Published online Jun 6, 2023. doi: 10.12998/wjcc.v11.i16.3780
Peer-review started: December 17, 2022
First decision: January 12, 2023
Revised: February 11, 2023
Accepted: May 6, 2023
Article in press: May 6, 2023
Published online: June 6, 2023
Processing time: 166 Days and 20.3 Hours
Kidney transplantation (KT) and end-stage renal disease (ESRD) requiring hemodialysis (HD) increase the incidence of morbidity and mortality associated with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) infection. The COVID-19 pandemic has had a negative effect on the psychological well-being of COVID-19 patients, especially those with a high-risk of infectious complications. The prevalence of anxiety and depression is known to be higher in ESRD patients undergoing HD than in the general population. On the other hand, KT recipients have different treatment requirements compared to HD patients, including adherence to complex immunosuppressive regimens and compliance with follow-up appointments. We hypothesized that psychosocial difficulties and stressors would differ between ESRD patients undergoing HD and KT recipients during the COVID-19 pandemic. If so, each group may require different interventions to maintain their psychosocial well-being.
To measure and compare the levels of stress, anxiety, depression, concerns related to the pandemic, and coping skills in ESRD patients undergoing HD and KT recipients during the COVID-19 pandemic.
This cross-sectional study was performed at a training and research hospital. The study included ESRD patients undergoing HD (HD group) and KT recipients (with stable graft function for ≥ 6 mo prior to the study) (KT group). Patients completed a demographics form, the impact of events scale, the hospital anxiety and depression scale, and the Connor-Davidson resilience scale. Laboratory findings at the last clinical follow-up were recorded. The χ2 test was used to assess the relationship between the HD and KT groups and the categorical variables. The relationships between the scale scores were analyzed using Pearson’s correlation test, and differences between the groups were analyzed using the independent groups t-test.
The study included 125 patients, of which 89 (71.2%) were in the HD group and 36 (28.8%) were in the KT group. The levels of anxiety and depression were higher in the HD group than in the KT group [9.36 ± 4.38 vs 6.89 ± 4.06 (P = 0.004) and 8.78 ± 4.05 vs 6.42 ± 4.26 (P = 0.004), respectively], whereas the post-traumatic stress score was higher in the KT group [46.75 ± 13.98 vs 37.66 ± 18.50 (P = 0.009)]. The concern with the highest intensity in the HD group was transmission of COVID-19 to family and friends (93.3%) and in the KT group was loss of caregiver and social support (77.8%). Concerns regarding financial hardship, stigmatization, loneliness, limited access to health care services, failure to find medical supplies, and transmission of COVID-19 to family and friends were more prevalent in the HD group. Connor-Davidson resilience scale tenacity and personal competence, tolerance, and negative affect scores were higher in the KT group than in the HD group [43.47 ± 11.39 vs 33.72 ± 12.58, 15.58 ± 4.95 vs 11.45 ± 5.05, and 68.75 ± 17.39 vs 55.39 ± 18.65 (P < 0.001), respectively]. Biochemical parameters, such as creatine, urea, phosphorus, parathyroid hormone, and calcium, were lower, and the albumin and hemoglobin values were higher in the KT group than in the HD group (P < 0.001).
Psychosocial difficulties and the level of stress differ in ESRD patients undergoing HD and KT recipients; therefore, psychosocial interventions should be tailored for each patient group.
Core Tip: Hemodialysis patients and kidney transplantation recipients with viral infections have higher mortality and morbidity rates compared to the general population. These patients are at a high risk of infectious complications due to immunosuppression, and this risk triggers psychosocial stress. Considering the possible negative effects of this psychosocial stress, an in-depth psychological analysis was performed using validated scales. Specific concerns and stressors related to coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) were identified in both patient groups. Overall, the main concern was transmitting COVID-19 to family and friends, followed by financial hardship, loneliness, and stigmatization. The present findings showed that it is crucial to tailor supportive psychological interventions to these vulnerable patient groups.
- Citation: Gundogmus AG, Oguz EG, Guler-Cimen S, Kocyigit Y, Dogan AE, Ayli MD. Psychological review of hemodialysis patients and kidney transplant recipients during the COVID-19 pandemic. World J Clin Cases 2023; 11(16): 3780-3790
- URL: https://www.wjgnet.com/2307-8960/full/v11/i16/3780.htm
- DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.12998/wjcc.v11.i16.3780
Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) has a higher mortality rate in end-stage renal disease (ESRD) patients compared to the general population as these patients have comorbid immunosuppression[1]. Patients with ESRD and immunocompromised transplant recipients constitute one of the highest risk groups for COVID-19 infection[2]. In 2019 there were 61341 ESRD patients on hemodialysis (HD) in Turkey, and the number has increased by 10000 patients each year since[3]. Worldwide approximately 2 million people annually undergo HD or receive a kidney transplant to stay alive. The best treatment for ESRD is kidney transplantation (KT). The COVID-19-related mortality rate in KT recipients is reported to be 22%-50%[4]. This mortality rate can be higher in developing countries, such as Turkey. Turkey has an insufficient budget for health care services[5]. Moreover, ESRD patients undergoing HD three times a week are at risk of contracting COVID-19 at HD centers[6,7], as they have a weakened immune system and receive dialysis in crowded conditions. The literature on COVID-19 is primarily focused on treatment and complication management. Clinical studies on the effect of the COVID-19 pandemic, including stressors and psychological trauma, in specific patient populations are lacking[8-17]. Nevertheless, it is predicted that the COVID-19 pandemic negatively affects the psychological well-being of patients, especially those at high-risk for contracting COVID-19[9].
