The Effects of Symptom Distress, Social Support, and Work Change on Liver Transplant Recipients

Mi Kyung Sim; Kyung Ock Jeon; Soon Il Kim

doi:10.4285/jkstn.2013.27.2.49

Journal List > J Korean Soc Transplant > v.27(2) > 1034414

Go to TopGo to Top Go to BottomGo to Bottom

TOOLS

Sim, Jeon, and Kim: The Effects of Symptom Distress, Social Support, and Work Change on Liver Transplant Recipients

Original Article

J Korean Soc Transplant 2013;27(2):49-56.

Published online: 11 June 2013

DOI: https://doi.org/10.4285/jkstn.2013.27.2.49

The Effects of Symptom Distress, Social Support, and Work Change on Liver Transplant Recipients

Mi Kyung Sim, Ph.D.¹, Kyung Ock Jeon, R.N.², Soon Il Kim, M.D.²

¹Department of Nursing, Shinsung University, Dangjin, Korea

²Department of Surgery, Research Institute for Transplantation, Severance Hospital, Yonsei University College of Medicine, Seoul, Korea

책임저자：전경옥, 서울시 서대문구 연세로 50 연세대학교 의과대학 세브란스병원 장기이식연구소, 120-752 Tel: 02-2228-5360, Fax: 02-312-5023 E-mail: transcordi@yuhs.ac 120-752 Tel: 02-2228-5360, Fax: 02-312-5023 E-mail: transcordi@yuhs.ac

본 연구는 2012년 10월 20일 대한이식학회 제42차 추계학술대회 및 제9차 한일이식포럼에서 중간 연구 결과가 발표되었음.

Received 2 February 201315 May 2013 Accepted 14 June 2013

This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/3.0/) which permits unrestricted non-commercial use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

Abstract

Background:

The purpose of this study was to evaluate the factors influencing quality of life (QOL) in liver transplant recipients.

Methods:

The subjects of this study were 103 liver recipients who received their follow-up more than 3 months after liver transplantation at one general hospital in Seoul. A questionnaire survey was perfomed from September 1, 2012 to September 30, 2012. QOL and factors were evaluated using SF-36, Transplant Symptom Distress Scale and Multidimensional Scale of Perceived Social Support.

Results:

Symptom distress, work change after transplant, duration after transplant were significant factors influencing QOL (Cum R²=0.39, F=19.34, P＜0.001). Symptom distress was the most important factors related QOL. There were significant differences in QOL according to general characteristics such as education (t=2.16, P=0.033), work change after transplant (t=3.67, P=0.000), duration after transplant (t=2.25, P=0.027), and economic status (t=3.08, P=0.027).

Conclusions:

In conclusion, symptom distress had an influence on the QOL of liver transplant recipients. Thus, it is necessary to develop interventions for symptom distress to improve the QOL of liver transplant recipients.

Keywords: Quality of life, Symptom distress, Liver transplantation

REFERENCES

1). Korean Network for Organ Sharing (KONOS). Organ transplant statistics [Internet]. Seoul: KONOS;2011. [cited 2012 Aug 30]. Available from. http://www.konos.go.kr.

2). Tome S, Wells JT, Said A, Lucey MR. Quality of life after liver transplantation. A systematic review. J Hepatol. 2008; 48:567–77.

3). Noma S, Hayashi A, Uehara M, Uemoto S, Murai T. Comparison between psychosocial long-term outcomes of recipients and donors after adult-to-adult living donor liver transplantation. Clin Transplant. 2011; 25:714–20.

4). Kousoulas L, Neipp M, Barg-Hock H, Jackobs S, Strassburg CP, Klempnauer J, et al. Health-related qual-ity of life in adult transplant recipients more than 15 years after orthotopic liver transplantation. Transpl Int. 2008; 21:1052–8.

5). Sainz-Barriga M, Baccarani U, Scudeller L, Risaliti A, Toniutto PL, Costa MG, et al. Quality-of-life assessment before and after liver transplantation. Transplant Proc. 2005; 37:2601–4.

6). Kober B, Küchler T, Broelsch C, Kremer B, Henne-Bruns D. A psychological support concept and quality of life re-search in a liver transplantation program: an interdiscipli-nary multicenter study. Psychother Psychosom. 1990; 54:117–31.

