Dataset Information

Perceptions of exercise benefits and barriers: the influence on physical activity behaviour in individuals undergoing haemodialysis and peritoneal dialysis.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Despite growing evidence about the benefits of physical activity and exercise in patients receiving dialysis, physical inactivity is highly prevalent. This may be due to uncertainty and lack of appropriate guidance about exercise, or driven by the relative barriers and benefits that patients perceive. Understanding these perceptions in dialysis patients may inform interventions aimed to increase exercise participation.

Methods

Perceived benefits and barriers to exercise were measured by the 'Dialysis Patient-perceived Exercise Benefits and Barriers Scale' (DPEBBS). Self-reported physical activity status was assessed by the 'General Practice Physical Activity Questionnaire'. Barriers and benefits to exercise were classed as binary variables (i.e. yes and no). Frequency analyses and chi-squared tests were conducted to compare the differences perceived by people on haemodialysis (HD) and peritoneal dialysis (PD). Binominal logistical regression was performed to determine which perceived barriers and benefits had the biggest impact on physical activity status.

Results

One thousand twenty-two HD and 124 PD patients completed the DPEBBS. A greater proportion of HD than PD patients reported 'reduces body pain' (P = 0.013), 'delays decline in body function' (P = 0.01), and 'improves quality of life' (P = 0.033) as benefits of exercise. No differences in barriers were observed. Tiredness was the most reported barrier to exercise. Patients who perceived 'other comorbidities' (OR 3.389, P < 0.001) or 'burden of family' (OR 3.168, P < 0.001) as barriers were 3 times more likely to be inactive.

Conclusions

Dialysis patients perceive several barriers which may prevent them from engaging in physical activity. Addressing these barriers may be key to increasing participation in physical activity and exercise.

SUBMITTER: Lightfoot CJ

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8610943 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:Expression data from peritoneal biopsies of patients with encapsulating peritoneal sclerosis (EPS), patients undergoing first implantation of a peritoneal dialysis catheter (PD), and patients undergoing abdominal surgery for non-peritoneal conditions (controls) We used microarrays to determine the transcriptional profiles of peritoneal membrane in patients with encapsulating peritoneal sclerosis (EPS), patients undergoing first insertion of a peritoneal dialysis cathetier (PD), and uremic patients without history of PD or EPS, undergoing abdominal surgery for non-peritoneal problems (CON) Encapsulating peritoneal sclerosis (EPS) is a devastating complication of peritoneal dialysis (PD), characterized by marked inflammation and severe fibrosis of the peritoneum, and associated with high morbidity and mortality. EPS can occur years after termination of PD and, in severe cases, leads to intestinal obstruction and ileus requiring surgical intervention. Despite ongoing research, the pathogenesis of EPS remains unclear. We performed a global transcriptome analysis of peritoneal tissue specimens from EPS patients, PD patients without EPS, and uremic patients without history of PD or EPS (Uremic). Unsupervised and supervised bioinformatics analysis revealed distinct transcriptional patterns that discriminated these three clinical groups. The analysis identified a signature of 219 genes expressed differentially in EPS as compared to PD and Uremic groups. Canonical pathway analysis of differentially expressed genes showed enrichment in several pathways, including antigen presentation, dendritic cell maturation, B cell development, chemokine signaling and humoral and cellular immunity (P value <0.05). Further interactive network analysis depicted effects of EPS-associated genes on networks linked to inflammation, immunological response, and cell proliferation. Gene expression changes were confirmed by qRT-PCR for a subset of the differentially expressed genes. EPS patient tissues exhibited elevated expression of genes encoding sulfatase1, thrombospondin 1, fibronectin 1 and alpha smooth muscle actin, among many others, while in EPS and PD tissues mRNAs encoding leptin and retinol-binding protein 4 were markedly down-regulated, compared to Uremic group patients. Immunolocalization of Collagen 1 alpha 1 revealed that Col1a1 protein was predominantly expressed in the submesothelial compact zone of EPS patient peritoneal samples, whereas PD patient peritoneal samples exhibited homogenous Col1a1 staining throughout the tissue samples. The results are compatible with the hypothesis that encapsulating peritoneal sclerosis is a distinct pathological process from the simple peritoneal fibrosis that accompanies all PD treatment.

Project description:BACKGROUND:Patients reaching end-stage renal disease must make a difficult decision regarding renal replacement therapy (RRT) options. Because the choice between dialysis modalities should include patient preferences, it is critical that patients are engaged in the dialysis modality decision. As part of the Empowering Patients on Choices for RRT (EPOCH-RRT) study, we assessed dialysis patients' perceptions of their dialysis modality decision-making process and the impact of their chosen modality on their lives. METHODS:A 39-question survey was developed in collaboration with a multi-stakeholder advisory panel to assess perceptions of patients on either peritoneal dialysis (PD) or in-center hemodialysis (HD). The survey was disseminated to participants in the large US cohorts of the Dialysis Outcomes and Practice Patterns Study (DOPPS) and the Peritoneal DOPPS (PDOPPS). Survey responses were compared between PD and in-center HD patients using descriptive statistics, adjusted logistic generalized estimating equation models, and linear mixed regression models. RESULTS:Six hundred fourteen PD and 1346 in-center HD participants responded. Compared with in-center HD participants, PD participants more frequently reported that they were engaged in the decision-making process, were provided enough information, understood differences between dialysis modalities, and felt satisfied with their modality choice. PD participants also reported more frequently than in-center HD participants that partners or spouses (79% vs. 70%), physician assistants (80% vs. 66%), and nursing staff (78% vs. 60%) had at least some involvement in the dialysis modality decision. Over 35% of PD and in-center HD participants did not know another dialysis patient at the time of their modality decision and over 60% did not know the disadvantages of their modality type. Participants using either dialysis modality perceived a moderate to high impact of dialysis on their lives. CONCLUSIONS:PD participants were more engaged in the modality decision process compared to in-center HD participants. For both modalities, there is room for improvement in patient education and other support for patients choosing a dialysis modality.