The Effect of Periodical and Individualized Educational Program for Long-term Hemodialysis Patient

Hyunjung Kim; Sujin Park; Mikyung Park; Mikyung Park

doi:10.7469/kjan.2015.27.5.572

Journal List > Korean J Adult Nurs > v.27(5) > 1076356

Go to TopGo to Top Go to BottomGo to Bottom

TOOLS

Kim, Park, Park, and Park: The Effect of Periodical and Individualized Educational Program for Long-term Hemodialysis Patient

Original Article

Korean J Adult Nurs 2015;27(5):572-782.

Published online: October 2015

DOI: https://doi.org/10.7469/kjan.2015.27.5.572

The Effect of Periodical and Individualized Educational Program for Long-term Hemodialysis Patient

Hyunjung Kim¹, Sujin Park^2,, Mikyung Park¹, Mikyung Park¹

^¹Hemodialysis Unit, Gyeongsang National University Hospital, Jinju

^²Department of Nursing, Yeungnam University College, Degu, Korea

Corresponding author: Park, Sujin Department of Nursing, Yeungnam University College, 170 Hyeonchung-ro, Nam-gu, Daegu 705-703, Korea. Tel: +82-53-650-9404, Fax: +82-53-624-7871, E-mail: sjhush@hanmail.net

Received 4 August 201516 October 2015 Accepted 18 October 2015

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

This study was conducted to provide an effective nursing intervention using an individualized educational program composed with knowledge, compliance, and physiologic parameters for long-term hemodialysis patients.

Methods

A quasi-experimental study using a non-equivalent control group and pre- and post-test design was conducted with 40 hemodialysis patients at G university hospital in the J city from June to August, 2015. A data was analyzed using frequency, percentage, x² test, Shapiro-Wilk test, independent-samples t-test and repeated measures ANOVA using SPSS 21.0 program.

Results

knowledge about hemodialysis and patient role behaviors were not significantly different between the two measures. In the biological index, there was significant difference between the groups by points in time and group in blood potassium, albumin, and Kt/v. However, there was no difference in gaining weight between hemodialysis, hemoglobin, and blood phosphorus.

Conclusion

The individual training program in this study had an effect on changing some physiological indicators of long-term hemodialysis patients. Future research is warranted for developing various kinds of education program incorporating the findings of the study for the given population.

Keywords: Behavior, Biological markers, Compliance, Knowledge, Training program

REFERENCES

1.Suk YM., Park JW., Jeon MJ., Kim CY. Effect of periodic video education on knowledge about hemodialysis, patient role behavior and the physiologic index in patients with hemodialysis. Korean Society of Biological Nursing Science. 2013. 15(3):122–32. http://dx.doi.org/10.7586/jkbns.2013.15.3.122.

2.Eitner F., Floege J. Novel insights into renal fibrosis. Current Opinion Nephrology and Hypertension. 2003. 12(3):227–32. http://dx.doi.org/10.1097/00041552-200305000-00002.

3.Lee UJ., Min HS. A study of the relationship between compliance with therapeutic regimens and physiological parameters of hemodialysis patients. Journal of Korean Academy of Nursing. 2006. 36(1):64–73. http://www.dbpia.co.kr/Article/3016009.

4.ESRD Registry Committee, Korean Society of Nephrology. Current renal replacement therapy in Korea-insann memorial dialysis registry. 2011. [cited 2011 sep 25], Available from:. http://www.ksn.or.kr/journal/2012/index.html.

5.Kim JH. The influence of cognitive coping on sick role behavioral compliance and depression, satisfaction with life in hemodialysis patients. Journal of the Korea Academia-Industrial Cooperation Society. 2015. 16(2):1328–38. http://dx.doi.org/10.5762/kais.2015.16.2.1328.

6.Denhaerynck K., Manhaeve D., Dobbels F., Garzoni D., Nolte C., Geest SD. Prevalence and consequences of nonadherence to hemodialysis regimens. American Journal of Critical Care. 2007. 16(3):222–36.

7.Park HM., Lee HS. Effects of empowerment education program for hemodialysis patients on self-efficacy, self-care agency, self-care activities. Korean Academic Society of Rehabilitation Nursing. 2010. 13(2):151–60.

8.Reichman F., Levy NB. Problems in adaptation to maintenance hemodialysis. Archives of Internal Medicine. 1972. 130:859. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4684-2256-6_21.

