Health-related quality of life, functional impairment and comorbidity in people with mild-to-moderate chronic kidney disease: a cross-sectional study
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Objectives To determine the associations between comorbidities, health-related quality of life (HRQoL) and functional impairment in people with mild-to-moderate chronic kidney disease (CKD) in primary care. Design Cross-sectional analysis at 5-year follow-up in a prospective cohort study. Setting Thirty-two general practitioner surgeries in England. Participants 1008 participants with CKD stage 3 (of 1741 people recruited at baseline in the Renal Risk in Derby study) who survived to 5 years and had complete follow-up data for HRQoL and functional status (FS). Primary and secondary outcome measures HRQoL assessed using the 5-level EQ-5D version (EQ-5D-5L, with domains of mobility, self-care, usual activities, pain/discomfort and anxiety/depression and index value using utility scores calculated from the English general population), and FS using the Karnofsky Performance Status scale (functional impairment defined as Karnofksy score ≤70). Comorbidity was defined by self-reported or doctor-diagnosed condition, disease-specific medication or blood result. Results Mean age was 75.8 years. The numbers reporting some problems in EQ-5D-5L domains were: 582 (57.7%) for mobility, 166 (16.5%) for self-care, 466 (46.2%) for usual activities, 712 (70.6%) for pain/discomfort and 319 (31.6%) for anxiety/depression. Only 191 (18.9%) reported no problems in any domain. HRQoL index values showed greater variation among those with lower FS (eg, for those with Karnofsky score of 60, the median (IQR) EQ-5D index value was 0.45 (0.24 to 0.68) compared with 0.94 (0.86 to 1) for those with Karnofsky score of 90). Overall, 234 (23.2%) had functional impairment. In multivariable logistic regression models, functional impairment was independently associated with experiencing problems for all EQ-5D-5L domains (mobility: OR 16.87 (95% CI 8.70 to 32.79, p<0.001, self-care: OR 13.08 (95% CI 8.46 to 20.22), p<0.001, usual activities: OR 8.27 (95% CI 5.43 to 12.58), p<0.001, pain/discomfort: OR 2.94 (95% CI 1.86 to 4.67), p<0.001, anxiety/depression: 3.08 (95% CI 2.23 to 4.27), p<0.001). Higher comorbidity count and obesity were independently associated with problems in mobility, self-care, usual activities and pain/discomfort: for three or more comorbidities versus none: (mobility: OR 2.10 (95% CI 1.08 to 4.10, p for trend 0.002), self-care: OR 2.64 (95% CI 0.72 to 9.67, p for trend 0.05), usual activities: OR 4.20 (95% CI 2.02 to 8.74, p for trend <0.001), pain/discomfort: OR 3.06 (95% CI 1.63 to 5.73, p for trend <0.001)), and for obese (body mass index (BMI) ≥30 kg/m 2 ) versus BMI <25 kg/m 2 : (mobility: OR 2.44 (95% CI 1.61 to 3.69, p for trend <0.001), self-care: OR 1.98 (95% CI 1.06 to 3.71, p for trend 0.003), usual activities: OR 1.82 (95% CI 1.19 to 2.76, p for trend 0.019), pain/discomfort: OR 2.37 (95% CI 1.58 to 3.55, p for trend <0.001)). Female sex, lower FS and lower educational attainment were independently associated with anxiety/depression (ORs 1.60 (95% CI 1.18 to 2.16, p 0.002), 3.08 (95% CI 2.23 to 4.27, p<0.001) and 1.67 (95% CI 1.10 to 2.52, p 0.009), respectively). Older age, higher comorbidity count, albuminuria (≥30 mg/mmol vs <3 mg/mmol), lower educational attainment (no formal qualifications vs degree level) and obesity were independently associated with functional impairment (ORs 1.07 (95% CI 1.04 to 1.09, p<0.001), 2.18 (95% CI 0.80 to 5.96, p for trend <0.001), 1.74 (95% CI 0.82 to 3.68, p for trend 0.005), 2.08 (95% CI 1.26 to 3.41, p for trend <0.001) and 4.23 (95% CI 2.48 to 7.20), respectively). Conclusions The majority of persons with mild-to-moderate CKD reported reductions in at least one HRQoL domain, which were independently associated with comorbidities, obesity and functional impairment. Trial registration number National Institute for Health Research Clinical Research Portfolio Study Number 6632.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,002 | 0,003 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,001 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».