The widespread use of standardized health surveys is predicated on the largely untested assumption that scales constructed from those surveys will satisfy minimum psychometric requirements across diverse population groups. Data from the Medical Outcomes Study (MOS) were used to evaluate data completeness and quality, test scaling assumptions, and estimate internal-consistency reliability for the eight scales constructed from the MOS SF-36 Health Survey. Analyses were conducted among 3,445 patients and were replicated across 24 subgroups differing in sociodemographic characteristics, diagnosis, and disease severity. For each scale, item-completion rates were high across all groups (88% to 95%), but tended to be somewhat lower among the elderly, those with less than a high school education, and those in poverty. On average, surveys were complete enough to compute scales scores for more than 96% of the sample. Across patient groups, all scales passed tests for item-internal consistency (97% passed) and item-discriminant validity (92% passed). Reliability coefficients ranged from a low of 0.65 to a high of 0.94 across scales (median = 0.85) and varied somewhat across patient subgroups. Floor effects were negligible except for the two role disability scales. Noteworthy ceiling effects were observed for both role disability scales and the social functioning scale. These findings support the use of the SF-36 survey across the diverse populations studied and identify population groups in which use of standardized health status measures may or may not be problematic.

https://www.jstor.org/stable/pdfplus/3766189.pdf

The MOS 36-item Short-Form Health Survey (SF-36): III. Tests of data quality, scaling assumptions, and reliability across diverse patient groups.

Background The extent to which renal allotransplantation — as compared with long-term dialysis — improves survival among patients with end-stage renal disease is controversial, because those selected for transplantation may have a lower base-line risk of death. Methods In an attempt to distinguish the effects of patient selection from those of transplantation itself, we conducted a longitudinal study of mortality in 228,552 patients who were receiving long-term dialysis for end-stage renal disease. Of these patients, 46,164 were placed on a waiting list for transplantation, 23,275 of whom received a first cadaveric transplant between 1991 and 1997. The relative risk of death and survival were assessed with time-dependent nonproportional-hazards analysis, with adjustment for age, race, sex, cause of end-stage renal disease, geographic region, time from first treatment for end-stage renal disease to placement on the waiting list, and year of initial placement on the list. Results Among the various subgroups...

https://www.nejm.org/doi/pdf/10.1056/NEJM199912023412303

Comparison of Mortality in All Patients on Dialysis, Patients on Dialysis Awaiting Transplantation, and Recipients of a First Cadaveric Transplant

https://www.minshawi.com/vb/attachment.php?attachmentid=731&d=1281369230

A Quality of Life Interview for the chronically mentally ill.

https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1111/j.1600-6143.2011.03686.x

Systematic Review: Kidney Transplantation Compared With Dialysis in Clinically Relevant Outcomes

Background In this randomized clinical trial, we aimed to determine whether increasing the frequency of in-center hemodialysis would result in beneficial changes in left ventricular mass, self-reported physical health, and other intermediate outcomes among patients undergoing maintenance hemodialysis. Methods Patients were randomly assigned to undergo hemodialysis six times per week (frequent hemodialysis, 125 patients) or three times per week (conventional hemodialysis, 120 patients) for 12 months. The two coprimary composite outcomes were death or change (from baseline to 12 months) in left ventricular mass, as assessed by cardiac magnetic resonance imaging, and death or change in the physical-health composite score of the RAND 36-item health survey. Secondary outcomes included cognitive performance; self-reported depression; laboratory markers of nutrition, mineral metabolism, and anemia; blood pressure; and rates of hospitalization and of interventions related to vascular access. Results Patients in the frequent-hemodialysis group averaged 5.2 sessions per week; the weekly standard Kt/V(urea) (the product of the urea clearance and the duration of the dialysis session normalized to the volume of distribution of urea) was significantly higher in the frequent-hemodialysis group than in the conventional-hemodialysis group (3.54±0.56 vs. 2.49±0.27). Frequent hemodialysis was associated with significant benefits with respect to both coprimary composite outcomes (hazard ratio for death or increase in left ventricular mass, 0.61; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.46 to 0.82; hazard ratio for death or a decrease in the physical-health composite score, 0.70; 95% CI, 0.53 to 0.92). Patients randomly assigned to frequent hemodialysis were more likely to undergo interventions related to vascular access than were patients assigned to conventional hemodialysis (hazard ratio, 1.71; 95% CI, 1.08 to 2.73). Frequent hemodialysis was associated with improved control of hypertension and hyperphosphatemia. There were no significant effects of frequent hemodialysis on cognitive performance, self-reported depression, serum albumin concentration, or use of erythropoiesis-stimulating agents. Conclusions Frequent hemodialysis, as compared with conventional hemodialysis, was associated with favorable results with respect to the composite outcomes of death or change in left ventricular mass and death or change in a physical-health composite score but prompted more frequent interventions related to vascular access. (Funded by the National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases and others; ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00264758.).

/pdf/in-center-hemodialysis-six-times-per-week-versus-three-times-1jjmptxium.pdf

In-center hemodialysis six times per week versus three times per week.

We assessed the quality of life of 859 patients undergoing dialysis or transplantation, with the goal of ascertaining whether objective and subjective measures of the quality of life were influenced by case mix or treatment. We found that 79.1 per cent of the transplant recipients were able to function at nearly normal levels, as compared with between 47.5 and 59.1 per cent of the patients treated with dialysis (depending on the type). Nearly 75 per cent of the transplant recipients were able to work, as compared with between 24.7 and 59.3 per cent of the patients undergoing dialysis. On three subjective measures (life satisfaction, well-being, and psychological affect) transplant recipients had a higher quality of life than patients on dialysis. Among the patients treated with dialysis, those undergoing treatment at home had the highest quality of life. All quality-of-life differences were found to persist even after the patient case mix had been controlled statistically. Finally, the quality of life of transplant recipients compared well with that of the general population, but despite favorable subjective assessments, patients undergoing dialysis did not work or function at the same level as people in the general population.

https://www.nejm.org/doi/pdf/10.1056/NEJM198502283120905?listPDF=true

Gutman Ra

Papers

The Quality of Life of Patients with End-Stage Renal Disease