Journal List > Korean J Adult Nurs > v.27(2) > 1076314

TOOLS
Kim, Choi, Kim, and Kim: Self-care, Social Support, and Biological Markers in Liver Transplant Recipients
Original Article

Korean J Adult Nurs 2015;27(2):170-179.

Published online: NaN April 2015

DOI: https://doi.org/10.7469/kjan.2015.27.2.170

Self-care, Social Support, and Biological Markers in Liver Transplant Recipients

Hyunkyung Kim1, Mona Choi2, So Sun Kim2, Soon-il Kim3

1Yonsei University Health System · Severance Hospital, Seoul

2College of Nursing · Nursing Policy Research Institute, Yonsei University, Seoul

3Department of Surgery, College of Medicine, Yonsei University, Seoul, Korea

Corresponding author: Choi, Mona Nursing Policy Research Institute, College of Nursing, Yonsei University, 50-1 Yonsei-ro, Seodaemun-gu, Seoul 120-752, Korea. Tel: +82-2-2228-3341, Fax: +82-2-392-5440, E-mail: MONACHOI@yuhs.ac

Received 6 January 201512 April 2015       Accepted 13 April 2015

Copyright © 2015 Korean Society of Adult Nursing

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

Purpose

To examine the relationships between self-care, social support, and biological markers in liver transplant recipients.

Methods

The participants included 118 liver transplant recipients who visited outpatient clinic at Y University Hospital in Seoul from April to May, 2013. Questionnaires consisted of self-care and social support scales. The biological markers were collected by reviewing electronic medical records. Data were analyzed with descriptive statistics, t-test, ANOVA with Scheffé post-hoc test, and Pearson's correlation.

Results

The self-care score was significantly higher in a patient group within 6 months post-transplant when compared to a patient group post-transplant 3 to 5 years (F=3.10, p=.018). The self-care showed positive correlation with social support with statistical significance (r=.36, p<.001).

Conclusion

As the self-care in liver transplant recipients had a positive correlation with social support from family and healthcare providers, the development of comprehensive long-term nursing intervention systems including counseling, education, and support in consideration of progress of time period after transplantation is necessary to enhance self-care behaviors among this population.

Keywords: Liver, Transplant Recipients, Self-care, Social support, Biological markers