Given the need for a better understanding of affect disorders in ESRD patients undergoing HD and KT recipients during the COVID-19 pandemic, the present study aimed to determine the prevalence and degree of anxiety and depression in KT recipients and HD patients and to compare them in terms of psychological resilience, traumatic stress, and the severity of depression and anxiety. It was hypothesized that psychosocial difficulties and areas of concern would differ between the ESRD patients undergoing HD and the KT recipients during the COVID-19 pandemic.
This cross-sectional study was conducted at Saglik Bilimleri University, Ankara Diskapi Research and Training Hospital, Transplantation and Nephrology Clinic, Ankara, Turkey. The study included ESRD patients undergoing HD and KT recipients with stable graft function for ≥ 6 mo prior to the study. Data were collected between September 2020 and January 2021. Patients aged < 18 years and > 65 years, patients with documented organic mental disorders, epilepsy, dementia, delirium, and intellectual disability, patients that could not complete the study scales due to hearing-vision problems or a medical illness with significant cognitive sequelae, and those with a history of alcohol or substance abuse were excluded. Additionally, illiterate patients were excluded, as they could not complete the study scales. The Saglik Bilimleri University, Ankara Diskapi Research and Training Hospital Ethics Committee approved the study protocol, No. 10.08.2020-93/01, which was carried out in accordance with the declaration of Helsinki and the declaration of Istanbul. All study participants provided written informed consent.
Data for ESRD patients were collected during HD sessions between the first and last hours. KT recipients’ data were collected during KT outpatient follow-up visits. All participants completed a sociodemographic data form, the impact of events scale-revised (IES-R), the Connor-Davidson resilience scale (CD-RISC), and the hospital anxiety and depression scale (HADS). HD initiation and KT dates were recorded. Additionally, routine laboratory parameters, including blood urea, creatinine, albumin, phosphorus, parathyroid hormone, calcium, hemoglobin, and C-reactive protein levels, were collected. Participants were also administered a visual analog scale to evaluate the level of perceived stress related to COVID-19 infection (1: None; 2: A little bit; 3: Moderate; 4: A lot; 5: Extreme). Non-compliance with medication and follow-up care was determined based on a yes/no question. Patients were divided into two groups: the HD group and the KT group.
This form was used to record patient age, sex, level of education, marital status, occupational status, and tobacco and alcohol use. Additional questionnaire items queried concerns related to the COVID-19 pandemic such as personal health, the health of loved ones, loneliness, isolation, and financial hardship to discern the causes of distress.
HADS is a self-report scale used to screen for anxiety and depression. The depression subscale considers anhedonia as the primary symptom. The cutoff points for the Turkish version are 10 for the anxiety subscale and 7 for the depression subscale. The scale was developed by Zigmond and Snaith[18] (1983) and was subsequently validated for use in the Turkish population by Aydemir et al[19] (1997).
IES-R is used to assess post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) using a 5-point Likert-type scale. The scale evaluates the severity of symptoms and has three sub-dimensions: re-experiencing; avoidance; and hyper-arousal. It was developed by Weiss and Marmar[20] (1997) and was validated for use in the Turkish population by Çorapçıoğlu et al[21] (2006). The original cutoff value is 33[20]. The Turkish version of the scale is shown to have good diagnostical performance for cutoff points between 24 and 33[21].
CD-RISC is used to assess psychological resilience using a 5-point Likert-type scale. The scale was developed by Connor and Davidson[22] and has five sub-dimensions; (1) Personal competence, high standards, and tenacity; (2) Trust in one’s instincts, tolerance of negative affect, and the strengthening effects of stress; (3) Positive acceptance of change and secure relationships; (4) Control; and (5) Spiritual influences. The Turkish reliability and validity study performed by Karairmak et al[23] (2010) determined that the Turkish version has three sub-dimensions: tenacity and personal competence; tolerance of negative affect; and tendency towards spirituality. Higher scores indicate higher levels of psychological resilience.
Data were analyzed using IBM SPSS Statistics for Windows v.21.0 (IBM Corp., Armonk, NY, United States) and a 95% confidence interval was used. Categorical (qualitative) variables were shown as frequency and percentage, whereas quantitative variables were shown as mean ± SD. Data were considered to have normal distribution if the kurtosis and skewness values were between −3 to +3. Accordingly, the skewness and kurtosis statistics of the measurements showed they were normally distributed. Therefore, parametric methods were used for analysis.
The χ2 test was used to assess the relationships between the two groups and the categorical variables. The relationships between the measurements/scores were analyzed using Pearson’s correlation test, and differences between the groups were analyzed using the independent groups t-test. The level of statistical significance was set at P < 0.05.
The study included 125 patients: 89 (71.2%) in the HD group and 36 (28.8%) in the KT group (Table 1). Among the KT recipients, 26 received live-related KT and 10 were transplanted from a deceased donor allocated through the Turkish Ministry of Health matching system. Live-related donors included 16 first-degree relatives and 10 second-degree relatives. Sex, occupational status, marital status, social support, cigarette smoking, and alcohol consumption did not differ between the HD and KT groups. The mean age in the HD group was 54.75 ± 15.43 years vs 44.54 ± 9.93 years in the KT group; the difference was significant (P < 0.001). Additionally, the level of education was higher in the KT group (P < 0.001).