9.Han DS., Lee SW. Treatment of protein-calorie malnutrition in hemodialysis patients. Korean Journal of Nephrology. 2000. 19:765–8.

10.Caraballo NG., Lebron AC., Davila TR., Burgos CR. Kidney patient: aspects to compliance with renal treatment. Puerto Rico Health Sciences Journal. 2001. 20(2):383–93.

11.Kutner NG. Improving compliance in dialysis patients: does anything work? Seminars in Dialysis. 2001. 14(5):324–7. http://dx.doi.org/10.1046/j.1525-139x.2001.00080.x.

12.Lee SJ., Park HS., Han JH., Kim HJ., Seo MW., Choi EA, et al. Effects of an individualized educational program on knowledge, compliance and physiologic parameters in non-compliant hemodialysis patients. Journal of Korean Clinical Nursing Research. 2009. 15(3):5–16.

13.Kim YJ., Yu YS. Effects of individualized education on knowledge, compliance, and physiologic parameters in hemodialysis patients. The Journal of Korean Academic Society of Adult Nursing. 2006. 18(3):367–76.

14.Kim AY., Kim SJ. The effect of education program on early hemodialysis patients'knowledge, self-care practice and physiologic index. The Seoul Journal of Nursing. 2008. 31(1):95–109.

15.Park JS., Lee HS., Lee SY., Im HB., Oh HS. Relationship between knowledge and adherence to self-management guidelines, and influencing factors of adherence for hemodialysis patients. The Korean Journal of Rehabilitation Nursing. 2011. 14(1):39–46.

16.Kim SY., Kim JD., Park AK., Koo JS. The effect of a video dietary instruction program for hemodialysis patients. Journal of Korean Clinical Nursing Research. 2014. 20(1):134–45.

17.Yang JL., Seo HJ., Kim YH. Effects of nutrition on nutritional status of hemodialysis patients. Journal of Nutrition and Health. 2003. 36(7):749–58.

18.Choi SH., So NS., Oh JY., Lee GS., Chung HJ., Lee JY, et al. A study of effect on a programmed continuing education on the knowledge and compliance of hemodialysis patient's self-care. Journal of Korean Clinical Nursing Research. 2000. 5(10):135–51.

19.Sim MK., Son SY. The effects of an individual educational program on self-care knowledge and self-care behavior in kidney transplantation patients. Journal of East-West Nursing Research. 2012. 18(1):9–17.

20.Park JS., Lee HS., Lee SY., Im HB., Oh HS. Relationship between knowledge and adherence to self-management guidelines and influencing factors of adherence for hemodialysis patients. Korean Academic Society of Rehabilitation Nursing. 2011. 14(1):39–46.

21.So HS., Kim AY., Kim EA., Kim SM. Effects of a structured drug education program on knowledge and medication compliance for hemodialysis patients. Journal of Korean Academy of Nursing. 2006. 36(7):1135–44.

22.Hong KY. A study of the relationships among dialysis related knowledge self efficacy and compliance of patient role behavior in hemodialysis patients. Unpublished master's thesis. [dissertation]. Seoul: Hanyang University;1999.

23.Song ES. Study on the knowledge about hemodialysis and compliance of patient role behavior in hemodialysis patients. Unpublished master's thesis. [dissertation]. Gwangju: Chosun University;2002.

24.Connelly CE. Self-care and the chronically ill patient. The Nursing Clinics of North America. 1987. 22(3):621–9.

25.Suh MJ., Chang MY. A study of the relationship among health related hardiness, self efficacy, compliance in hemodialysis patients. The Seoul Journal of Nursing. 1997. 11(1):85–105.

26.Kim KH., Son HY., Min BS., Park SH., Kim HY., Bang BK, et al. The problem in long-term hemodialysis in patients with chronic renal failure-second report. The Korean Journal of Medicine. 1977. 20(1):61–70.

27.Yoo MJ. The effects of a video program for hemodialysis patients on self care, stress, and physiological indexes. [dissertation]. Gwangju: Chonnam National University;2014.

28.Durose CL., Holdsworth M., Przygrodzka F. Knowledge of dietary and the medical consequences of noncompliance on hemodialysis are not predictive of dietary compliance. Journal of American Dietetic Association. 2004. 104(1):35–41.

29.Hemodialysis Adequacy 2006 Work Group. Clinical practice guidelines for hemodialysis adequacy, update 2006. American Journal of Kidney Diseases. 2006. 48(Suppl 1):S2–90.