REFERENCES

1.Lee SG. Current status of liver transplantation in Korea. The Korean Society of Gastroenterology. 2005. 46(2):75–83.
2.McGuire BM., Rosenthal P., Brown CC., Busch AMH., Calcatera SM., Claria RS, et al. Long term management of the liver transplant patient: recommendations for the primary care doctor. American Journal of Transplantation. 2009. 9(9):1988–2003. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1600-6143.2009.02733.x.
3.Korean Network for Organ Sharing. Annual report of transplant 2011 [Internet]. Seoul: Korean Network for Organ Sharing;2011. [cited 2012 September 27] Available from:. http://www.konos.go.kr.
4.Kim EM., Seo MJ. Liver transplant recipient, adjustment, phe-nomenology. KoreanAcademicSociety of Rehabilitation Nursing. 2003. 6(1):61–9.
5.Bowni kH., Saab S. Healthrelatedqualityoflifeafterlivertrans-plantation for adult recipients. Liver Transplantation. 2009. 15(S2):S42–9. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/lt.21911.
6.Ha HS., Jeong JS., Chae YR., Hong JJ., Kim IO., Yi MS, et al. Psychosocial adjustment of the organ transplantation recipients in Korea. The Journal of the Korean Society for Transplantation. 2007. 21(2):269–81.
7.Orr A., Orr D., Willis S., Holmes M., Britton P. Patient perceptions of factors influencing adherence to medication following kidney transplant. Psychology, Health & Medicine. 2007. 12(4):509–17. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13548500701294556.
crossref
8.Pfitzmann R., Nussler NC., Hippler Benscheidt M., Neuhaus R., Neuhaus P. Long termresults after liver transplantation. Transplant International. 2008. 21(3):234–46. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1432-2277.2007.00596.ẍ.
9.Kugler C., Geyer S., Gottlieb J., Simon A., Haverich A., Dracup K. Symptom experience after solid organ transplantation. Journal of Psychosomatic Research. 2009. 66(2):101–10. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jpsychores.2008.07.017.
crossref
10.Achille MA., Ouellette A., Fournier S., Vachon M., Hebert MJ. ́Impact of stress, distress and feelings of indebtedness on adherence to immunosuppressants following kidney transplantation. Clinical Transplantation. 2006. 20(3):301–6. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1399-0012.2005.00478.x.
crossref
11.Gallant MP. The influence of socialsupport on chronic illness self-management: a reviewand directions for research. Health Education & Behavior. 2003. 30(2):170–95. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1090198102251030.
12.Lee SG. Current Status of Liver transplantation in Korea. The Korean Society of Gastroenterology. 2005. 46(2):75–83.
13.Lee SO. Infectious complicationafter liver transplantation. The Korean Association for the Study of the Liver. 2012. 2012(2):66–72.
14.Yoon JS. The effect of discharge education on the self care performance for liver transplantation patients. [master's thesis]. Seoul: Seoul National University;2007.
15.Lamba S., Nagurka R., Desai KK., Chun SJ., Holland B., Koneru B. Selfreported non adherence to immunesuppressantthera-py in liver transplant recipients: demographic, interpersonal, and intrapersonal factors. Clinical Transplantation. 2012. 26(2):328–35. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1399-0012.2011.01489.x.
16.Yoo SJ. Effect of discharge education on the self-care performance for the schizophrenics. [dissertation]. Seoul: Seoul National University;1991.
17.Kim OS. A study on the correlation between perceived social support and the quality of life of hemodialysis patients. [master's thesis]. Seoul: Seoul National University;1993.
18.Lynn M. Determinationandquantification of content validity. Nursing Research. 1986. 35(6):382–5.
19.Statistics Korea. 2011. Life tables for Korea [Internet]. Seoul: Statistics Korea;2012. [cited 2013 March 22] Available from:. http://kosis.kr/.
20.Sabbatini M., Crispo A., Pisani A., Gallo R., Cianciaruso B., Fui-ano G, et al. Sleepquality in renaltransplantpatients: a never investigated problem. Nephrology Dialysis Transplantation. 2005. 20(1):194–8. http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/ndt/gfh604.
21.Karam VH., Gasquet I., Delvart V., Hiesse C., Dorent R., Danet C, et al. Quality of life in adult survivors beyond 10 years after liver, kidney, andheart transplantation. Transplantation. 2003. 76(10):1699–704. http://dx.doi.org/10.1097/01.TP.0000092955.28529.1E.
22.DiMartini A., Javed L., Russell S., Dew MA., Fitzgerald MG., Jain A, et al. Tobacco use following liver transplantation for alcoholic liver disease: an underestimated problem. Liver Transplantation. 2005. 11(6):679–83. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/lt.20385.
crossref
23.Park TJ., Koh HS. Oralhealth status and dentaltreatment need of liver transplant candidates. Korean Academy of Or of acial Pain and Oral Medicine. 2009. 34(1):1–9.
24.L Danzinger-Isakov., Kumar DAST. Infectious disease community ofpractice.guidelines for vaccination of solidorgantrans-plant candidates and recipients. American Journal of Transplantation. 2009. 9(s4):S258–S262. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1600-6143.2009.02917.x.
25.Jerant A., Moore M. Lorig K, Franks P. Perceived control moderated the self-efficacy-enhancing effects of a chronic illness self-management intervention. Chronic Illness. 2008. 4(3):173–82.
26.Kim HS., Kim HY. Factors predicting medication compliance among elderly visitors ofpublic healthcenters. Journal of Korean Academy of Community Health Nursing. 2007. 18(1):5–13.
27.Ryu JH., Kim MH., Kang IS. A study on the compliance and educational demand of renaltransplantation patient. The Korean Journal of Rehabilitation Nursing. 2003. 6(2):226–38. http://www.dbpia.co.kr/Publication/615.
28.Son WY., Hyun SJ., Kim NM., Eum OJ., Kim CG., Kim DJ, et al. The effect of compliance, family support and graft function on quality of life kidney transplant recipients. The Journal of the Korean Society for Transplantation. 2008. 22(2):254–61.
29.Lee MS. Psychosocialadjustment after kidney transplantation. The Korean Society of Nursing Science. 1998. 28(2):291–302.
30.Wang LY., Chang PC., Shih FJ., Sun CC., Jeng C. Self-care behavior, hope, andsocial supportin Taiwanese patientsawaiting heart transplantation. Journal of Psychosomatic Research. 2006. 61(4):485–91. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jpsychores.2004.11.013.