Characteristic | HD group, n = 89 | KT group, n = 36 | P value |
Age in yr | 54.75 ± 15.43 | 44.54 ± 9.93 | < 0.001 |
Sex | |||
Male | 42 | 22 | 0.225 |
Female | 47 | 14 | |
Occupational status | |||
Permanent job | 7 | 8 | 0.101 |
Temporary job | 5 | 2 | |
Unemployed | 77 | 26 | |
Marital status | |||
Single | 40 | 12 | 0.321 |
Married | 49 | 24 | |
Level of educational | |||
Low | 36 | 2 | < 0.001 |
Middle | 42 | 14 | |
High | 11 | 20 | |
Social network | |||
Support available | 69 | 22 | 0.1 |
Not available | 20 | 14 | |
Smoking | 14 | 5 | 0.999 |
Alcohol consumption | 2 | 1 | 0.999 |
Comorbidities | 68 | 20 | 0.028 |
ESRD duration in yr | 8.9 ± 7.23 | 15.2 ± 6.4 | < 0.001 |
Transplant follow-up in yr | - | 8.23 ± 5.15 | - |
Creatinine in mg/dL | 8.64 ± 1.36 | 1.37 ± 0.52 | < 0.001 |
Urea in mg/dL | 212.72 ± 71.13 | 45.1 ± 18.83 | < 0.001 |
Albumin in g/L | 4.17 ± 0.36 | 4.43 ± 0.31 | < 0.001 |
Phosphorus in mg/dL | 5.29 ± 1.38 | 3.38 ± 0.8 | < 0.001 |
Parathyroid hormone in ng/L | 690.63 ± 580.97 | 84.22 ± 58.65 | < 0.001 |
Calcium in mg/dL | 7.78 ± 0.83 | 9.38 ± 0.58 | < 0.001 |
Hemoglobin in g/dL | 10.43 ± 1.61 | 13.01 ± 2.02 | < 0.001 |
Previous psychiatric diagnosis | 21 | 10 | 0.794 |
Active psychiatric treatment | 9 | 4 | 0.999 |
Non-compliance with treatment | 5 | 20 | < 0.001 |
More of the patients in the HD group had comorbidities than those in the KT group (P = 0.028). Mean duration of ESRD was 8.9 ± 7.2 years in the HD group vs 15.2 ± 6.4 years in the KT group (P < 0.001). The mean duration of follow-up was 8.23 ± 5.15 years in the KT group. Biochemical parameters were significantly better in the KT group (P < 0.001). Psychological variables, such as a history of psychiatric admission, and active psychiatric treatment did not differ significantly between the two groups (Table 1). Treatment non-compliance was reported by 20 (55.6%) of the patients in the KT group vs 5 (5.6%) in the HD group (P < 0.001) (Table 1).
Patients in the two study groups had different concerns regarding the COVID-19 pandemic. The intensity of concerns is presented in Table 2. The main concern with the highest intensity was the transmission of COVID-19 to family and friends. This concern had moderate to severe intensity in 83 (93.3%) of the HD patients and 25 (69.4%) of the KT recipients. Significantly more of the patients in the HD group had this concern than those in the KT group. Similarly, concerns regarding financial hardship, loneliness, stigmatization, and failure to find medical supplies were more intense in the HD group. The intensity of concerns regarding contracting COVID-19, inability to access medical treatment, loss of caregiver and social support, limited access to health care services, and contracting COVID-19 from family and friends did not differ significantly between the two groups. The overall perceived stress score was significantly higher in the HD group than in the KT group (P < 0.001) (Table 2).
Concerns | Intensity | HD group, n | % | KT group, n | % | P value |
Contracting COVID-19 | None/very mild | 9 | 10.1 | 7 | 19.4 | |
Mild | 8 | 9.0 | 6 | 16.7 | 0.118 | |
Moderate/severe | 72 | 80.9 | 23 | 63.9 | ||
Inability to access medical treatment | None/very mild | 9 | 10.1 | 5 | 13.9 | |
Mild | 9 | 10.1 | 8 | 22.2 | 0.125 | |
Moderate/severe | 71 | 79.8 | 23 | 63.9 | ||
Loss of caregiver and social support | None/very mild | 7 | 7.9 | 6 | 16.7 | |
Mild | 7 | 7.9 | 2 | 5.6 | 0.337 | |
Moderate/severe | 75 | 84.3 | 28 | 77.8 | ||
Financial hardship | None/very mild | 3 | 3.4 | 6 | 16.7 | |
Mild | 8 | 9.0 | 11 | 30.6 | < 0.001 | |
Moderate/severe | 78 | 87.6 | 19 | 52.8 | ||
Loneliness | None/very mild | 9 | 10.1 | 14 | 38.9 | |
Mild | 11 | 12.4 | 10 | 27.8 | < 0.001 | |
Moderate/severe | 69 | 77.5 | 12 | 33.3 | ||
Stigmatization | None/very mild | 10 | 11.2 | 20 | 55.6 | |
Mild | 7 | 7.9 | 3 | 8.3 | < 0.001 | |
Moderate/severe | 72 | 80.9 | 13 | 36.1 | ||
Limited access to health care services | None/very mild | 8 | 9.0 | 8 | 22.2 | |
Mild | 13 | 14.6 | 8 | 22.2 | 0.05 | |
Moderate/severe | 68 | 76.4 | 20 | 55.6 | ||
Failure to find medical supplies | None/very mild | 9 | 10.1 | 7 | 19.4 | |
Mild | 11 | 12.4 | 14 | 38.9 | < 0.001 | |
Moderate/severe | 69 | 77.5 | 15 | 41.7 | ||
Transmission of COVID-19 to family and friends | None/very mild | 2 | 2.2 | 7 | 19.4 | |
Mild | 4 | 4.5 | 4 | 11.1 | 0.001 | |
Moderate/severe | 83 | 93.3 | 25 | 69.4 | ||
Contracting COVID-19 from family and friends | None/very mild | 2 | 2.2 | 3 | 8.3 | |
Mild | 8 | 9.0 | 7 | 19.4 | 0.064 | |
Moderate/severe | 79 | 88.8 | 26 | 72.2 | ||
Overall perceived stress score | None/very mild | 3 | 3.4 | 6 | 16.7 | |
Mild | 6 | 6.7 | 11 | 30.6 | < 0.001 | |
Moderate/severe | 80 | 89.9 | 19 | 52.8 |
The HADS anxiety subscale score was significantly lower in the KT group than in the HD group [9.36 ± 4.38 vs 6.89 ± 4.06 (P = 0.004)] (Table 3), and the HADS depression subscale score was significantly lower in the KT group than in the HD group [8.78 ± 4.05 vs 6.42 ± 4.26 (P = 0.004)]. The IES-R re-experiencing score did not differ significantly between the groups; however, the hyper-arousal, avoidance, and total scores were significantly higher in the KT group than in the HD group (P = 0.031, P < 0.001, and P = 0.009, respectively). CD-RISC tenacity and personal competence and tolerance and negative affect scores were higher in the KT group (P < 0.001 and P < 0.001, respectively). There was not a significant difference between the groups in the tendency towards spirituality. The CD-RISC total score was higher in the KT group (68.75 ± 17.39) than in the HD group (55.39 ± 18.65) (P < 0.001) (Table 3).
