Cross-sectional study assessed quality of life in kidney failure patients on hemodialysis, indicating social support and economic status influence outcomes.
Background Kidney failure significantly impacts patients' quality of life (QoL), posing a public health concern due to its effects on well‐being, satisfaction, and the increased demand for social and healthcare services. Understanding QoL determinants is critical for improving patient outcomes. Aim. This study assessed the QoL of kidney failure patients undergoing hemodialysis in Pokhara Metropolitan City, Nepal. Methods A cross‐sectional study was conducted in 2017 among 132 kidney failure patients attending dialysis centers in Pokhara. Data were collected through face‐to‐face interviews and observations using the Short Form‐36 (SF‐36) Health Survey and a structured checklist. Descriptive statistics were used for frequency distribution, percentage, mean score, and standard deviation. Student's unpaired t ‐test and ANOVA were used to compare the mean score differences of the quality of life among the groups. Results The mean overall QoL score was 38.9 ± 6.21, with physical component summary (PCS) and mental component summary (MCS) scores of 36.55 ± 6.74 and 41.23 ± 13.36, respectively. While most participants (86.5%) were satisfied with personal relationships, 10.6% reported experiencing social discrimination or stigma, and 55% had not been invited to social events. Economic status and participation in social organizations were significantly associated with higher QoL scores across PCS, MCS, and overall QoL ( p < 0.05). Conclusion The majority of patients suffering from kidney failure had overall poor quality of life. Social support and wealth index played a significant role in the quality of life. The findings suggest the need of enhancing social support systems and promoting vocational rehabilitation could improve QoL for this population.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Khatri et al. (2025) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: