https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1520-1783
Figures
Abstract
Financial hardship is a common challenge among patients with kidney failure and may have negative health consequences. Therefore, financial status is regarded as an important determinant of health, and its impact needs to be investigated. This cross-sectional study aimed to identify the differences in patient-reported and clinical outcomes among kidney failure patients with different financial status. A total of 354 patients with kidney failure were recruited from March to June 2017 at two hospitals in Hong Kong. The Dialysis Symptoms Index and Kidney Disease Quality of Life-36 were used to evaluate patient-reported outcomes. Clinical outcomes were retrieved from medical records and assessed using the Karnofsky Performance Scale (functional status) and Charlson Comorbidity Index (comorbidity level). Patients were stratified using two dichotomised variables, employment status and income level, and their outcomes were compared using independent sample t-tests and Mann-Whitney U-tests. In this sample, the employment rate was 17.8% and the poverty rate was 61.2%. Compared with other patients, increased distress of specific symptoms and higher healthcare utilization, in terms of more emergency room visits and longer hospital stays, were found in patients with poorer financial status. Low-income patients reported a decreased mental quality of life. Financially underprivileged patients experienced health inequity in terms of impaired outcomes. Attention needs to be paid to these patients by providing financial assessments and interventions. Additional research is warranted to confirm these findings and understand the experience of financial hardship and health equity.
Citation: Ng MSN, Chan DNS, So WKW (2023) Health inequity associated with financial hardship among patients with kidney failure. PLoS ONE 18(6): e0287510. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0287510
Editor: Mohammad Meshbahur Rahman, NIPSOM: National Institute of Preventive and Social Medicine, BANGLADESH
Received: July 28, 2022; Accepted: June 7, 2023; Published: June 23, 2023
Copyright: © 2023 Ng et al. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.
Data Availability: Data cannot be shared publicly because of privacy issues. Confidential data are available from the CUHK Research Data Repository for researchers whose work has been approved by an institutional review board. Request may be sent together with the research proposal and ethical approval to the corresponding author or the Repository (website: https://researchdata.cuhk.edu.hk / email: data@cuhk.edu.hk).
Funding: The authors received no specific funding for this work.
Competing interests: The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.
Introduction
The global burden of kidney failure is increasing. More than 2 million patients have been diagnosed and treated with life-sustaining dialysis therapy worldwide [1]. In some countries, 2–3% of healthcare expenditures are used for managing kidney failure, and the demand for dialysis continues to surge [2]. At the individual level, patients often experience financial hardship associated with high treatment costs, unemployment, and reduced income. Although many countries provide reimbursement for dialysis therapy, patients are required to cover 12–71% of the costs out of pocket [3]. In addition, these patients have reduced productivity associated with disease-related disabilities. According to an international survey [4], less than 55% of haemodialysis (HD) and 68% of peritoneal dialysis (PD) patients are employed. Limited income due to decreased employment may amplify financial hardship among these patients [5].
Financial hardship is a profound and significant determinant of health. In fact, higher burdens associated with kidney failure are found in countries that are less socioeconomically developed [1]. From an individual perspective, patients utilize their personal resources to pay for their medical and other daily expenses, which may lead to the depletion of financial reserves or incurrence of debt [6]. Evidence suggests that impaired financial well-being is associated with poor physical and psychological health in patients with chronic illnesses [7, 8]. Negative health outcomes, including depression, anxiety, lower health-related quality of life (HRQoL), and higher mortality risk, have been reported in patients with kidney failure who are socioeconomically disadvantaged [9–11]. These outcomes may be seen as the consequences of health inequity caused by social determinants, especially financial factors.
Despite the impact of financial hardship on health, few studies have evaluated the relationships between this hardship and various health outcomes among patients with kidney failure [12]. A better understanding of these relationships may advance our understanding of health inequity among patients with kidney failure. Hence, in addition to financial aid, kidney care providers can proactively identify financially underprivileged patients and provide specific interventions that promote equal participation in daily life [13]. In Hong Kong, health consequences of financial hardship in patients with kidney failure have been rarely examined. Therefore, to explore directions for future research, the aim of this study was to identify the differences in patient-reported and clinical outcomes between kidney failure patients with high and low financial status.
This study was conducted in Hong Kong, one of the financial centres in the Chinese territory. While this city has a relatively high per capita gross domestic product of 49,801 USD in 2021 [14], it is famous for the large wealth gap. Its latest Gini coefficient in 2019 reached 51.8, which reflected fair inequality within this 700-million population [15]. In terms of the healthcare system, Hong Kong has a predominant public sector that provides over 90% of inpatient services and is largely subsidised by taxation [16]. Despite the availability of subsidised services, patients with kidney failure are required to use out-of-pocket expenses to cover costs of dialysis consumables and self-financed drugs.
