A descriptive study of meaning of illness in chronic renal disease

Authors

  • Ann-Louise Caress PhD BNurs RGN RHV DN Cert,

    1. Lecturer in Nursing, School of Nursing, Midwifery and Health Visiting, University of Manchester, Manchester, UK.
    Search for more papers by this author
  • Karen A. Luker PhD BNurs RGN RHV DN Cert,

    1. Professor of Nursing, School of Nursing, Midwifery and Health Visiting, University of Manchester, Manchester, UK.
    Search for more papers by this author
  • R. Glynn Owens BTech DipPsych DPhil AFBPsS

    1. Professor of Psychology, Department of Psychology, Tamaki Campus, University of Auckland, Auckland, New Zealand.
    Search for more papers by this author

Ann-Louise Caress, School of Nursing, Midwifery and Health Visiting, University of Manchester, Coupland III Building, Manchester M13 9PL, England. E-mail: ann.caress@man.ac.uk

Abstract

A descriptive study of meaning of illness in chronic renal disease

Aim. To explore the subjective meaning of illness in a sample of renal patients.

Background. Patients’ illness representations, such as the meaning they attach to illness, may affect their coping and adaptation. Improved understanding in this area may therefore benefit patient care. Meaning of illness has not previously been explored in renal disease.

Design and methods. Cross-sectional survey (n=405) in a single regional renal unit in the North of England. Ethical approval was obtained and patients gave written consent. The instrument used was an eight-item schema, based on the work of Lipowski (1970, Psychiatry in Medicine1, 91–102). Field notes regarding rationale for choice were recorded concurrently, then content analysed to enable identification of themes. The chi-square test (significance level P < 0·05) was used to analyse differences in selected meaning in older and younger patients; males and females; and patient groups (predialysis, haemodialysis and transplant).

Findings. ‘Challenge’ was selected by most patients (n=253, 62·5%), with similar results in all three patient groups. Slightly more older than younger patients selected ‘challenge’, although the difference was not statistically significant and older patients more commonly had a fatalistic interpretation of the option. More men selected ‘challenge’ than women. Those selecting ‘challenge’ and ‘value’ appeared to have a more positive outlook than other patients.

Conclusions. Patients had identifiable meanings for their illness, and these may be associated with their response to renal disease. The schema appeared to be comprehensive, but is in need of further refinement. Consideration of the possible influence of social desirability is necessary.

Ancillary