Scores | HD group, mean ± SD | KT group, mean ± SD | P value |
HADS | |||
Anxiety score | 9.36 ± 4.38 | 6.89 ± 4.06 | 0.004 |
Depression score | 8.78 ± 4.05 | 6.42 ± 4.26 | 0.004 |
IES-R | |||
Re-experiencing score | 13.70 ± 7.31 | 16.25 ± 6.07 | 0.066 |
Hyper-arousal score | 9.44 ± 5.91 | 11.56 ± 4.41 | 0.031 |
Avoidance score | 14.53 ± 6.38 | 18.94 ± 4.85 | < 0.001 |
Total score | 37.66 ± 18.50 | 46.75 ± 13.98 | 0.009 |
CD-RISC | |||
Tenacity and personal competence score | 33.72 ± 12.58 | 43.47 ± 11.39 | < 0.001 |
Tolerance and negative affect score | 11.45 ± 5.05 | 15.58 ± 4.95 | < 0.001 |
Tendency towards spirituality score | 10.28 ± 2.83 | 9.75 ± 2.90 | 0.347 |
Total score | 55.39 ± 18.65 | 68.75 ± 17.39 | < 0.001 |
Based on the cutoff score for the HADS anxiety sub-scale, 55.1% (n = 49) of the HD patients and 25.0% (n = 9) of the KT recipients had anxiety (P = 0.004). According to the cutoff score for the HADS depression sub-scale, 73.0% (n = 65) of the HD patients and 47.2% (n = 17) of the KT recipients had depression (P = 0.011). The IES-R cutoff score showed that significantly more patients in the KT group (n = 32) were experiencing post-traumatic stress as compared to those in the HD group (n = 57) (P = 0.010).
ESRD is a global health problem, and the best treatment option is KT; however, both ESRD and KT render patients susceptible to infectious diseases, including COVID-19[6,7,24]. ESRD patients cannot survive without dialysis, and HD requires patients to travel to a dialysis center ≥ three times per week. This increases the risk of exposure to patients with COVID-19 infection[6]. Moreover, ESRD patients and KT recipients need to adhere to strict treatment protocols, including dietary/fluid restriction, physical activity, poly-medication use, and follow-up visits.
In the present study COVID-19-related concerns in the HD and KT groups were analyzed. Additionally, depression, anxiety, post-traumatic stress, and psychological resilience scores were measured using HADS, IES-R, and CD-RISC, respectively, and compared between the HD and KT groups. Sociodemographic data in both groups were consistent with Turkish national data showing that KT recipients are younger and have a higher level of education than HD patients. A high level of education (high school or university) may make it easier to navigate the healthcare system and consequently obtain better healthcare services. Additionally, individuals with a high level of education might have higher levels of self-efficacy and internal control, which may lead to improved treatment compliance. Individuals with a high level of education may have better health literacy, which might also result in better treatment compliance. The relationship between the level of education and psychosocial stress, coping skills, and treatment compliance are likely multifactorial and complex. As such, the difference in the level of education between the present study’s HD and KT groups might contribute to the differences in depression/anxiety and psychological resilience levels that were observed. Until the mechanisms underlying these observed differences are elucidated, medical professionals should be cognizant of the detrimental effects of a low level of education (less than high school) on stress, anxiety, and coping skills.
Sex distribution in the present study’s groups did not differ significantly and was consistent with Turkish national data[3]. In addition, a history of psychiatric diagnosis and active psychiatric treatment did not differ significantly between the HD and KT groups. The self-reported treatment non-compliance rate was higher in the KT group than in the HD group, which might have been related to the ongoing nature of HD treatment.
There were several concerning issues for patients receiving HD and KT patients during the COVID-19 pandemic[25]. In the present study the KT recipients reported having less concern than HD patients for financial hardship. Concerns about loneliness and stigmatization were more intense in the HD group. Similarly, concerns about the failure to find medical supplies and transmitting COVID-19 to family and friends were more common in the HD group, which might have been due to their dependence on HD treatment. In contrast, the KT recipients might have had a false sense of security, as they do not require routine HD post-transplantation and therefore have a high rate of non-compliance with medications and follow-up visits. Considering all these factors, the overall perceived stress score was significantly higher in the HD group.