7). Kim EM, Kim KS. A structural model on quality of life for recipients of liver transplants. J Korean Acad Fundam Nurs. 2007; 14:340–50. (김은만, 김금순. 간이식 수혜자의 삶의 질 예측모형. 기본간호학회지 2007;14:340-50.).

8). Kim SY. Health promotion behavior and the quality of life in liver transplant patients [master’s thesis]. Seoul, KR: The Catholic University of Korea;2009. (김소영. 간이식 환자의 건강증진행위와 삶의 질 (석사학위논문). 서울: 가톨릭대학교 보건대학원; 2009.).

9). Kizilisik AT, Grewal HP, Shokouh-Amiri MH, Vera SR, Stratta RJ, Hathaway DK, et al. Ten years of chronic im-munosuppressive therapy following orthotopic liver transplantation: impact on health and quality of life. Transplant Proc. 2001; 33:3448–9.

10). Ware JE Jr, Sherbourne CD. The MOS 36-item short- form health survey (SF-36). I. Conceptual framework and item selection. Med Care. 1992; 30:473–83.

11). Moons P, De Geest S, Abraham I, Cleemput JV, Van Vanhaecke J. Symptom experience associated with maintenance immunosuppression after heart transplantation: patients' appraisal of side effects. Heart Lung. 1998; 27:315–25.

12). Park MR. Survey on symptom experience and self care in patients with kidney transplantation [master’s thesis]. Seoul, KR: Yonsei University;2003. (박미란. 신장이식 환자의 성별, 이식후 기간별, 면역억제제 종류에 따른 증상경험 및 자가관리 실태조사 (석사학위논문). 서울: 연세대학교 대학원; 2003.).

13). Zimet GD, Dahlem NW, Zimet SG, Farley GK. The multidimensional scale of perceived social support. J Personal Assess. 1988; 52:30–41.

14). Kim SI. A study on social integration of the mental dis-orders attended at day hospital:focus on environmental traits [master’s thesis]. Seoul, KR: Ewha Womans University;1999. (김소임. 낮병원 정신장애인 통합에 관한 연구: 환경특성 중심으로 (석사학위논문). 서울: 이화여자대학교 대학원; 1999.).

15). Desai R, Jamieson NV, Gimson AE, Watson CJ, Gibbs P, Bradley JA, et al. Quality of life up to 30 years following liver transplantation. Liver Transpl. 2008; 14:1473–9.

16). Duffy JP, Kao K, Ko CY, Farmer DG, McDiarmid SV, Hong JC, et al. Long-term patient outcome and quality of life after liver transplantation: analysis of 20-year survivors. Ann Surg. 2010; 252:652–61.

17). Jung JH, Kim YH, Han DJ, Kim KS, Chu SH. Medica-tion adherence in patients taking immunosuppressants after kidney transplantation. J Korean Soc Transplant. 2010; 24:289–97. (정주희, 김영훈, 한덕종, 김광숙, 추상희. 신장이식 환자의 면역억제제 복용이행. 대한이식학회지 2010;24: 289-97.).

18). Kim KS, Kang J, Ha HS, Rho MH, Park KW, Hong JJ. The symptom experience associated with immunosu-ppressive therapy in organ transplant recipients. J Korean Soc Transplant. 2002; 16:110–8. (김금순, 강지연, 하희선, 노명희, 박금화, 홍정자. 장기이식 후 면역 억제제 사용에 따른 증상 경험. 대한이식학회지 2002;16:110-8.).

19). Ham AR. A study on transplant stress and social adjust-ment of liver transplant recipients: with a focus on the moderating effect of social support [master’s thesis]. Seoul, KR: Soongsil University;2012. (함아름. 간이식 수혜자의 이식 스트레스와 사회적응에 관한 연구: 사회적 지지의 조절효과를 중심으로 (석사학위논문). 서울: 숭실대학교 대학원; 2011.).

20). Kim MH, Kim MS, Kwon OJ, Kang CM. Comparison of quality of life between kidney transplant patients and dialysis patients. J Korean Soc Transplant. 2009; 23:65–70. (김명희, 김민수, 권오정, 강종명. 신장이식환자와 투석환자의 삶의 질 비교. 대한이식학회지 2009;23:65-70.).

