Selected article for: "household income and marital status"

Author: Zhang, Pengpeng; Zhu, Xiao; Yan, Jin; Liu, Jia
Title: Identification of Immunosuppressive Medication Nonadherence Factors Through a Combined Theory Model in Renal Transplant Recipients: 6–12
  • Cord-id: mwwr72c4
  • Document date: 2021_5_26
  • ID: mwwr72c4
    Snippet: Background: Immunosuppressive medication (IM) nonadherence is associated with poor transplant outcomes. Therefore, it is of great importance to identify predictive factors with IM nonadherence. We aimed to improve the predicted capacity of the theory of planned behavior (TPB) by adding health belief model’s (HBM) variables in renal transplant patients (RTPs). Methods: This cross-sectional study distributed questionnaires to patients who had undergone renal transplant and follow-up regularly in
    Document: Background: Immunosuppressive medication (IM) nonadherence is associated with poor transplant outcomes. Therefore, it is of great importance to identify predictive factors with IM nonadherence. We aimed to improve the predicted capacity of the theory of planned behavior (TPB) by adding health belief model’s (HBM) variables in renal transplant patients (RTPs). Methods: This cross-sectional study distributed questionnaires to patients who had undergone renal transplant and follow-up regularly in the transplant center of Third Xiangya Hospital in China. The self-developed questionnaire collected data in three aspects: general data questionnaire, TPB, HBM-specific questionnaire, and Basel Assessment of Adherence to Immunosuppressive Medications scale. Results: A total of 1,357 of 1,480 patients completed the survey, with a participation rate of 91.69% and IM nonadherence rate of 33.53%. The marital status, household income, preoperative drinking history, the time after transplantation, and religion showed independent predictive factors with IM nonadherence (p < 0.05). Strikingly, adding HBM variables to the TPB theory model significantly increased its prediction ability to IM nonadherence (52%). Also, HBM manifested the highest coefficient of effect (−0.620). Particularly, perceived barriers and perceived seriousness, the variables of the HBM model, played a vital influence on medication nonadherence (−0.284 and 0.256). Conclusion: Our study here reveals the first investigation of the combined effects of the TPB and HBM model on IM nonadherence in Chinese RTPs, which could significantly improve the predictive ability of any single model. Meanwhile, future interventions should be conducted to both increase perceived seriousness and reduce perceived barriers for taking IM, which will effectively decrease IM nonadherence rates and improve transplant outcomes.

    Search related documents:
    Co phrase search for related documents
    • acute rejection and low income: 1
    • adherence improve and logistic analysis: 1, 2, 3
    • adherence improve and logistic regression: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13
    • adherence improve and logistic regression analysis: 1, 2, 3
    • adherence improve and low income: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5
    • adherence improve intervention and low income: 1
    • adherence questionnaire and logistic analysis: 1, 2, 3
    • adherence questionnaire and logistic regression: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8
    • adherence questionnaire and logistic regression analysis: 1, 2, 3
    • adherence questionnaire and low income: 1
    • adherence rate and logistic regression: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5
    • adherence rate and low income: 1
    • live conflict and low income: 1
    • logistic analysis and low income: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25
    • logistic analysis and low income family: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5
    • logistic regression analysis and low income: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25
    • logistic regression analysis and low income family: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5
    • logistic regression and low income: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25
    • logistic regression and low income family: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9