The present study’s HD group had significantly higher HADS anxiety and depression scores than the KT group, which agrees with the higher perceived stress levels in the HD group. Cimen et al[26] studied HD patients who were waitlisted for KT and reported that the diagnosis of ESRD and undergoing HD and arteriovenous fistula surgery had an anxiety-inducing effect. A study on solid organ transplant recipients showed that wait-listed patients reported higher levels of anxiety related to the COVID-19 pandemic than patients that had already undergone transplantation, which agrees with the present findings[11]. Moreover, it was previously reported that depression and anxiety levels in HD patients are higher than in KT recipients, as in the present study[27]. The mean age in the present study’s HD group was higher than in the KT group and the fact that the risks associated with COVID-19 infection increase with age might have played a role in the observed higher level of anxiety in the HD group[2]. The necessity of regular treatment at a dialysis center and the inability to comply with recommended quarantine/social distancing rules may play a role in the high level of anxiety among HD patients[15].
IES-R avoidance, hyper-arousal, and total scores in the present study were higher in the KT group than in the HD group. When the scores were evaluated for their cutoff values the significance of the IES-R scale persisted. This highlighted the fact that the KT recipients had a higher level of post-traumatic stress than the HD patients. Starting from the immediate post-transplant surgery phase transplant recipients must live in isolation for 1 year, must pay particular attention to the home environment, and must limit social interaction due to the high risk of infection associated with immunosuppressive multidrug treatment, including prophylactic anti-viral, anti-bacterial, and immunosuppressive medications[28]. The COVID-19 pandemic required social isolation policies that mimicked those required by transplant recipients post-surgery. This similarity might have led the present study’s KT recipients to experience post-traumatic stress more intensely than HD patients, who lacked any prior experience of social isolation. The KT recipients that had already experienced an existential discontinuity (i.e. a sudden interruption of self and everyday life) also experienced isolation and potential trauma related to post-transplantation isolation; these experiences might have led them to develop PTSD during the COVID-19 pandemic[4].
Psychological resilience and positive coping strategies can prevent PTSD[29]. It was reported that psychological resilience can also positively affect treatment compliance in HD patients. There is an inverse relationship between psychological resilience and psychological stress in KT recipients[30,31]. It has been shown that interventions that increase psychological resilience have positive effects on depression, anxiety, and perceived stress in transplant recipients[32]. CD-RISC tenacity and personal competence, tolerance and negative affect, and total scores were higher in the present study’s KT group. This shows that the KT group had higher psychological resilience and lower levels of depression and anxiety. A low level of psychological resilience is among the risk factors for psychopathology. Research emphasizes the importance of strengthening the psychological resilience of individuals and societies[31].
Although the present study used a single-center design, it provides important insights into the psychosocial status of HD patients and KT recipients during the COVID-19 pandemic. The use of self-report scales can be considered a limitation of the present study. Additionally, due to the present study’s cross-sectional design causality could not be determined. Another limitation of the study is the absence of a healthy control group, as COVID-related distress can also afflict healthy persons. The present findings might have been more valuable if the psychosocial status of the KT and HD patients during COVID-19 pandemic had been compared to that prior to the pandemic.
In conclusion, the present findings show that HD patients had higher levels of stress and anxiety than KT recipients during the COVID-19 pandemic. The HD patients also had a higher degree of concern regarding financial hardship, loneliness, stigmatization, and failure to find medical supplies and treatment than KT recipients. In contrast, KT recipients had higher IES-R scores, indicating a greater degree of post-traumatic stress. The KT recipients also reported a higher rate of non-compliance with treatment than HD patients. Furthermore, the HD patients and KT recipients experienced different psychosocial difficulties during the COVID-19 pandemic.
The recent coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has had significant psychological and social effects on the world’s population. Research has highlighted the effect on the psychological well-being of the most at risk groups, including hemodialysis (HD) patients and kidney transplantation (KT) recipients, who are highly likely to develop post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD), anxiety, depression, and other symptoms of distress. COVID-19-related social distancing negatively affected interpersonal relationships and empathy toward others. The aim of the present clinical study was to identify the effect of the COVID-19 pandemic on these two patient groups and consider possible interventions based on the findings.
The psychological construct of coping, anxiety, depression, and psychological resilience has been studied in various patient populations and has more recently been applied in the field of transplant and end-stage renal disease (ESRD) psychology. The COVID-19 pandemic provided a good opportunity to study and explore the nature of stressors and their origins in KT recipients and ESRD patients undergoing HD.
Prolonged stress during the COVID-19 pandemic can trigger anxiety, depression, and the inability to manage traumatic and negative emotions. Furthermore, the constant fear of contracting the disease negatively affects daily life and leads to social isolation, modifying human relations. These features can be more profoundly observed in patients with chronic illnesses, such as ESRD. The present study aimed to analyze the levels of anxiety and depression in ESRD patients undergoing HD and KT recipients. Additionally, the primary stressors and psychological resilience were surveyed and compared between the KT recipients and HD patients, which is crucial in order to tailor specific treatment for each group.
The participants of this cross-sectional study completed a sociodemographic data form, the impact of events scale-revised, Connor-Davidson resilience scale, and hospital anxiety and depression scale. HD initiation and KT surgery dates were recorded. Additionally, routine laboratory parameters, including blood urea, creatinine, albumin, phosphorus, parathyroid hormone, calcium, hemoglobin, and C-reactive protein, were measured. Participants were administered a visual analog scale to evaluate the level of perceived COVID-19-related stress. Non-compliance with medication and follow-up care was evaluated with a yes/no question. The study included two groups: The HD group and the KT group.