30.Barnett T., Li Yoong T., Pinikahana J., Si-Yen T. Fluid compliance among patients having haemodialysis: can an educational programme make a difference? Journal of Advanced Nursing. 2008. 61(3):300–6. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2648.2007.04528.x.

Table 1.

The Individualized Educational Program of the Study

Session	Duration (min)	Title	Contents
1	30	Structure and function	․ Kidney structure and function
1	30	Structure and function	․ Chronic renal failure
2	20	Hemodialysis	․ Hemodialysis
2	20	Hemodialysis	․ Mechanical complications caused by dialysis
3	20	Infection control	․ Management of shunt
3	20	Infection control	․ Infection control
4	20	Exercise	․ Exercise and relaxation
5	30	Medication	․ Vitamins, calcium, iron, and antihypertensive drugs
5	30	Medication	․ Oral phosphate-binding agents
6	30	Diet and weight control	․ Weight and blood pressure
			․ Sodium and potassium, Calcium and phosphorus
			․ Protein and calories
			․ Body fluid volume, Restriction for water intake
7	20	Pain and sexuality	․ Pain and sexuality
8	30	Intensive education and counseling	․ Intensive education, counseling and physiological index of
8	30	Intensive education and counseling	the blood test results

Table 2.

Homogeneity Test on the General Characteristics of the Subjects (N=40)

Characteristics	Categories	Total	Exp. (n=20)	Cont. (n=20)	x² or t	p
Characteristics	Categories	Total	n (%) or M±SD	n (%) or M±SD	x² or t	p
Gender	Male	24 (60.0)	13 (65.0)	11 (55.0)	0.41	.519
Gender	Female	16 (40.0)	7 (35.0)	9 (45.0)
Age (year)	＜60	15 (37.5)	6 (30.0)	9 (45.0)	1.01	.603
	60~＜70	12 (30.0)	7 (35.0)	5 (25.0)
	≥70	13 (32.5)	7 (35.0)	6 (30.0)
		62.78±10.64	64.20±9.47	61.35±11.77
Education^†	≤Primary school	9 (22.5)	4 (20.0)	5 (25.0)	2.81	.425
	Middle school	10 (25.0)	6 (30.0)	4 (20.0)
	High school	12 (30.0)	4 (20.0)	8 (40.0)
	≥College gradution	9 (22.5)	6 (30.0)	3 (15.0)
Spouse+	Yes	39 (97.5)	20 (100.0)	19 (95.0)	1.28	1.000
Spouse+	No	1 (2.5)	-	1 (5.0)
Number of housemates^†	None	1 (2.5)	1 (5.0)	-	1.41	1.000
	one person	8 (20.0)	4 (20.0)	4 (20.0)
	two people	11 (27.5)	6 (30.0)	5 (25.0)
	Three people	13 (32.5)	6 (30.0)	7 (35.0)
	More than four	7 (17.5)	3 (15.0)	4 (20.0)
Main nurse^†	Spouse	31 (77.5)	16 (80.0)	15 (75.0)	1.64	1.000
	Patients	1 (2.5)	-	1 (5.0)
	Children	5 (12.5)	2 (10.0)	3 (15.0)
	Not	3 (7.5)	2 (10.0)	1 (5.0)
Monthly income^† (10,000 won)	＜100	14 (35.0)	9 (45.0)	5 (25.0)	3.36	.527
	100~＜200	9 (22.5)	4 (20.0)	5 (25.0)
	200~＜300	5 (12.5)	1 (5.0)	4 (20.0)
	300~＜400	7 (17.5)	4 (20.0)	3 (15.0)
	≥400	5 (12.5)	2 (10.0)	3 (15.0)
Register a kidney transplant^†	Yes	9 (22.5)	3 (15.0)	6 (30.0)	2.52	.451
Register a kidney transplant^†	No	31 (77.5)	17 (85.0)	14 (70.0)
Information^†	Doctor	10 (25.0)	4 (20.0)	6 (30.0)	2.08	.884
	Nurse	21 (52.5)	11 (55.0)	10 (50.0)
	Relevant books	3 (7.5)	1 (5.0)	2 (10.0)
	HPS	1 (2.5)	1 (5.0)	-
	Not	5 (12.5)	3 (15.0)	2 (10.0)
Whether participation programs^†	Yes	5 (12.5)	2 (10.0)	3 (15.0)	2.36	1.000
Whether participation programs^†	No	35 (87.5)	18 (90.0)	17 (85.0)
Education Program Participation pseudo	Yes	29 (72.5)	15 (75.0)	14 (70.0)	2.22	.329
Education Program Participation pseudo	No	11 (27.5)	5 (25.0)	6 (30.0)
Hemodialysis period^† (year)	＜3	14 (35.0)	7 (35.0)	7 (35.0)	2.01	.573
	3~＜5	9 (22.5)	3 (15.0)	6 (30.0)
	5~＜10	9 (22.5)	6 (30.0)	3 (15.0)
	≥10	8 (20.0)	4 (20.0)	4 (20.0)
		6.06±4.56	6.58±4.89	5.53±4.26