Materials and methods
The cross-sectional data of 354 patients from a mixed-methods study were analysed [17]. This sample size was estimated to generate sufficient data for the latent class analysis in the original study. These patients were recruited at the dialysis clinics of Pamela Youde Nethersole Eastern Hospital and United Christian Hospital from March to June 2017. These hospitals were serving populations with highest and lowest household incomes in Hong Kong [18]. The inclusion criteria included: 1) adults diagnosed with kidney failure; 2) received any modality of dialysis therapy for three or more consecutive months; and 3) were willing to provide written consent. Those with active psychiatric disorders (e.g., schizophrenia, dementia) were excluded. Given that the complete patient lists could not be generated due to privacy issues, a convenience sampling method was used.
A research assistant approached patients in the clinics and screened for eligibility. After explaining the study and obtaining informed consent, the research assistant administered a questionnaire containing a demographic form (see S1 File) and the instruments. Then, electronic health records were reviewed at the dialysis clinics. This study was approved by the Joint CUHK-NTEC Clinical Research Ethics Committee (reference number: 2017.092), HKEC Research Ethics Committee (reference number: HKEC-2017-008), and KCC/KEC Research Ethics Committee (reference number: KC/KE-17-0016/ER-3) prior to data collection. Written consent was obtained from all participants.
Instruments
Symptoms and HRQoL were selected as the patient-reported outcomes. The Dialysis Symptoms Index (DSI) was used to assess the distress levels of 30 symptoms experienced in the past month [19]. A higher score indicates a higher level of distress. The Chinese version of the DSI demonstrated excellent content validity (0.99) and internal consistency (α = 0.87) [20]. The Kidney Disease Quality of Life-36 was used to evaluate the HRQoL of patients [21]. It consists of 24 disease-specific and 12 generic questions that can be divided into three subscales (symptom, burden, and effect of kidney disease) and two summary scores (physical and mental component summary). A higher score indicates better performance in the specific domain. Its Chinese version demonstrated good test-retest reliability (interclass correlation coefficient = 0.79–0.92) and acceptable internal consistency (α = 0.60–0.93) [22].
The clinical outcomes included the functional status, comorbidity level, healthcare service utilization, and biochemical parameters. The Karnofsky Performance Scale was used to evaluate functional status [23]. A higher score indicates higher ability to perform activities of daily living (range: 0–100). The Charlson Comorbidity Index was used to assess the comorbidity level [24]. Patients’ relative burden of comorbidity is evaluated based on the weighted sum of 14 conditions (range: 0–33). Other clinical data, including healthcare service utilization in past six months (such as number of emergency room [ER] attendance and days of hospital stay) and biochemical parameters (such as serum albumin concentration), were retrieved from the patients’ electronic health records. Glomerular filtration rate was estimated based on the Modification of Diet in Renal Disease (MDRD) equation [25]. These outcomes were analysed as continuous variables.
Analyses
Background characteristics and outcomes were summarised using appropriate descriptive statistics (e.g., percentage, mean, median) depending on the distributions of variables. Two dichotomized variables that reflected the patient’s financial status were created: employment status (unemployed vs. employed) and income level (below vs. above poverty line). In terms of income level, those earning a monthly household income of ≤ 10,000 HKD (approximately 1,290 USD) were regarded as below the poverty line, which is in line with the government’s definition [18]. After stratifying the patients by these variables, background characteristics were compared using chi-squared tests (sex, marital status, education level, dialysis modality, history of transplantation), independent sample t-tests and Mann-Whitney U-tests, as appropriate.
Unadjusted comparisons on patient-reported and clinical outcomes between groups of the financial status variables were made using independent sample t-tests and Mann-Whitney U-tests for normally and skewedly distributed variables, respectively. Then, multiple regression analyses were conducted to compare the outcomes between groups with adjustment for participants’ background characteristics (sex, marital status, education level, dialysis modality, history of transplantation, age, duration on dialysis). All analyses were conducted using SPSS version 25.0 (IBM Corp., Armonk, NY). A two-sided p-value of < 0.05 was considered as statistically significant.
Results
Of the 424 patients approached, 22 did not meet eligibility and 48 declined to participate. Among the consented patients, 58.5% were male. The patients had a mean age of 60.9 years (Table 1). Most of the patients received PD (69.9%) and had been on dialysis for a median of 36 months (inter-quartile range: 17–60). Overall, 17.8% of the patients were employed, and 61.2% were below the poverty line. The education level significantly differentiated patients regardless employment status and income level (p ≤ 0.001). Compared with other patients, a larger proportion of employed patients had received kidney transplants (9.5%; p = 0.035), and a larger proportion of patients above the poverty line were married (76.6%; p = 0.01).