The HD group was significantly older than the KT group. Additionally, the level of education was higher in the KT group than in the HD group. Patients in the two study groups had different concerns regarding the COVID-19 pandemic. The main concern with the highest intensity was the transmission of COVID-19 to family and friends in the HD group and the loss of caregiver and social support in the KT group. Concerns regarding financial hardship, loneliness, stigmatization, limited access to health care services, failure to find medical supplies, and transmission of COVID-19 to family and friends were more intense in the HD group. The levels of anxiety and depression were higher in the HD group than in the KT group, whereas the post-traumatic stress level was higher in the KT group. The rate of PTSD was significantly higher in the KT group as compared to HD group. The psychological resilience level was also higher in the KT group. In addition, in the KT group the reported non-compliance with treatment rate was significantly higher than in the HD group during the COVID-19 pandemic.
ESRD is a chronic condition characterized by kidney failure that requires either dialysis or KT for survival. Among these two treatment options, KT provides the best outcome, although at a cost. KT recipients must adhere to complex immunosuppressive regimens and medical follow-up. HD, on the other hand, is a more demanding treatment that requires visiting a dialysis center three times per week, blood work-ups, and the risk of exposure to COVID-19 in confined and crowded dialysis centers. The present study aimed to determine the levels of stress, anxiety, and depression, as well as psychological resilience and the frequency of PTSD in HD patients and KT recipients. The present findings highlight the differences in the COVID 19-related concerns and major stressors in the participants in the HD and KT groups. The levels of anxiety and depression were significantly higher in the HD than in the KT group. On the other hand, PTSD and non-compliance with treatment were more common in the KT group. These findings should help clinicians tailor specific support and treatment for HD patients and KT recipients.
Stress factors associated with the COVID-19 pandemic include fear of death, concerns about personal health and the health of loved ones, loneliness caused by social distancing mandates, concerns about the inability to access medical treatment, job loss, and financial hardship. The magnitude of these stressors and unknowns about COVID-19 and its treatment are likely to lead to PTSD in some individuals, and anxiety and depression set the stage for its development. ESRD patients constitute a vulnerable population, as the present findings show they have high levels of anxiety and depression and are prone to developing PTSD.
We would like to thank Cansu Çoban for her support in the conduction of this study.
Provenance and peer review: Unsolicited article; Externally peer reviewed.
Peer-review model: Single blind
Specialty type: Medicine, research and experimental
Country/Territory of origin: Turkey
Peer-review report’s scientific quality classification
Grade A (Excellent): 0
Grade B (Very good): 0
Grade C (Good): C, C
Grade D (Fair): 0
Grade E (Poor): 0
P-Reviewer: Tang W, China; Wijaya JH, Indonesia S-Editor: Li L L-Editor: Filipodia P-Editor: Li L
1. | Basile C, Combe C, Pizzarelli F, Covic A, Davenport A, Kanbay M, Kirmizis D, Schneditz D, van der Sande F, Mitra S. Recommendations for the prevention, mitigation and containment of the emerging SARS-CoV-2 (COVID-19) pandemic in haemodialysis centres. Nephrol Dial Transplant. 2020;35:737-741. [PubMed] [DOI] [Cited in This Article: ] [Cited by in Crossref: 165] [Cited by in F6Publishing: 175] [Article Influence: 43.8] [Reference Citation Analysis (0)] |
2. | Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Underlying Medical Conditions Associated with Higher Risk for Severe COVID-19: Information for Healthcare Professionals. 2023. [cited: 10 April 2023]. Available from: https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/hcp/clinical-care/underlyingconditions.html. [Cited in This Article: ] |
3. | Seyahi N, Koçyiğit İ, Ateş K, Süleymanlar G. Current status of renal replacement therapy in turkey: A summary of the 2019 turkish society of nephrology registry report. Turk J Nephrol. 2021;30:105-111. [DOI] [Cited in This Article: ] [Cited by in Crossref: 1] [Cited by in F6Publishing: 1] [Article Influence: 0.3] [Reference Citation Analysis (0)] |
4. | Raja MA, Mendoza MA, Villavicencio A, Anjan S, Reynolds JM, Kittipibul V, Fernandez A, Guerra G, Camargo JF, Simkins J, Morris MI, Abbo LA, Natori Y. COVID-19 in solid organ transplant recipients: A systematic review and meta-analysis of current literature. Transplant Rev (Orlando). 2021;35:100588. [PubMed] [DOI] [Cited in This Article: ] [Cited by in Crossref: 144] [Cited by in F6Publishing: 154] [Article Influence: 51.3] [Reference Citation Analysis (0)] |
