Académique Documents
Professionnel Documents
Culture Documents
ARTICLE
Abstract
A cross sectional study of 50 patients with end stage renal disease, who were on chronic
peritoneal dialysis (CPD = 25) and chronic hemodialysis (CHD=25), was done for level of
stress and stress coping ability. These patients belonged to different socio-economic
background. A modified structured questionnaire was used (Jelowice, Murphy and Power).
Student t-test was used to compare the mean stress and coping ability between CPD and
CHD patients. The results showed that the overall mean stress score in the CHD patients
was higher (78.3%) than in CPD patients (43.3% p<0.001). Coping ability score for CHD
patients was 51.9% as compared to CPD patients (60.9% p<0.001).
This study suggests that CPD patients have better quality of life when compared to CHD
patients.
Key words: Stress, coping ability, chronic hemodialysis, chronic peritoneal dialysis
Stress scale for patients contained 25 items. Each of Problem-oriented method. To assess the level of stress
these items had 5 responses such as not stressful, and coping mean and standard deviation was used. To
very mild stress, mild stress, moderate stress and compare mean stress and coping score between CHD
severe stress with the score of 0,1,2,3 & 4 respectively. and CPD patients student t-test was applied.3
The total possible score was 100. The score was
Interviews were conducted with the patients by the
interpreted as percentage of total: not stressful 0%, very
authors using the scale and responses given were
mild stress 1-25%, mild stress 26-50%,moderate stress
entered in appropriate column in front of each statement.
51-75%,severe stress76% and above. The overall stress
The scale was added up and percentage was calculated
score represents the sum of physical, psychological and
according to the total score obtained.
socio-economic level of stress.
Most of the patients subjected to chronic hemodialysis
Coping scale contains 15 statements. Each statements
and chronic peritoneal dialysis where undergoing
had 3 responses such as never, sometimes and always
treatment for about 4-6 months.
with a score of 1,2 and 3 respectively. It includes
affective oriented method and problem oriented Results
method used by the patients in response to stress. The
total possible score was 45. The score was interpreted The level of stress in CHD and CPD patients is shown
as percentage of total: Never 0-33 %,Sometimes 34- in Table 1. In the CHD patients mean stress score (%)
66%, Always67% and above. The overall coping score in “Physical Aspect” was 76.5 ± 4.14. In CPD patients,
represents the sum of affective oriented method and mean stress score (%) was 43.17 ± 6.43, which was
problem oriented method. less than stress level seen in (P<0.001) CHD patients.
Regarding “Psychological Aspect” the mean score (%)
Part-III coping scale developed by Jelowice, Murphy and was 81.09 ± 4.53 in the CHD patients and 46.54 ± 4.69
Power was modified to suit the socio-economic and in CPD patients (p<.001). In the “socio-economic aspect”
family background of Indian population3. Coping scale of stress CHD patients again had higher score (%) 75.87
had two sub-parts. 1. Affective-oriented method 2. ± 6.48 as compared to CPD patients (39.0 ± 5.57,
References
1. Suzanne CS & Brenda GB. “Text book of medical - 9. Portes GA, Lowson L, Buss J, Bias in selecting treatment
surgical nursing”, 9th edition, 2000,1146-1162. for endstage renal disease. Kidney Int 1985; 28 (suppl
2. Densise F, Hungler P. “Nursing research - principles and 17): S34-S37.
methods”, 6th edition, 1999,277-305 10. Cristovao F. Stress, coping and quality of life among
3. Carol A, Lindeman MM. “Fundamentals of contemporary chronic hemodialysis patients, EDTNA ERCA
nursing”, 1999,903-933. Journal,1999, 25(4): 35-8.
4. Kozier E, Blais W. “Fundamentals of nursing - concepts, 11. Sjoden, Lindqvist R. Coping strategies and health-related
process and practice”,5th edition,1995, 828-851. quality of life among spouses of continuous ambulatory
peritoneal dialysis, hemodialysis and transplant patients.
5. Potter and Perry. “Fundamentals of Nursing - concepts, Journal of Advanced Nursing,2000, 31(6): 1389-408.
process and practice”, 5th Edition, 2001,643-667.
12. Potter P, Stewott AL, Carey S. Physical functioning :
6. Wolcott DL, Nisenson AR. Quality of life in chronic Definition, measurement, and expectations. Adv Renal
dialysis patients, a critical comparison of CAPD and Replacement therapy 1999; 6 (2): 110-123.
CHD. AM J Kidney Dis 1988; 11 :402-412.
13. Lindqvist.R et.al , Coping strategies and quality of life
7. Christensen AJ et.al. Coping with treatment related among patients on continuous ambulatory peritoneal
stress: effects on patient adherence in hemodialysis. dialysis. Journal of advanced nursing 1998, 27(2): 312-
Journal of consult clinical psychology 1995, 63(3): 454- 9.
9.
14. Courts NF et.al. Psychosocial adjustment of males on
8. Nisenson AR, Prichard SS, Cheng IKP et al. Non medical three types of dialysis. Clinical nursing research,1998,
factors that impart on ESRD modality seletion. Kidney 7(1): 47-63.
Int 1993; 43 (suppl 40): S120-7.