Tables 1 and 2 present the differences in patient-reported and clinical outcomes between groups. Compared with employed patients, in unadjusted analyses, those who were unemployed reported higher levels of tiredness (mean: 2.33), joint or bone pain (mean: 1.60), and trouble falling asleep (mean: 2.13) (all p ≤ 0.05). Adjusted analyses showed that employed patients were associated with lower level of tiredness (Regression coefficient B = -0.543; standard error [SE] = 0.250; p = 0.031), and joint/bone pain (B = -0.527; SE = 0.267; p = 0.049) than those unemployed patients after adjusting for background characteristics. While no significant relationship was found between employment status and quality of life outcomes in the adjusted analyses, those employed reported a significantly lower mean number of ER attendance in the past six months (B = -0.384; SE = 0.171; p = 0.025) than their unemployed counterparts.
Patients below the poverty line reported higher levels of dry mouth (mean: 1.63), dry skin (mean: 2.68), itching (mean: 2.76), and trouble staying asleep (mean: 2.07) than those above the poverty line (all p ≤ 0.05). Interestingly, patients with lower income had less severe sexual symptoms (all p ≤ 0.05), namely a decreased interest in sex (mean: 0.41) and difficulty becoming sexually aroused (mean: 0.37). However, in the adjusted analyses, only dry mouth (B = -0.385; SE = 0.186; p = 0.039), dry skin (B = -0.826; SE = 0.204; p < 0.001), and itching (B = -0.536; SE = 0.209; p = 0.011) remain significantly different between the two income level groups. In addition, patients above poverty line had lower KDQOL-36 Mental Component Summary scale scores (B = 2.725; SE = 1.280; p = 0.034) and shorter hospital stays in the past six months (B = -2.810; SE = 1.367; p = 0.041) when compared with those who were below poverty line in the adjusted analyses.
In terms of clinical outcomes, patients with a poorer financial status had higher comorbidity levels (all p ≤ 0.05). Patients below the poverty line had a lower serum albumin concentration (p = 0.004) than patients with higher earnings. However, these results were not statistically significant after adjusting for background characteristics.
Discussion
The findings from this study suggest that patient-reported and clinical outcomes differ between patients with different financial statuses in terms of their employment and income level. Based on our preliminary findings, while no significant relationship was found between financial status and most patient-reported outcomes, patients who were unemployed or living below the poverty line reported higher distress associated with specific symptoms and more health care utilization than other patients. Consistent with existing evidence [8–10], the impact of financial hardship on health disparities among patients with kidney failure warrants additional attention.
Compared with the general population in Hong Kong, the employment rate in this study was halved and the poverty rate was three times higher (cf. employment rate: 34.9%; poverty rate: 21.4%) [18]. This finding is an alarming sign that in this city, which is well known for economic inequality, financial hardship is very common among patients with kidney failure. Our findings indicate the negative impact of such hardship within this group. Consistent with our previous studies [8, 26], financially underprivileged patients may experience a higher symptom burden in terms of tiredness, dry mouth, skin problems, and pain. There are some possible reasons for this relationship. As reported in one study [27], financially underprivileged patients may have fewer resources to pay for healthcare services, especially preventive care. They directly turn to the highly subsidized hospital care when they cannot tolerate their symptoms [28]. This may explain why patients with impaired financial well-being reported poorer outcomes, particularly a higher mean number of ER visits and length of hospital stay. Therefore, kidney care providers need to pay special attention to the financial needs of patients by incorporating appropriate assessments and interventions in routine care [12]. Nevertheless, there is a need to examine equity in the healthcare system to ensure that essential services are provided regardless of a person’s financial status. In addition, there may be a reciprocal relationship between financial hardship and outcomes. Symptoms and other outcomes may be signs of deteriorating health associated with financial hardship. However, patients with a poorer symptom status or poorer outcomes may also have a higher demand for healthcare services and a lower physical capacity for engaging actively in employment [29]. These consequences lead to increased medical expenditures and decreased income, which eventually intensify financial hardship [6]. A better understanding of the experience of financial hardship is warranted to explore the factors that modulate the relationship between financial hardship and health.