5. | OECD Data. Health Spending. 2021. [cited 4 January 2022]. Available from: https://data.oecd.org/healthres/health-spending.htm. [Cited in This Article: ] |
6. | Ma Y, Diao B, Lv X, Zhu J, Liang W, Liu L, Bu W, Cheng H, Zhang S, Yang L, Shi M, Ding G, Shen B, Wang H. Novel coronavirus disease in hemodialysis (HD) patients: Report from one HD center in Wuhan, China. 2019 Preprint. Available from: medRxiv: 20027201. [DOI] [Cited in This Article: ] |
7. | Adapa S, Aeddula NR, Konala VM, Chenna A, Naramala S, Madhira BR, Gayam V, Balla M, Muppidi V, Bose S. COVID-19 and Renal Failure: Challenges in the Delivery of Renal Replacement Therapy. J Clin Med Res. 2020;12:276-285. [PubMed] [DOI] [Cited in This Article: ] [Cited by in Crossref: 50] [Cited by in F6Publishing: 43] [Article Influence: 10.8] [Reference Citation Analysis (0)] |
8. | Shah K, Kamrai D, Mekala H, Mann B, Desai K, Patel RS. Focus on Mental Health During the Coronavirus (COVID-19) Pandemic: Applying Learnings from the Past Outbreaks. Cureus. 2020;12:e7405. [PubMed] [DOI] [Cited in This Article: ] [Cited by in Crossref: 165] [Cited by in F6Publishing: 162] [Article Influence: 40.5] [Reference Citation Analysis (0)] |
9. | Cho AJ, Lee HS, Lee YK, Jeon HJ, Park HC, Jeong DW, Kim YG, Lee SH, Lee CH, Yoo KD, Wong AK. Post-traumatic stress symptoms in hemodialysis patients with MERS-CoV exposure. Biopsychosoc Med. 2020;14:9. [PubMed] [DOI] [Cited in This Article: ] [Cited by in Crossref: 7] [Cited by in F6Publishing: 9] [Article Influence: 2.3] [Reference Citation Analysis (0)] |
10. | Akdur A, Karakaya E, Ayvazoglu Soy EH, Yarbug Karakayali F, Yildirim S, Torgay A, Sayin CB, Coskun M, Moray G, Haberal M. Liver and Kidney Transplant During a 6-Month Period in the COVID-19 Pandemic: A Single-Center Experience. Exp Clin Transplant. 2020;18:564-571. [PubMed] [DOI] [Cited in This Article: ] [Cited by in Crossref: 7] [Cited by in F6Publishing: 7] [Article Influence: 1.8] [Reference Citation Analysis (0)] |
11. | Reuken PA, Rauchfuss F, Albers S, Settmacher U, Trautwein C, Bruns T, Stallmach A. Between fear and courage: Attitudes, beliefs, and behavior of liver transplantation recipients and waiting list candidates during the COVID-19 pandemic. Am J Transplant. 2020;20:3042-3050. [PubMed] [DOI] [Cited in This Article: ] [Cited by in Crossref: 30] [Cited by in F6Publishing: 30] [Article Influence: 7.5] [Reference Citation Analysis (0)] |
12. | Barutcu Atas D, Aydin Sunbul E, Velioglu A, Tuglular S. The association between perceived stress with sleep quality, insomnia, anxiety and depression in kidney transplant recipients during COVID-19 pandemic. PLoS One. 2021;16:e0248117. [PubMed] [DOI] [Cited in This Article: ] [Cited by in Crossref: 14] [Cited by in F6Publishing: 23] [Article Influence: 7.7] [Reference Citation Analysis (0)] |
13. | Simões E Silva AC, Miranda AS, Rocha NP, Teixeira AL. Neuropsychiatric Disorders in Chronic Kidney Disease. Front Pharmacol. 2019;10:932. [PubMed] [DOI] [Cited in This Article: ] [Cited by in Crossref: 27] [Cited by in F6Publishing: 48] [Article Influence: 9.6] [Reference Citation Analysis (0)] |
14. | Murtagh FE, Addington-Hall J, Higginson IJ. The prevalence of symptoms in end-stage renal disease: a systematic review. Adv Chronic Kidney Dis. 2007;14:82-99. [PubMed] [DOI] [Cited in This Article: ] [Cited by in Crossref: 546] [Cited by in F6Publishing: 590] [Article Influence: 34.7] [Reference Citation Analysis (0)] |
15. | Xia X, Wu X, Zhou X, Zang Z, Pu L, Li Z. Comparison of Psychological Distress and Demand Induced by COVID-19 during the Lockdown Period in Patients Undergoing Peritoneal Dialysis and Hemodialysis: A Cross-Section Study in a Tertiary Hospital. Blood Purif. 2021;50:319-327. [PubMed] [DOI] [Cited in This Article: ] [Cited by in Crossref: 9] [Cited by in F6Publishing: 15] [Article Influence: 3.8] [Reference Citation Analysis (0)] |
16. | Xiong J, Lipsitz O, Nasri F, Lui LMW, Gill H, Phan L, Chen-Li D, Iacobucci M, Ho R, Majeed A, McIntyre RS. Impact of COVID-19 pandemic on mental health in the general population: A systematic review. J Affect Disord. 2020;277:55-64. [PubMed] [DOI] [Cited in This Article: ] [Cited by in Crossref: 2424] [Cited by in F6Publishing: 2792] [Article Influence: 698.0] [Reference Citation Analysis (0)] |
17. | Schulz K-H, Kroencke S. Psychosocial challenges before and after organ transplantation. Transpl. Res. Risk Manage. 7:45-58. [DOI] [Cited in This Article: ] [Cited by in Crossref: 24] [Cited by in F6Publishing: 24] [Article Influence: 2.7] [Reference Citation Analysis (0)] |
18. | Zigmond AS, Snaith RP. The hospital anxiety and depression scale. Acta Psychiatr Scand. 1983;67:361-370. [PubMed] [DOI] [Cited in This Article: ] [Cited by in Crossref: 28548] [Cited by in F6Publishing: 30385] [Article Influence: 741.1] [Reference Citation Analysis (0)] |
