The Effect of Peer Support on Hope Among Patients Under Hemodialysis

Figures & data

Figure 1 CONSORT flow diagram of hemodialysis’ subjects who participated in this study.

Table 1 The Demographic and Clinical Characteristics of the Participants in the Intervention and Control Groups

	Intervention	Control	Chi^2, p-value
Gender, n (%)
Male	35 (58.3)	40 (66.7)	χ^2=0.89, p=0.34
Female	25 (41.7)	20 (33.3)
Marital status, n (%)
Single	5 (8.3)	8 (13.4)	χ^2=1.90, p=0.59
Married	51 (85.0)	50 (83.3)
Widowed	3 (5.0)	2 (3.3)
Divorced	1 (1.7)	0 (0.0)
Education level
Illiterate	13 (21.7)	11 (18.3)	χ^2=3.13, p=0.53
Primary school	18 (30.0)	14 (23.3)
Secondary school	14 (23.3)	11 (18.3)
High school and diploma	11 (18.3)	17 (28.3)
Academic	4 (6.7)	7 (11.8)
Age, mean (SD)	56.57 (9.54)	53.30 (10.01)	t=0.23, p=0.81
Length of dialysis,^a mean (SD)	30.60 (15.53)	36.13 (15.23)	t=0.25, p=0.80

Note: ^aMonth.

Table 2 Comparison of the Mean Scores of Hope and Its Subscales in the Two Groups Before and After the Intervention

Variables	Intervention	Control	Test, p-value
	Mean (SD)	Mean (SD)
Hope
Before	62.03 (4.37)	62.40 (6.13)	t=0.37, p=0.70 t=−9.56, p<0.001
After	67.95 (5.67)	56.63 (7.19)
Test, p-value	t=−6.49, p<0.001	t=8.03, p<0.001
Hope subscales
Agency thinking
Before	19.16 (2.21)	20.01 (2.77)	t=1.85, p=0.06 t=−8.28, p<0.001
After	22.43 (2.74)	17.91 (3.20)
Test, p-value	t=−6.96, p<0.001	t=5.76, p<0.001
Pathways thinking
Before	20.45 (2.02)	20.65 (2.44)	t=0.48, p=0.62 t=−9.02, p<0.001
After	22.68 (2.11)	18.93 (2.42)
Test, p-value	t=−6.03, p<0.001	t=6.56, p<0.001