It is noteworthy that despite no significant relationship being found between financial status, quality of life outcomes, and biochemical parameters, the impact of financial hardship on health should not be underestimated. Associations between financial hardship and various symptoms, such as depression, fatigue, and pain, have been found in previous studies [8]. One reason for the lack of statistical significance is the limitations in evaluating financial status. As concluded in a systematic review [7], financial hardship consists of material, psychological, and behavioural changes in relation to financial status. In this study, financial hardship is indicated by unemployment and low income, which only reflect some aspects of the material change. In fact, some patients who are unemployed or with low income may be abundantly supported by families, personal savings, or other financial aids. Hence, the selected indicators may not be specific and sensitive enough to evaluate financial hardship and its impact.
Our preliminary evidence reveals the consequences of health inequity and suggests directions for researching issues associated with financial hardship among patients with kidney failure. However, several limitations warrant consideration. Although cross-sectional data were analysed and limited variables were evaluated, other factors that might confound the relationship between financial hardship and outcomes (e.g., financial aids, home ownership, personal savings, health spendings) were not assessed and controlled [8]. Given these methodological limitations, findings should be interpreted as markers of potential influences of financial status on patient outcomes. In addition, the causal relationships among financial statuses, kidney failure, incapacity for employment, and health outcomes need to be examined using a longitudinal design. Of note, as mentioned above, financial status was evaluated in terms of employment status and income level only, which might inadequately reflect the full picture of financial well-being. Therefore, the following suggestions are made: 1) factors influencing financial hardship should be identified and controlled in further analyses; 2) a longitudinal study should be conducted to evaluate changes in financial status and outcomes; and 3) a comprehensive conceptualization of financial hardship should be adopted.
Conclusion
Financial hardship is very common among patients with kidney failure, especially in Hong Kong, in terms of high percentages of unemployment and poverty. Our preliminary evidence suggests that this hardship may result in health inequity and manifest in impaired patient-reported and clinical outcomes. However, given the methodological limitations, additional research is warranted to confirm these findings and understand the experience of financial hardship and health equity.
Supporting information
S1 File. Demographic form.
This form was developed by the research team to collect demographic information of the participants.
https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0287510.s001
(PDF)
Acknowledgments
The authors would like to express their gratitude to Dr Stephen Mo, Ms Eva Ho, Dr Sunny Wong, Ms Yun Ho Hui, and the staff members of the study sites for their assistance in data collection. Special thanks are given to Dr Kai Chow Choi for his professional statistical support.
References
- 1. GBD Chronic Kidney Disease Collaboration. Global, regional, and national burden of chronic kidney disease, 1990–2017: a systematic analysis for the Global Burden of Disease Study 2017. Lancet 2020;395:709–33. pmid:32061315
- 2. Luyckx VA, Tonelli M, Stanifer JW. The global burden of kidney disease and the sustainable development goals. Bull World Health Organ 2018;96:414–22. pmid:29904224
- 3. van der Tol A, Lameire N, Morton RL, Van Biesen W, Vanholder R. An international analysis of dialysis services reimbursement. Clin J Am Soc Nephrol 2019;14:84–93. pmid:30545819
- 4. Brown EA, Zhao J, McCullough K, Fuller DS, Figueiredo AE, Bieber B, et al. Burden of kidney disease, health-related quality of life, and employment among patients receiving peritoneal dialysis and in-center hemodialysis: findings from the DOPPS program. Am J Kidney Dis 2021;78:489–500. pmid:33872688
- 5. Morton RL, Schlackow I, Gray A, Emberson J, Herrington W, Staplin N, et al. Impact of CKD on household income. Kidney Int Rep 2018;3:610–8. pmid:29854968
- 6. Carrera PM, Kantarjian HM, Blinder VS. The financial burden and distress of patients with cancer: understanding and stepping-up action on the financial toxicity of cancer treatment. CA Cancer J Clin 2018;68:153–65. pmid:29338071
- 7. Altice CK, Banegas MP, Tucker-Seeley RD, Yabroff KR. Financial hardships experienced by cancer survivors: a systematic review. J Natl Cancer Inst 2017;109:djw205. pmid:27754926
- 8. Ng MSN, Chan DNS, Cheng Q, Miaskowski C, So WKW. Association between financial hardship and symptom burden in patients receiving maintenance dialysis: a systematic review. Int J Environ Res Public Health 2021;18:9541. pmid:34574463
- 9. Ikonomou M, Skapinakis P, Balafa O, Eleftheroudi M, Damigos D, Siamopoulos KC. The impact of socioeconomic factors on quality of life of patients with chronic kidney disease in Greece. J Renal Care 2015;41:239–46. pmid:26119629
- 10. Tao S, Zeng X, Liu J, Fu P. Socioeconomic status and mortality among dialysis patients: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Int Urol Nephrol 2019;51:509–18. pmid:30689180
- 11. Chen J, Liu L, Chen J, Ng MS, Lou VW, Wu B, et al. The cross-lagged association between depressive symptoms and health-related quality of life in patients receiving maintenance hemodialysis: a three-wave longitudinal study. Qual Life Res 2021;30:3463–3473. pmid:33977414
- 12. Krishnan M. The importance of considering total patient economics for hemodialysis. Kidney Int Rep 2019;4:365–6.