19. | Aydemir Ö, Güvenir T, Küey L, Kültür S. Hastane anksiyete ve depresyon olcegi Turkce formunun gecerlilik ve guvenilirligi. Turk Psikiyatri Derg. 8:280-287. [Cited in This Article: ] |
20. | Weiss DS, Marmar CR. The Impact of Event Scale-Revised. In: Wilson JP, Keane TM, editors. Assessing Psychological Trauma and PTSD: A Practitioner's Handbook. NY: Guilford Press; 1997:399-411. [Cited in This Article: ] |
21. | Çorapçıoğlu A, Yargıç I, Geyran P, Kocabaşoğlu N. "Olayların Etkisi Ölçeği" (IES-R) Türkçe Versiyonunun Geçerlilik ve Güvenilirliği. Yeni Symposium. 44:, pp. 14-22. [Cited in This Article: ] |
22. | Connor KM, Davidson JR. Development of a new resilience scale: the Connor-Davidson Resilience Scale (CD-RISC). Depress Anxiety. 2003;18:76-82. [PubMed] [DOI] [Cited in This Article: ] [Cited by in Crossref: 4591] [Cited by in F6Publishing: 4626] [Article Influence: 231.3] [Reference Citation Analysis (0)] |
23. | Karaırmak O. Establishing the psychometric qualities of the Connor-Davidson Resilience Scale (CD-RISC) using exploratory and confirmatory factor analysis in a trauma survivor sample. Psychiatry Res. 2010;179:350-356. [PubMed] [DOI] [Cited in This Article: ] [Cited by in Crossref: 111] [Cited by in F6Publishing: 107] [Article Influence: 7.6] [Reference Citation Analysis (0)] |
24. | Rombolà G, Heidempergher M, Pedrini L, Farina M, Aucella F, Messa P, Brunori G. Practical indications for the prevention and management of SARS-CoV-2 in ambulatory dialysis patients: lessons from the first phase of the epidemics in Lombardy. J Nephrol. 2020;33:193-196. [PubMed] [DOI] [Cited in This Article: ] [Cited by in Crossref: 53] [Cited by in F6Publishing: 57] [Article Influence: 14.3] [Reference Citation Analysis (0)] |
25. | Zhao R, Zhou Q, Wang XW, Liu CH, Wang M, Yang Q, Zhai YH, Zhu DQ, Chen J, Fang XY, Tang XS, Zhang H, Shen Q, Xu H. COVID-19 Outbreak and Management Approach for Families with Children on Long-Term Kidney Replacement Therapy. Clin J Am Soc Nephrol. 2020;15:1259-1266. [PubMed] [DOI] [Cited in This Article: ] [Cited by in Crossref: 8] [Cited by in F6Publishing: 11] [Article Influence: 2.8] [Reference Citation Analysis (0)] |
26. | Cimen SG, Oğuz E, Gundogmus AG, Cimen S, Sandikci F, Ayli MD. Listening to music during arteriovenous fistula surgery alleviates anxiety: A randomized single-blind clinical trial. World J Transplant. 2020;10:79-89. [PubMed] [DOI] [Cited in This Article: ] [Cited by in CrossRef: 6] [Cited by in F6Publishing: 8] [Article Influence: 2.0] [Reference Citation Analysis (0)] |
27. | Gurkan A, Pakyuz SÇ, Demir T. Stress Coping Strategies in Hemodialysis and Kidney Transplant Patients. Transplant Proc. 2015;47:1392-1397. [PubMed] [DOI] [Cited in This Article: ] [Cited by in Crossref: 17] [Cited by in F6Publishing: 20] [Article Influence: 2.2] [Reference Citation Analysis (0)] |
28. | Lupi D, Binda B, Montali F, Natili A, Lancione L, Chiappori D, Parzanese I, Maccarone D, Pisani F. Transplant Patients' Isolation and Social Distancing Because of COVID-19: Analysis of the Resilient Capacities of the Transplant in the Management of the Coronavirus Emergency. Transplant Proc. 2020;52:2626-2630. [PubMed] [DOI] [Cited in This Article: ] [Cited by in Crossref: 6] [Cited by in F6Publishing: 6] [Article Influence: 1.5] [Reference Citation Analysis (0)] |
29. | Bui YT, Hathcock MA, Benzo RP, Budev MM, Chandrashekaran S, Erasmus DB, Lease ED, Levine DJ, Thompson KL, Johnson BK, Jowsey-Gregoire SG, Kennedy CC. Evaluating resilience as a predictor of outcomes in lung transplant candidates. Clin Transplant. 2020;34:e14056. [PubMed] [DOI] [Cited in This Article: ] [Cited by in Crossref: 3] [Cited by in F6Publishing: 4] [Article Influence: 1.0] [Reference Citation Analysis (0)] |
30. | Freire de Medeiros CM, Arantes EP, Tajra RD, Santiago HR, Carvalho AF, Libório AB. Resilience, religiosity and treatment adherence in hemodialysis patients: a prospective study. Psychol Health Med. 2017;22:570-577. [PubMed] [DOI] [Cited in This Article: ] [Cited by in Crossref: 21] [Cited by in F6Publishing: 21] [Article Influence: 2.6] [Reference Citation Analysis (0)] |
31. | Tian X, Gao Q, Li G, Zou G, Liu C, Kong L, Li P. Resilience is associated with low psychological distress in renal transplant recipients. Gen Hosp Psychiatry. 2016;39:86-90. [PubMed] [DOI] [Cited in This Article: ] [Cited by in Crossref: 24] [Cited by in F6Publishing: 26] [Article Influence: 3.3] [Reference Citation Analysis (0)] |
32. | Stonnington CM, Darby B, Santucci A, Mulligan P, Pathuis P, Cuc A, Hentz JG, Zhang N, Mulligan D, Sood A. A resilience intervention involving mindfulness training for transplant patients and their caregivers. Clin Transplant. 2016;30:1466-1472. [PubMed] [DOI] [Cited in This Article: ] [Cited by in Crossref: 38] [Cited by in F6Publishing: 40] [Article Influence: 5.0] [Reference Citation Analysis (0)] |