• Rank 3, score = 5

• Rank4, score = 3

$\mathrm{S}=10\times (\mathrm{A})+7\times (\mathrm{B})+5\times (\mathrm{C})+3\times (\mathrm{D}),$where A, B, C, and D are the ranks of the first four items.

If the participants named three items, then the overall score was: $\begin{array}{l}\text{Total score}=(\text{item}1\times \text{satisfaction score})\\ +(\text{item}2\times \text{satisfaction score})\\ +(\text{item}3\times \text{satisfaction score})\end{array}$

• Rank 1, score = 12

• Rank 2, score = 8

• Rank 3, score = 5

$\mathrm{S}=12\times (\mathrm{A})+8\times (\mathrm{B})+5\times (\mathrm{C}),$where A, B, and C are the ranks of first three items.

If the participants named two items, then the overall score was: $\begin{array}{l}\text{Total score}=(\text{item}1\times \text{satisfaction score})\\ +(\text{item}2\times \text{satisfaction score})\end{array}$

• Rank 1, score = 15

• Rank 2, score = 10

$\mathrm{S}=15\times (\mathrm{A})+10\times (\mathrm{B}),$where A and B are the ranks of the first and second items.

If the participants named one thing that was important for their QoL, then the overall score was: $\text{Total score}=(\text{item}1\times \text{satisfaction score})$

• Rank 1, score = 25

$\mathrm{S}=25\times (\mathrm{A}),$where A is the rank (between 1 and 4) of item.

For example, if a participant answered three items and were ranked 2 (dissatisfied), 3 (satisfied), and 1 (very dissatisfied), the overall quality of life score would be S = 12 (2) + 8 (3) + 5 (1) = 53.

Reference

• MatlabiHParkerSGMcKeeKThe contribution of home-based technology to older people’s quality of life in extra care housingBMC Geriatr2011311168
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Acknowledgments

This study was financed by a grant from the Tabriz University of Medical Sciences (5/53/3166-2014/08/28). We are most grateful for the assistance given by the facilitators, participants, and dialysis staff of Amir-Almomenin Hospital (Mr Jafari and Mrs Seif Ahmadi) in Maragheh, Iran. Professor Tony Warnes of the University of Sheffield (UK) kindly provided advice on the English expression in the paper. We also thank Professor Hamid Allahverdipour for comments that greatly improved the manuscript. Last, but not least, we would like to show our gratitude to Professor Kevin McKee, Dalarna University, who provided insight and expertise that greatly assisted the research.

Disclosure

The authors report no conflicts of interest in this work.