Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Mostrar: 20 | 50 | 100
Resultados 1 - 4 de 4
Filtrar
Más filtros

Tipo del documento
País de afiliación
Intervalo de año de publicación
1.
Transplant Proc ; 56(1): 37-43, 2024.
Artículo en Inglés | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-38195285

RESUMEN

BACKGROUND: Frailty is widely prevalent among kidney transplant (KT) candidates and is associated with poor peri and post-transplant outcomes. Whether frailty is a modifiable risk factor in KT candidates is unknown. Efforts to intervene in frailty have been hindered by a lack of a standardized approach to testing and treating frailty in clinical practice. METHODS: Patients undergoing evaluation for kidney transplantation underwent frailty testing during their clinical visits using a combination of the Short Physical Performance Battery (SPPB) and Groningen Frailty Indicator (GFI) instruments. Scores from the SPPB and GFI were combined to stratify patients into 4 risk groups. Patients in the highest-risk groups were referred to physical therapy (PT) and returned for repeat frailty testing. Pre- and post-PT scores were compared with assessment for improvement. RESULTS: Forty patients met the criteria for PT, of which 16 (40%) completed PT and returned for repeat frailty testing. The mean SPPB score improved from 5.88 to 8.94 after PT (P < .01). The mean GFI score improved from 5.25 to 4.06 after PT but was not statistically significant (P = .081). CONCLUSIONS: Our unique approach of using 2 validated scores, SPPB and GFI, together addressed many components of frailty evaluation, including physical, cognitive, and psychosocial components. We used PT as a targeted intervention for addressing both the physical and non-physical impairments among frail KT candidates. Physical therapy was noted to have a positive impact on each of these components.


Asunto(s)
Fragilidad , Trasplante de Riñón , Humanos , Fragilidad/diagnóstico , Fragilidad/complicaciones , Trasplante de Riñón/efectos adversos , Factores de Riesgo , Complicaciones Posoperatorias/etiología
2.
Artículo en Inglés | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-38552901

RESUMEN

OBJECTIVE: Dramatic changes in state-level cannabis laws (CL) over the past 25 years have shifted societal beliefs throughout the United States, with unknown implications for youth. In the present study, we conducted an updated systematic review and meta-analysis examining estimated effects of medical cannabis legalization (MCL) and recreational cannabis legalization (RCL) on past-month cannabis use among US youth. METHOD: A systematic review was conducted following Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines, followed by a subsequent meta-analysis investigating the associations between state-level cannabis laws (ie, MCL vs non-MCL, and RCL vs non-RCL) and past-month cannabis use prevalence among US adolescents and young adults. Supplemental analyses examined age-group effects and design-related factors. RESULTS: Our search identified 4,604 citations, 34 and 30 of which were included in qualitative and quantitative analyses, respectively. Meta-analysis of MCL studies identified no significant association between MCL and change in past-month youth cannabis use (odds ratio [OR] = 0.981, 95% CI = 0.960, 1.003). Meta-analysis of RCL studies showed significantly increased odds of past-month cannabis use (OR = 1.134, 95% CI = 1.116-1.153). Meta-analysis of more recent studies, however, showed a significantly increased odds of past-month cannabis use among both adolescents and young adults (OR = 1.089, 95% CI = 1.015,1.169, and OR = 1.221, 95% CI = 1.188,1.255, respectively). CONCLUSION: Cannabis legalization has complex and heterogenous effects on youth use that may differ across law types. Our meta-analytic results showed modest positive effects of RCL on past-month cannabis use (more so in young adults than in adolescents) and minimal effects of MCL on these outcomes in US youth. Given the shift toward recreational legalization, additional focus on RCL effects is warranted.

3.
Kidney Med ; 6(3): 100785, 2024 Mar.
Artículo en Inglés | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-38435065

RESUMEN

Rationale & Objective: Dialysis comes with a substantial treatment burden, so patients must select care plans that align with their preferences. We aimed to deepen the understanding of decisional regret with dialysis choices. Study Design: This study had a mixed-methods explanatory sequential design. Setting & Participants: All patients from a single academic medical center prescribed maintenance in-center hemodialysis or presenting for home hemodialysis or peritoneal dialysis check-up during 3 weeks were approached for survey. A total of 78 patients agreed to participate. Patients with the highest (15 patients) and lowest decisional regret (20 patients) were invited to semistructured interviews. Predictors: Decisional regret scale and illness intrusiveness scale were used in this study. Analytical Approach: Quantitatively, we examined correlations between the decision regret scale and illness intrusiveness scale and sorted patients into the highest and lowest decision regret scale quartiles for further interviews; then, we compared patient characteristics between those that consented to interview in high and low decisional regret. Qualitatively, we used an adapted grounded theory approach to examine differences between interviewed patients with high and low decisional regret. Results: Of patients invited to participate in the interviews, 21 patients (8 high regret, 13 low regret) agreed. We observed that patients with high decisional regret displayed resignation toward dialysis, disruption of their sense of self and social roles, and self-blame, whereas patients with low decisional regret demonstrated positivity, integration of dialysis into their identity, and self-compassion. Limitations: Patients with the highest levels of decisional regret may have already withdrawn from dialysis. Patients could complete interviews in any location (eg, home, dialysis unit, and clinical office), which may have influenced patient disclosure. Conclusions: Although all patients experienced disruption after dialysis initiation, patients' approach to adversity differs between patients experiencing high versus low regret. This study identifies emotional responses to dialysis that may be modifiable through patient-support interventions.


As part of a quality improvement initiative in our dialysis practice, a patient stated, "I wish I never started dialysis." This quote served as the catalyst for embarking on a research project with the aim to understand why patients living with end-stage kidney disease have regret about starting and continuing dialysis, a lifesaving but time-intensive measure. We surveyed and interviewed patients on the topic and learned that patients experiencing regret had a disrupted sense of self and blamed themselves for their need of dialysis. Patients with little to no regret demonstrated positivity and self-compassion. These findings will help health care professionals as they work with patients considering dialysis or having newly started dialysis.

SELECCIÓN DE REFERENCIAS
DETALLE DE LA BÚSQUEDA