METHODS: The HD-HEI tool adapted the Malaysian Dietary Guidelines 2010 framework according to HD-specific nutrition guidelines. This HD-HEI was applied to 3-day dietary records of 382 HD patients. Relationships between HD-HEI scores and nutritional parameters were tested by partial correlations. Binary logistic regression models adjusted with confounders were used to determine adjusted odds ratio (adjOR) with 95% confidence interval (CI) for nutritional risk based on HD-HEI scores categorization.
RESULTS: The total HD-HEI score (51.3 ± 10.2) for this HD patient population was affected by ethnicity (Ptrend < .001) and sex (P = .003). No patient achieved "good" DQ (score: 81-100), while DQ of 54.5% patients were classified as "needs improvement" (score: 51-80) and remaining as "poor" (score: 0-51). Total HD-HEI scores were positively associated with dietary energy intake (DEI), dietary protein intake (DPI), dry weight, and handgrip strength, but inversely associated with Dietary Monotony Index (DMI) (all P
METHODS AND ANALYSIS: This two-phase sequential explanatory mixed-methods design, incorporating a quantitative design (phase I) and a qualitative study (phase II), is to be conducted in 4 government hospitals and 10 other non-governmental organisations or private dialysis centres within Klang Valley, Malaysia. A cross-sectional survey (phase I) will include 236 patient-caregiver dyads, while focus group discussions (phase II) will include 30 participants. The participants for both phases will be recruited purposively. Descriptive statistics, independent sample t-tests and multiple regression analysis will be used for analyses in phase I, and thematic analysis will be used in phase II.
ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Approval for the study has been obtained from the National Medical Research and Ethics Committee (MREC) (NMRR-21-1012-59714) and the Research Ethics Committee of Hospital Canselor Tuanku Muhriz UKM (UKM PPI/111/8/JEP-2021-078) and University of Malaya Medical Centre (MREC ID NO: 2 02 178-10346). Informed consent of the participants will be obtained beforehand, and no personal identifiers will be obtained from the participants to protect their anonymity. The findings will be published in peer-reviewed scientific journals and presented at national or international conferences with minimal anonymised data.
METHODS: The Association of VA and intervenTionAl Renal physicians (AVATAR) Foundation from India conducted a multinational online survey amongst nephrologists from the Asia-Pacific to determine the practice of IN in the planning, creation, and management of dialysis access. The treatment modalities, manpower and equipment availability, monthly cost of treatment, specifics of dialysis access interventions, and challenges in the training and practice of IN by nephrologists were included in the survey.
RESULTS: Twenty-one countries from the APR participated in the survey. Nephrologists from 18 (85.7%) countries reported performing at least one of the basic dialysis access-related IN procedures, primarily the placement of non-tunnelled central catheters (n-TCC; 71.5%). Only 10 countries (47.6%) reported having an average of <4% of nephrologists performing any of the advanced IN access procedures, the most common being the placement of a peritoneal dialysis (PD) catheter (20%). Lack of formal training (57.14%), time (42.8%), incentive (38%), institutional support (38%), medico-legal protection (28.6%), and prohibitive cost (23.8%) were the main challenges to practice IN. The primary obstacles to implementing the IN training were a lack of funding and skilled personnel.
CONCLUSION: The practice of dialysis access-related IN in APR is inadequate, mostly due to a lack of training, backup support, and economic constraints, whereas training in access-related IN is constrained by a lack of a skilled workforce and finances.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: A cross sectional descriptive study was conducted on 72 ESRD patients at a Dialysis Centre in Malaysia. The modified KDQOL-SF™ subscales, kidney disease-targeted scale and 36 item health survey scale questionnaires were used.
RESULTS: The overall health rating was 66.73 ± 11.670 indicating good quality of life. There was no significant difference between quality of life for the different domains according to gender (p >0.05). However, there were significant differences between quality of life in the domain of burden of kidney disease. Physical functioning deteriorated significantly with age (p=0.012) while social functioning was lowest in the 50-65 years age group (p=0.037). Those who had no morbidities had significantly better scores on the effects of kidney (p=0.036), burden of kidney disease (p=0.011) and physical functioning (p=0.025).
CONCLUSIONS: Patients undergoing haemodialysis have been found to have good quality of life despite having ESRD. It is therefore of paramount importance to constantly monitor the standard of care for these patients to enable them to live their life to the fullest.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: We utilize cross sectional data on 350 family members of dialysis patients collected through self-administered survey from June to October 2013. The factors affecting willingness to become deceased and living organ donors among respondents were identified by running logistic regressions.
RESULTS: The findings reveal that ethnicity, education and role in family are significant factors explaining willingness for living donation, while ethnicity, knowledge of organ donation and donor age drive willingness for deceased donation. We also find that the reasons of respondents being unwilling to donate center on the lack of information and family objections for deceased donation, while being medically unfit, scared of surgery and family objections are the reasons for unwillingness to donate living organs.
CONCLUSION: In light of our findings, educational efforts are suggested to decrease the reluctance to become involved in living and deceased donation.