Adherencia al tratamiento tras trasplante renal como indicador de calidad de la información recibida: estudio longitudinal con un seguimiento de 2 años / Adherence to treatment after kidney transplantation as quality indicator of the information received: longitudinal study of 2 years follow-up

Introducción. El trasplante es una modalidad de tratamiento óptima para la enfermedad renal crónica avanzada, que requiere de por vida la adherencia al tratamiento inmunosupresor. El objetivo de este estudio fue evaluar la adherencia al tratamiento después de un trasplante renal. Además de analizar el grado de información recibida al mes y 18 meses postrasplante y valorar su influencia en la adherencia al tratamiento. Material y métodos. El Cuestionario simplicado de adherencia a la medicación fue administrado al mes (T1), 6 meses (T2), 12 meses (T3), 18 meses (T4) y 24 meses (T5) postrasplante. La encuesta sobre aspectos del conocimiento y actitudes con respecto a la medicación se utilizó al mes y 18 meses postrasplante. Los datos se presentaron con medidas de tendencia central, y fueron comparados con pruebas no paramétricas. Resultados. Participaron 73 pacientes, con una mediana de edad de 57 años. El porcentaje de pacientes no-adherentes a la medicación fueron el 9,6% (T1), 22,5% (T2), 29,2% (T3), 29,8% (T4) y 28,1% (T5). Al mes del trasplante «no consultar con el médico al olvidarse alguna toma» (p=0,034) influyó significativamente en la no-adherencia farmacológica. A los 18 meses postrasplante ninguna de las cuestiones planteadas sobre el conocimiento de la medicación influyó en la no-adherencia al tratamiento farmacológico. Conclusiones. El mayor tiempo desde el trasplante incrementó la no-adherencia al tratamiento. Algunas cuestiones referidas a la información dada sobre el tratamiento influyeron en la no-adherencia en el trasplante inmediato, pero no en el seguimiento (AU)

Introduction. Transplantation is an optimal form of treatment for end-stage renal disease, but requires lifelong adherence to immunosuppressive therapy. The aim of this study was to longitudinally assess the adherence to treatment after kidney transplant, as well as to compare the amount of information about the treatment received at one month and 18 months post-transplantation, and its influence on adherence to treatment. Material and methods. The Self-Reported Measure of Medication Adherence was administered at month (T1), 6 months (T2), 12 months (T3), 18 months (T4), and 24 months (T5) post-transplantation. Survey about aspects of knowledge and attitudes about medication, was administered at one month and 18 months post-transplant. Measures of central tendency and non-parametric tests were used to compare the data. Results. The study included a total of 73 patients with a median age of 57 years. The percentage of patients non-adherent to medication was 9.6% (T1), 22.5% (T2), 29.2% (T3), 29.8% (T4), and 28.1% (T5). One month after transplantation “not consulting with the doctor on forgetting to take medication (P=.034) significantly influenced the non-adherence to treatment. At 18 months post- transplantation, none of the issues raised on medication knowledge had an influence on non-adherence to treatment. Conclusions. Longer times since transplantation increased the non-adherence to treatment. Some issues regarding the information of treatment influenced the non-adherence in the immediate transplant period, but not in the follow-up (AU)

[Adherence to treatment after kidney transplantation as quality indicator of the information received: Longitudinal study of 2 years follow-up]. / Adherencia al tratamiento tras trasplante renal como indicador de calidad de la información recibida: estudio longitudinal con un seguimiento de 2 años.

INTRODUCTION: Transplantation is an optimal form of treatment for end-stage renal disease, but requires lifelong adherence to immunosuppressive therapy. The aim of this study was to longitudinally assess the adherence to treatment after kidney transplant, as well as to compare the amount of information about the treatment received at one month and 18 months post-transplantation, and its influence on adherence to treatment. MATERIAL AND METHODS: The Self-Reported Measure of Medication Adherence was administered at month (T1), 6 months (T2), 12 months (T3), 18 months (T4), and 24 months (T5) post-transplantation. Survey about aspects of knowledge and attitudes about medication, was administered at one month and 18 months post-transplant. Measures of central tendency and non-parametric tests were used to compare the data. RESULTS: The study included a total of 73 patients with a median age of 57 years. The percentage of patients non-adherent to medication was 9.6% (T1), 22.5% (T2), 29.2% (T3), 29.8% (T4), and 28.1% (T5). One month after transplantation "not consulting with the doctor on forgetting to take medication (P=.034) significantly influenced the non-adherence to treatment. At 18 months post- transplantation, none of the issues raised on medication knowledge had an influence on non-adherence to treatment. CONCLUSIONS: Longer times since transplantation increased the non-adherence to treatment. Some issues regarding the information of treatment influenced the non-adherence in the immediate transplant period, but not in the follow-up.

Calidad del sueño en pacientes con lumbalgia crónica inespecífica / Sleep quality in a sample of patients with nonspecific chronic low back pain

Introducción. El presente trabajo tiene por objetivo describir la calidad del sueño en pacientes con dolor lumbar crónico inespecífico (DLCI), así como la asociación de este con la percepción de dolor, la edad y/o el género. Material y métodos. Para ello, 93 pacientes con DLCI contestaron el Índice de Calidad del Sueño de Pittsburg (ICSP) y una escala visual análoga (EVA) de dolor. A partir de estos datos, se llevó a cabo un análisis descriptivo-correlacional y un análisis factorial exploratorio. Resultados. Pese a presentar puntuaciones medias moderadas-altas (M = 6,31, SD = 2,10) en la EVA, la percepción de dolor no guardaba relación estadísticamente significativa con la calidad global del sueño de la muestra de estudio. Tampoco lo hizo la edad o el género de los participantes. Aunque un 59,1% describió su calidad global del sueño como «buena» o «bastante buena», el 40,9% restante lo hizo como «bastante mala» o «mala». El análisis factorial reveló la existencia de 6 factores principales para el ICSP, que lograban explicar el 67,56% de la varianza (explicando los 3 primeros un 44,45% del total). Conclusiones. Globalmente, la calidad del sueño de pacientes con DLCI es satisfactoria y no guarda relación ni con el dolor percibido, ni con la edad o el género del participante. No obstante, casi un tercio de la muestra (26,9%) presentaba alteraciones de mantenimiento del sueño (principalmente, mujeres). El análisis factorial reveló la utilidad del ICSP como instrumento válido y aceptable para el estudio del sueño en pacientes con DLCI (AU)

Introduction: The aim of the present study was to describe sleep quality in patients with nonspecific chronic low back pain (CLBP) and its association with perceived pain, age, and/or gender. Material and methods: A total of 93 CLBP patients completed the Pittsburg Sleep Quality Index (PSQI) and a Visual Analogue Scale (VAS) for pain. Descriptive-correlational analyses and factor structure for the PSQI were calculated for these data. Results: Despite showing moderate-to-high mean scores on the VAS (mean = 6.31, SD = 2.10), pain perception, gender, and participants' age were not significantly related to global sleep quality. Overall sleep quality was described as «good» or «quite good» by 59.1% of the sample but as «quite bad» or «bad» by the remaining 40.9%. Factor analysis of the PSQI revealed six main factors that explained 67.56% of the variance (the first three accounted for 44.45% of the total variance). Conclusions: Globally, the quality of sleep in CLBP patients is satisfactory and is not related to perceived pain, age, or gender. However, almost a third of the sample (26.9%) reported impaired sleep maintenance (mainly women). Factor analysis revealed the suitability of the PSQI to study sleep quality in CLBP patients (AU)