21). Saab S, Wiese C, Ibrahim AB, Peralta L, Durazo F, Han S, et al. Employment and quality of life in liver transplant recipients. Liver Transpl. 2007; 13:1330–8.

22). Kim HY. Stress and quality of life related to disease following liver transplantation [master’s thesis]. Seoul, KR: The Catholic University of Korea;2003. (김형숙. 간이식 환자의 수술 후 질병관련 스트레스와 삶의 질 (석사학위논문). 서울: 가톨릭대학교 대학원; 2003.).

Table 1.

Demographic and clinical characteristics of participants (n=103)

Characteristic	Category	Frequency (%)	Mean±SD
Age (yr)	≤50	24 (23.3)	54.8±7.1
	51∼60	61 (59.2)
	≤61	18 (17.5)
Gender	Female	26 (25.2)
	Male	77 (74.8)
Religion	Christian	45 (43.7)
	Catholic	5 (4.9)
	Buddhist	24 (23.3)
	Others	4 (3.9)
	Have not	25 (24.3)
Marital status	Married	90 (87.4)
	Single	6 (5.8)
	Divorced	7 (6.8)
Employment before	Employed	73 (70.9)
transplantation	Unemployed	30 (29.1)
Education	Middle school or lower	20 (19.0)
	High school	37 (35.0)
	College/university	34 (33.0)
	Graduate school	12 (11.0)
Complication	Yes	36 (35.0)
therapy	No	67 (65.0)
Work change after	Yes	47 (45.6)
transplantation	No	56 (54.4)
Economic status	Low	36 (35.0)
	Moderate	47 (45.6)
	High	20 (19.4)
Donor	Family	68 (66.0)
	Others	12 (11.7)
	Brain death	23 (22.3)
Duration after	1 Year or shorter	37 (35.9)	3.3±3.0
transplantation	1∼10 Years	63 (61.2)
	10 Years or longer	3 (2.9)

Table 2.

Quality of life according to general characteristics (n=103)

Characteristic	Category	Frequency	Mean±SD	t	P-value
Age (yr)	＜55	47	123.09±18.62	0.72	0.472
	≥55	56	120.45±18.33
Gender	Female	26	116.15±22.91	1.78	0.078
	Male	77	123.51±16.39
Religion	Yes	78	120.04±19.42	1.58	0.117
	No	25	126.68±14.04
Marital status	Married	90	122.40±18.78	1.01	0.319
	Single or divorced	13	116.85±17.12
Education	High school or lower	57	117.96±18.57	2.16	0.033
	College/university or higher	46	125.78±17.79
Complication therapy	Yes	36	120.81±17.10	0.34	0.735
	No	67	122.10±18.17
Work change after transplantation	Yes	47	114.78±17.40	3.67	0.000
	No	56	127.53±17.50
Duration after transplantation	3 Years or shorter	57	118.05±17.56	2.25	0.027
	3 Years or longer	46	126.10±18.72
Economic status	High or moderate	67	125.98±18.02	3.08	0.003
	Low	36	114.67±16.63

Table 3.

Health-related quality of life (SF-36), social support, symptom distress (n=103)

Category	Mean±SD
Total QOL	77.5±18.4
Physical functioning	85.2±14.6
Role-physical	77.6±21.8
Bodily pain	77.1±16.8
General health	69.6±13.4
Vitality	72.8±15.8
Social functioning	80.4±15.9
Role-emotional	78.5±21.1
Mental health	79.3±13.7
Social support	50.5±7.4
Symptom distress	54.8±19.3

Abbreviation: QOL, quality of life.

Table 4.

Relationships among symptom distress, social support, quality of life (n=103)

	Social support	Health-related QOL
Symptom distress	−0.116 (P＞0.05)	−0.521 (P＜0.001)
Health-related QOL	0.039 (P＞0.05)

Abbreviation: QOL, quality of life.

Table 5.

Factors influencing quality of life (n=103)

Predictor	B	SE	β	t	P-value	R²	Adjusted R²	F (P-value)
Symptom distress	−0.483	0.081	−0.496	−5.982	0.000	0.271	0.394	19.340
Work change after transplant	9.654	2.960	0.272	3.262	0.002	0.086		(＜0.001)
Duration after transplant	7.232	3.083	0.195	2.346	0.021	0.037

TOOLS

Similar articles