Table 1.
Participants' Self-care and Social Support by Socio-demographic Characteristics (N=118)
Characteristics Categories n (%) or M±SD Self-care Social support
M±SD t or F (p) M±SD t or F (p)
Gender Male 90 (76.3) 171.81±15.22 0.39 109.00±11.32 0.46
Female 28 (23.7) 173.07±13.38 (.695) 110.11±10.92 (.649)
Age (year) ＜ 50 20 (16.9) 168.45±14.03 1.01 105.95±14.41 3.99
50~59 60 (50.8) 171.98±15.07 (.367) 108.22±11.26 (.054)
≥ 60 38 (32.2) 174.24±14.61   112.66±8.22  
  56.2±7.07        
Marital status Married 104 (88.1) 172.65±14.89 1.09 109.64±11.05 1.01
Etc.‡ 14 (11.9) 168.07±13.53 (.277) 106.43±12.22 (.315)
Education level ≤ Elementary School 15 (12.7) 168.60±15.63 1.26 109.53±9.64 0.45
Middle School 17 (14.4) 170.24±16.49 (.292) 108.35±11.94 (.721)
High School 40 (33.9) 175.65±12.80   110.83±11.59  
≥ College graduate 46 (39.0) 170.87±15.27   108.15±11.22  
Occupation Unemployed 30 (25.4) 173.53±15.43 0.61 111.37±9.72 1.20
Employed 88 (74.6) 171.63±14.58 (.543) 108.55±11.61 (.235)
Perceived economic status High 7 (5.9) 180.86±7.84 3.96 110.57±15.75 0.21
Middle 77 (65.3) 173.62±13.75 (.022) 108.78±11.39 (.811)
Low 34 (28.8) 166.88±16.60   110.09±9.93  
Cohabitation None 5 (4.2) 170.60±17.95 1.12 102.80±12.97 0.63
Spouse 33 (28.0) 169.94±15.84 (.343) 110.00±10.30 (.581)
Spouse and child 73 (61.9) 173.86±13.94   109.52±11.34  
Child and others 7 (5.9) 165.14±15.83   107.71±13.39  
Main caregiver† Nonea 7 (5.9) 167.71±19.09 1.14 98.57±12.95 4.21
Spouseb 95 (80.5) 173.12±14.33 (.325) 110.41±10.38 (.017)
Parents, Childc 16 (13.6) 168.06±15.23   107.13±12.98 a ＜ b
Participate in self-help groups Yes 20 (16.9) 177.65±14.49 1.86 111.20±9.95 0.85
No 98 (83.1) 170.98±14.62 (.065) 108.86±11.43 (.398)

† Scheffe test applied; ́

‡ Single, separation, divorce, widowed.

Table 2.
Participants' Self-Care and Social Support by Disease-related Characteristics (N=118)
Characteristics Categories n (%) or M±SD Self-care Social support
M±SD t or F (p) M±SD t or F (p)
Diagnosis HCC 31 (26.3) 171.94±15.51 0.48 108.16±12.17 0.17
LC 42 (35.6) 172.52±14.11 (.698) 110.05±10.65 (.918)
HCC with LC 41 (34.7) 172.66±15.08   109.24±11.16  
FHF 4 (3.4) 163.50±15.09   109.75±13.05  
Donor† Childa 54 (45.8) 175.43±14.36 2.24 110.85±10.75 5.38
Spouseb 12 (10.2) 166.50±15.75 (.088) 110.67±10.14 (.002)
Sibling, Relative, friend, 20 (16.9) 167.45±14.70   100.60±8.17 c ＜ a, d
acquaintancec          
Deceased donord 32 (27.1) 171.53±14.25   111.47±8.17  
Time period since transplant (year) ＜ 0.5 20 (16.9) 175.95±14.14 3.10 113.45±7.49 0.97
≥ 0.5~ ＜ 1 24 (20.3) 173.67±14.13 (.018) 109.75±11.65 (.428)
≥ 1~ ＜ 3 33 (28.0) 174.88±12.18   107.79±12.06  
≥ 3~ ＜ 5 15 (12.7) 161.00±15.97   108.53±14.19  
≥ 5 26 (22.0) 170.62±15.81   107.88±10.00  
Number of types of immunosuppressive 1 9 (7.6) 174.11±11.72 0.11 111.56±10.30 1.99
2 78 (66.1) 172.14±15.41 (.894) 107.81±12.28 (.141)
≥ 3 31 (26.3) 171.45±14.19   112.26±7.51  
Number of rehospitalization (times) None 51 (43.2) 171.76±15.84 0.38 111.12±8.30 1.58
1~2 41 (34.7) 173.59±14.98 (.687) 108.73±12.21 (.211)
≥ 3 26 (22.0) 172.11±12.31   106.46±13.92  
  2.93±2.72        
Comorbidity before transplant† Yes 42 (35.6) 168.14±15.54 2.21 107.93±10.15 0.96
No 76 (64.4) 174.30±13.92 (.029) 110.00±11.72 (.338)
Newly developed disease after transplant† Yes 47 (39.8) 172.28±13.97 0.10 108.62±12.03 0.51
No 71 (60.2) 172.00±15.35 (.921) 109.69±10.66 (.612)

HCC=hepato-cellular carcinoma, LC=liver cirrhosis, FHF=fulminant hepatic failure;

† Scheffe test applied. ́

Table 3.
Participants' Self-care and Social Support (N=118)
Variables Categories (number of items) Sum average (SD) Mean average (SD)
Self-care Outpatient clinic visit and regular checkup (3) 14.75 (1.03) 4.92 (0.40)
Taking medicine (7) 32.09 (2.63) 4.58 (0.80)
Wound and drainage tube management (3) 13.33 (1.99) 4.44 (0.96)
Daily life (7) 30.59 (3.49) 4.37 (0.98)
Dietary control (7) 29.93 (4.08) 4.28 (1.04)
Infection prevention (10) 41.09 (5.92) 4.11 (1.11)
Sleep management (3) 10.31 (3.02) 3.44 (1.35)
Total: Sum/Mean 172.11 (14.76) 4.31 (0.95)
Social support Support by family members (12) 55.34 (6.48) 4.61 (0.79)
Support by healthcare providers (12) 53.92 (6.64) 4.49 (0.79)
Total: Sum/Mean 109.26 (11.19) 4.55 (0.79)

Mean scores were based on a 5 point scale from 1=strongly disagree to 5=strongly agree.

Table 4.
Participants' Self-care by Biomarkers (N=118)
Biomarkers (measurement unit) Normal range Categories n (%) Self-care
M±SD t p
GOT (IU/L) 13~34 Normal 98 (83.1) 172.36±15.05 0.40 .689
Abnormal 20 (16.9) 170.90±13.50
GPT (IU/L) 5~46 Normal 99 (83.9) 172.56±15.24 0.75 .457
Abnormal 19 (16.1) 169.79±11.96
Total bilirubin (mg/dL) 0.5~1.8 Normal 113 (95.8) 172.15±14.97 0.14 .889
Abnormal 5 (4.2) 171.20±9.73
Total cholesterol (mg/dL) 142~240 Normal 111 (94.1) 172.47±14.83 1.05 .295
Abnormal 7 (5.9) 166.43±13.14
eGFR (mL/min/1.73 m2) ≥ 60 Normal 78 (66.1) 171.78±15.35 0.93 .737
Abnormal 40 (33.9) 172.75±13.68
Creatinine (mg/dL) 0.68~1.19 Normal 78 (66.1) 171.50±14.91 -0.63 .533
Abnormal 40 (33.9) 173.30±14.50
Serum glucose (mg/dL) 70~110 Normal 74 (62.7) 172.77±15.32 0.63 .531
Abnormal 44 (37.3) 171.00±13.85
BMI (kg/m2) 19.5~24.9 Normal 101 (85.6) 172.72±14.24 0.95 .355
Abnormal 77 (14.4) 168.47±17.54
SBP (mmHg) 90~120 Normal 35 (29.7) 169.37±16.23 -1.31 .192
Abnormal 83 (70.3) 173.27±14.03
DBP (mmHg) 60~80 Normal 60 (50.8) 173.27±14.86 0.87 .389
Abnormal 58 (49.2) 170.91±14.68

GOT=glutamate oxaloacetate transaminase; GPT=glutamate pyruvate transaminase; eGFR=estimated glomerular filtration rate; BMI=body mass index; SBP=systolic blood pressure; DBP=diastolic blood pressure.

TOOLS
Similar articles