- 13. Kalantar-Zadeh K, Li PK, Tantisattamo E, Kumaraswami L, Liakopoulos V, Lui S, et al. Living well with kidney disease by patient and care-partner empowerment: kidney health for everyone everywhere. Clin Nephrol 2021;95:115–22. pmid:33527892
- 14. World Bank Group. GDP per capita (current US$)–Hong Kong SAR, China [Internet]. 2023 [Accessed 18 April 2023]. Available: https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/NY.GDP.PCAP.CD?locations=HK.
- 15. World Economics. Hong Kong’s Gini coefficient [Internet]. 2019 [Accessed 18 April 2023]. Available from: https://www.worldeconomics.com/Inequality/Gini-Coefficient/Hong%20Kong.aspx#.
- 16. Schoeb V. Healthcare service in Hong Kong and its challenges: the role of health professionals within a social model of health. China Perspect 2016;4:51–58.
- 17. Ng MSN, Miaskowski C, Cooper B, Hui YH, Ho EHS, Mo SKL, et al. Distinct symptom experience among subgroups of patients with ESRD receiving maintenance dialysis. J Pain Symptom Manage 2020;60:70–9. pmid:31981596
- 18. Government of the HKSAR. Hong Kong poverty situation report 2019 [Internet]. 2019 [Accessed 30 March 2022]. Available from: https://www.povertyrelief.gov.hk/eng/pdf/Hong_Kong_Poverty_Situation_Report_2019.pdf.
- 19. Weisbord SD, Fried LF, Arnold RM, Rotondi AJ, Fine MJ, Levenson DJ, et al. Development of a symptom assessment instrument for chronic hemodialysis patients: the Dialysis Symptom Index. J Pain Symptom Manage 2004;27:226–240. pmid:15010101
- 20. Ng MSN, So WKW, Wong CL, Hui YH, Ho EHS, Choi KC, et al. Stability and impact of symptom clusters in patients with end-stage renal disease undergoing dialysis. J Pain Symptom Manage 2020;59:67–76.
- 21. Hays RD, Kallich JD, Mapes DL, Coons SJ, Amin N, Carter WB, et al. Kidney Disease Quality of Life Short Form (KDQOL-SFTM), version 1.3: a manual for use and scoring [Internet]. 1997 [Accessed 30 March 2022]. Available from: https://www.rand.org/health-care/surveys_tools/kdqol.html.
- 22. Chow SKY, Tam BML. Is the kidney disease quality of life-36 (KDQOL-36) a valid instrument for Chinese dialysis patients? BMC Nephrol 2014;15:1–7.
- 23. Péus D, Newcomb N, Hofer S. Appraisal of the Karnofsky performance status and proposal of a simple algorithmic system for its evaluation. BMC Med Inform Decis Mak 2013;13:1–7.
- 24. Hemmelgarn BR, Manns BJ, Quan H, Ghali WA. Adapting the Charlson Comorbidity Index for use in patients with ESRD. Am J Kidney Dis 2003;42:125–32. pmid:12830464
- 25. Levey AS, Coresh J. Greene T, Stevens LA, Zhang Y, Hendriksen S, et al. Using standardized serum creatinine values in the modification of diet in renal disease study equation for estimating glomerular filtration rate. Ann Int Med 2006;145,247–54. pmid:16908915
- 26. Ng MSN, Wong CL, Choi KC, Hui YH, Ho EHS, Miaskowski C, et al. A mixed methods study of symptom experience in patients with end-stage renal disease. Nurs Res 2021;70:34–43. pmid:32991531
- 27. Essue BM, Wong G, Chapman J, Li Q, Jan S. How are patients managing with the costs of care for chronic kidney disease in Australia? A cross-sectional study. BMC Nephrol 2013;14:5. pmid:23305212
- 28. Ng MSN, Hui YH, Law BYS, Wong CL, So WKW. Challenges encountered by patients with end-stage kidney disease in accessing symptom management services: a narrative inquiry. J Adv Nurs 2021;77(3):1391–402. pmid:33249651
- 29. Ng MSN, Wong CL, Ho EHS, Hui YH, Miaskowski C, So WKW. Burden of living with multiple concurrent symptoms in patients with end-stage renal disease. J Clin Nurs 2020;29:2589–601. pmid:32279368