Exp.=experimental group; Cont.=control group; HPS=Hemodialysis patient society;

^† Fischer's accurate verification.

Table 3.

Homogeneity Test on Knowledge about Hemodialysis, Attitude toward Dementia and Physiologic Index (N=40)

Variables	Total (n=40)	Exp. (n=20)	Cont. (n=20)	x² or t	p
Variables	M±SD	M±SD	M±SD	x² or t	p
Knowledge about hemodialysis	15.80±2.64	16.10±2.45	15.50±2.86	0.71	.480
Compliance of patient role behavior	3.99±0.38	4.08±0.31	3.91±0.43	1.48	.147
Physiologic index
Potassium (K)	5.28±0.83	5.50±0.79	5.06±0.82	1.74	.089
Phosphorus (P)	4.87±1.31	4.90±1.47	4.84±1.16	0.14	.887
Albumin	4.03±0.31	3.96±0.25	4.10±0.36	-1.39	.171
Hemoglobin (Hb)	10.22±0.76	10.38±0.74	10.06±0.76	1.35	.185
Kt/V	1.73±0.23	1.72±0.22	1.75±0.25	-0.41	.683
IWG	4.86±1.59	4.78±2.02	4.95±1.03	-0.36	.721

Exp.=experimental group; Cont.=control group.

Table 4.

The Effectiveness Hypothesis of the Study (N=40

Variables	Groups	Time			Repeated measure ANOVA
		Pre	Post educ.	Post educ. 4 weeks	Time (T)	Group (G)	T×G
		M±SD	M±SD	M±SD	F (p)	F (p)	F (p)
Knowledge about hemodialysis	Exp.	16.10±2.45	17.80±1.21	18.35±1.39	13.54	4.65	2.37
Knowledge about hemodialysis	Cont.	16.50±2.86	16.45±2.27	16.35±2.58	(＜.001)	(.037)	(.109)
Compliance of patient role behavior	Exp.	4.08±0.31	4.24±0.40	4.39±0.32	9.36	3.27	1.19
Compliance of patient role behavior	Cont.	3.91±0.43	4.18±0.38	4.13±0.33	(＜.001)	(.079)	(.309)
Physiologic index
Potassium (mmol/L)	Exp.	5.50±0.79	5.21±0.72	4.75±1.30	5.08	0.71	8.50
Potassium (mmol/L)	Cont.	5.06±0.82	5.70±0.81	5.30±0.73	(.008)	(.404)	(＜.001)
Phosphorus (mg/dL)	Exp.	4.90±1.47	4.83±1.38	4.54±1.42	0.04	0.14	1.36
Phosphorus (mg/dL)	Cont.	4.84±1.16	4.81±1.59	5.08±1.60	(.953)	(.702)	(.261)
Albumin (g/dL)	Exp.	3.96±0.25	3.98±0.23	4.06±0.22	0.54	1.25	6.32
Albumin (g/dL)	Cont.	4.10±0.36	4.14±0.29	4.02±0.20	(.584)	(.269)	(.003)
Hemoglobin (g/dL)	Exp.	10.38±0.74	10.86±1.00	10.69±0.78	3.84	1.68	0.17
Hemoglobin (g/dL)	Cont.	10.06±0.76	10.61±1.01	10.60±1.04	(.034)	(.202)	(.793)
Kt/V	Exp.	1.72±0.22	1.72±0.25	1.73±0.27	3.79	0.00	4.04
Kt/V	Cont.	1.75±0.25	1.68±0.25	1.76±0.28	(.027)	(.936)	(.021)
IWG (%)	Exp.	4.78±2.02	4.33±1.71	4.18±1.60	3.33	1.63	0.19
IWG (%)	Cont.	4.95±1.03	4.74±1.05	4.78±1.08	(.053)	(.209)	(.771)

educ.=education; Exp.=experimental group; Cont.=control group.

TOOLS

Similar articles