Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
AIM: Adherence to immunosuppressive medication is essential for favourable kidney transplant outcomes. The present study aims to investigate how self-efficacy beliefs, health locus of control and religiosity are associated with adherence to immunosuppressives in post kidney transplant recipients. METHODS: This is a cross-sectional study with 88 recipients with more than 1 year after transplantation. Three methods were used to classify patients as adherent or non-adherent: Basel Assessment of Adherence Scale for Immunosuppressives - BAASIS, the collateral report and blood levels of immunosuppressive medications. Self-efficacy, health locus of control, and religiosity were evaluated applying General Perceived Self-Efficacy Scale, Multidimensional Health Locus of Control Scale and Duke University Religion Index, respectively. Non-adherence was modelled by uni- and multivariated analysis. RESULTS: Sixty-three percent of the patients were male, age 47.2 ± 12.9 years, and median post-transplant time 108.71 (49.0-266.0) months. We found 70.5% of patients were non-adherent through at least one method. Adherent patients presented higher self-efficacy scores (45.1 ± 4.9 vs 38.3 ± 8.6; P < 0.001) and higher intrinsic religiosity (14.0 ± 1.6 vs. 12.8 ± 2.5; P = 0.016) compared to the non-adherents. Organizational and non-organizational religiosity did not differ between these groups. By logistic regression, non-adherence was associated with lower self-efficacy (OR 0.81, IC 0.70-0.92, P = 0.002), chance locus of control (OR 1.23, IC 1.04-1.45, P = 0.016) and lower intrinsic religiosity (OR 0.56, IC 0.38-0.84, P = 0.006). CONCLUSION: Our study showed that self-efficacy, chance locus of control, and intrinsic religiosity were associated with non-adherence to immunosuppressives. A broader perception of the kidney transplant patient´s integrality can help health professionals to design strategies to promote adherence in this population.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Silva et al. (2015) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: