The impact of chronic kidney disease on patient and caregiver quality of life: A qualitative study in Spain

Nuria Aresté-Fosalba; Marta Cobo Marcos; Alfonso Segarra Medrano; Alberto Ortiz Arduán; Daniel Gallego Zurro; Juan Carlos Julian Mauro; Fernando Gutiérrez Nicolás; Raül Rubio Renau; Maie Khalil; Carlota Solà Marsiñach; Simona Gradari; Unai Aranda; Miren Sequera Mutiozabal

doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0341371

Abstract

Patients’ quality of life is a key consideration of chronic kidney disease care. Nonetheless, qualitative research on patients’ experience, quality of life, and frequent associated comorbidities remains limited. This study identifies aspects of the disease experience, healthcare journey, and caregiver experience contributing to quality of life for early-stage (stage 3 CKD) and advanced chronic kidney disease (stages 4–5) patients and their caregivers. In this cross-sectional, observational, multicenter study based on qualitative methodology, participants completed a general (Short Form-36) and disease-specific (Kidney Disease Quality of Life Short Form−36) quality of life assessment and semi-structured interviews. Quota and convenience sampling were used to enroll 36 patients selected by clinicians based on chronic kidney disease stage and the presence of key comorbidities (heart failure, hyperkalemia). Twelve caregivers were also invited to participate in patient interviews. All data were examined thematically. Three themes emerged: (1) Impact of chronic kidney disease on quality of life throughout the patient journey (physical, social, and emotional); (2) attitudes toward the disease (characterized by ‘acceptance’ or ‘powerlessness’); and (3) caregivers’ role and burden. Patients’ characteristics and caregiver support must be considered for designing medical interventions and improvement of patient-doctor communication. Family caregivers are pillars clinicians should rely on to raise awareness about chronic kidney disease’s relevance among patients and families.

Citation: Aresté-Fosalba N, Cobo Marcos M, Segarra Medrano A, Ortiz Arduán A, Gallego Zurro D, Julian Mauro JC, et al. (2026) The impact of chronic kidney disease on patient and caregiver quality of life: A qualitative study in Spain. PLoS One 21(3): e0341371. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0341371

Editor: Edward Zimbudzi, Monash University, AUSTRALIA

Received: April 9, 2024; Accepted: January 5, 2026; Published: March 16, 2026

Copyright: © 2026 Aresté-Fosalba 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: The de-identified data underlying this article cannot be shared publicly due to the sensitive nature of the patient information and to protect the privacy of the individuals who participated in the study, as required by the ethics committee that approved the study. The data underlying this article will be shared on reasonable request, to be submitted to the ethics committee that approved the study: administracion.eecc.hvm.sspa@juntadeandalucia.es.

Funding: This study has been fully financed by AstraZeneca Farmacéutica Spain. RR, MK and CSM are employees of A Piece of Pie and have received research funding from AstraZeneca to conduct this study. MSM, UA and SG are employees of AstraZeneca. As authors of the manuscript, AstraZeneca employee MSM, UA and SG have participated in the design of the study and the revision of the final manuscript. https://www.astrazeneca.es/.

Competing interests: I have read the journal’s policy and the authors of this manuscript have the following competing interests: RR, MK and CSM received research funding from AstraZeneca. MSM, UA and SG are employees of AstraZeneca. AO has received grants from Sanofi and consultancy or speaker fees or travel support from Adviccene, Alexion, Astellas, Astrazeneca, Amicus, Amgen, Boehringer Ingelheim, Fresenius Medical Care, GSK, Bayer, Sanofi-Genzyme, Menarini, Mundipharma, Kyowa Kirin, Lilly, Freeline, Idorsia, Chiesi, Otsuka, Novo-Nordisk, Sysmex and Vifor Fresenius Medical Care Renal Pharma and is Director of the Catedra UAM-Astrazeneca of chronic kidney disease and electrolytes. He has stock in Telara Farma. NAF has received consultancy or speakers’ fees or travel support from Amgen, Astellas, AstraZeneca, Bayer, Baxter, Boehringer Ingelheim, Fresenius Medical Care, GSK, Lilly, Novo Nordisk and Vifor Pharma. MCM received payment and honoraria for lectures from AstraZeneca, Vifor Pharma, Novartis, Boehringher Ingelheim, Bayer, Novonordisk. All other authors report no competing interests.

Introduction

Chronic Kidney Disease (CKD) currently affects more than 10–15% of the Spanish population, [1] being the second fastest growing cause of death between 2006–2016.[2] Estimates indicate that the total number of patients on kidney replacement therapy will have doubled by 2030.[3] Furthermore, CKD prevalence is higher in people with cardiovascular risk factors, and is often associated with other conditions, complicating its management.[4–6] Overall, the high prevalence, morbidity, and mortality rates, as well as the costs associated with diagnosis and management, make CKD a public health challenge, both in Spain and worldwide. As documented in the literature, quality of life (QoL) can help to predict CKD progression to kidney failure, dialysis, and death.[7,8] Thus, improving QoL has the potential to make a significant contribution, reducing morbidity, mortality, and associated costs. In this respect, several studies have identified predictors of QoL at different stages of CKD, such as hemoglobin level, glomerular filtration rate (GFR), hospital admissions due to comorbidities, education, age, and gender.[9–11] Other studies have assessed the impact of treatment and patient-associated factors on QoL. For instance, patients undergoing peritoneal dialysis (PD) at home report better QoL than those undergoing hemodialysis (HD) in a clinical setting.[12,13] Depressive symptoms and pain in patients receiving HD are independently associated with impaired QoL, [14] and their psychosocial distress is associated with increased hospitalization and more rapid kidney function deterioration.[7,15,16]. Perception of social support is associated with medication adherence– however–both can be attenuated in case of depression.[17] More generally, CKD and associated treatments represent an important burden on people’s lives, making everyday life more complex, due to the unpredictable nature of the disease.[18] For this reason, in the field of clinical trials, SONG-CKD (Standardized Outcomes in Nephrology Chronic Kidney Disease) protocols are being implemented to establish a consensus between patients and healthcare professionals regarding the reporting of outcomes, aiming to promote patient-centered care and improving patients’ experience.[19,20] In terms of measuring changes in QoL over time, studies showed a decrease in the early stages, as well as increased impairment of the physical domains compared to the mental as time went on. This could be attributed to psychological adaptation to the chronicity of the disease.[9]

As highlighted by several qualitative studies, the management and treatment of the disease is highly impacted by structural and relational factors.[21] Thus, social, cultural, and other factors not included in PRO questionnaires may affect QoL. Factors such as adaptation to illness and treatment, social support, and satisfaction with medical staff affect QoL assessment.[22] Therefore, understanding the patient’s social context, perceptions and psychological conditions is essential to obtain a more accurate and holistic picture of the disease burden’s impact on patients’ and their caregivers’ QoL.

The aim of this qualitative study was to identify aspects of the disease experience and healthcare journey important to patients and caregivers that could add complementary depth and context to measuring QoL. The themes could be tested as factors in future quantitative studies, discerning why associations may exist between variables. More specifically, this study focused on identifying what was most important to patients with early-stage CKD (stage 3), and advanced CKD (stages 4–5), and their caregivers concerning their QoL, disease experience, and healthcare journey in Spain.

Materials and methods

Study design

This was a cross-sectional, observational and multicenter study based on qualitative methodology carried out with 36 patients and 12 caregivers. Qualitative methodology allows an in-depth generation of knowledge about patients’ perspectives concerning their priorities and beliefs towards their condition.[23] Nevertheless, qualitative studies in nephrology are scarce.[24,25]

Participating patients had a diagnosis of chronic kidney disease (between stages 3–5) and were recruited in the nephrology and cardiology departments of three Spanish hospitals to ensure geographic representation: (kept anonymous). After obtaining written informed consent from patients, doctors compiled information related to patients’ personal characteristics, disease and treatment, and shared their contact information with two ethnographers. The ethnographers then contacted the patients by either encrypted instant messaging tools or by phone call. On twelve occasions the interview was also conducted with a caregiver; in those cases, written informed consent was given by both patient and caregiver beforehand. Open-ended interview questions were used to gain insight into the impact of chronic kidney disease on the quality of life of patients and their caregivers.

Sample and recruitment

Patients and caregivers were recruited using consecutive sampling. Recruitment started on the 15^th of November of 2021 and ended on the 31^st of August of 2022. Patients ≥18 years old with a clinical diagnosis of CKD were eligible. The patient sample was stratified by 17 patients with a documented diagnosis of Heart Failure (HF) with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) according to ESC guidelines and 21 patients with a documented diagnosis of hyperkalemia (HK), documented serum potassium >5.5 mEq/L or documented ER visit for a HK episode during the previous control visit or before. The inclusion criteria were chosen given that HF and HK were identified by the study’s scientific committee and existing medical literature as the main comorbidities of CKD and, therefore, as having significant impact on QoL.[26–29] Some patients had both HF and HK, while some had none. Patients were excluded if they were hospitalized at inclusion or had a cognitive impairment. Caregivers were defined as people who accompanied the patient throughout the patient journey. There were no exclusion criteria for caregivers.

Data collection and analysis

Patients participated in a single 90-minute remote semi-structured interview via phone call or video call. Remote interviews avoided fear of COVID-19 contagion. The 12 caregivers included in the study were asked to join for the entirety of the patients’ 90-minute interviews. The three female ethnographers had PhDs and a master’s degree in the social sciences and an average of 7 years of experience conducting fieldwork. They were employed as social scientists at the time of the study. The semi-structured nature of the interviews ensured that all known areas of interest were covered and left the opportunity for patients to raise and discuss any issues of concern. The information obtained from caregivers was used to compare and add to the view of the patients. Interview transcripts and fieldwork notes were analyzed thematically by two ethnographers. Each ethnographer independently coded all fieldwork materials. Codes were then compared and organized by themes in a coding tree arranged according to QoL dimensions and disease stage.[30–32]

Themes were identified by topics emerging directly from the data (inductive inference) and applying prior knowledge (abductive inference).[33] All selected themes had reached empirical saturation, the point at which new data no longer emerge.[34]

Additionally, patients completed two patient reported outcome measures (PROMs) at the beginning of the interviews in the unassisted presence of the ethnographer. These were the generic SF-36 and the disease-specific Kidney Disease Quality of Life Short Form 36 (KDQoL-36) questionnaires.[35,36] PROMs were only used as a conversation starter, instead of as a quantitative analysis tool. This strategy was useful to approach sensitive topics, to prompt patients to self-reflect on their condition without the intervention of the ethnographer, and to shed light on the dynamics between patients and caregivers.

Finally, descriptive statistics such as count and percentages were exclusively used to present a clearer view of qualitative variables related to patients’ clinical and sociodemographic characteristics.

Ethics statement

Before patient recruitment, all study materials were reviewed and approved by the Research Ethics Committee of the (kept anonymous) on the 30^th of September of 2021. The study was given the following code: (kept anonymous). Written informed consent was given by participants before being enrolled in the study. Before the interview, patients and caregivers were informed of the research objective and interviewer’s affiliations and asked to verbally confirm their informed consent and permission for the interview to be recorded and transcribed. All data were pseudonymized to protect participants’ confidentiality. The study was conducted following the principles outlined in the revised version of the Declaration of Helsinki, Good Clinical Practices (GCPs). COREQ Guidelines were followed.

Results

Among the thirty-six participant patients, the mean age was 70 years (range: 42‒84 years), of which 30% were women. The average time of diagnosis of CKD was 6.7 years. 28% of patients were at stage 3, 28% were at stage 4, and 44% were at stage 5. Of the latter, 50% were on pre-dialysis and 50% on dialysis. Of those patients who were on dialysis, 50% were on peritoneal dialysis while 50% were on hemodialysis. Four patients were on a waiting list for a kidney transplant, and two patients had already had a transplant. Median time on dialysis since diagnosis or kidney transplant was five years. Median time on dialysis before transplant was three years. Table 1 summarizes the clinical and demographic characteristics of the patients.

Download:

Table 1. Patient characteristics (N = 36).

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0341371.t001

For the 12 family caregivers, 78% were women. Two caregivers (17%) were children (one male and one female) and the rest (83%) were spouses (all female). Mean age of caregivers was 67 years (range: 49–83 years). There was no instance of assisted peritoneal dialysis.

The qualitative analysis of the semi-structured interviews, crossed-checked with the two PRO questionnaires, identified three themes related to QoL with CKD: 1) Impact on QoL throughout the patient journey; 2) Distinctive attitudes towards the disease; and 3) Caregivers’ role and burden.

Theme 1. Impact of CKD on QoL throughout the patient journey

Patients identified four key stages in their patient journey with CKD: 1) CKD diagnosis; 2) stages 3–4; 3) pre-dialysis; and 4) dialysis. CKD was found to impact patients’ QoL in different ways in each of these stages.

CKD diagnosis.

The CKD diagnosis was generally communicated after a routine blood test for other comorbidities. Most frequently, patients were not expecting a CKD diagnosis. Diagnosis had a much greater impact on those patients who were in advanced stages and to whom the need for dialysis in the near future was mentioned. Diagnosis did not have a great impact on patients who were in stages 3 and 4 and had other comorbidities such as HF or diabetes. Furthermore, diagnosis had a significant impact on those who considered themselves as “healthy” and with fewer comorbidities.

Stages 3–4.

Many patients in stages 3 and 4 frequently reported not experiencing any symptoms associated with kidney function, describing their disease as silent. Many patients feared the implications of CKD progression, while others did not give it too much importance. The latter was particularly salient in those patients with HF or other comorbidities such as diabetes, who perceived them as their main health problem and CKD as its subproduct. Older patients sometimes perceived CKD symptoms as a result of the aging process.

For these patients, the main physical burden of living with CKD was dietary and fluid restrictions. We identified a gender bias in this aspect. Generally, male patients were burdened by not being able to enjoy the foods they wanted. For some, this had a negative impact on their relationship with their wife as their caregiver. It also had an impact on their social life, because in order to avoid ingesting prohibited foods or drinks they avoided going out to reduce the temptation. In addition to this, female patients were burdened by having to adapt their cooking to fulfill their new dietary requirements. Furthermore, patients with HK were not aware they suffered from HK, and therefore did not attribute dietary restrictions to HK but to CKD.

Pre-dialysis.

Among patients on dialysis, this stage of the patient journey could be subdivided into three key moments: 1) the medical consultation during which the need to undertake dialysis in the near future was announced to the patient; 2) the session with a nurse where dialysis options and mechanisms were explained; and 3) the time in between.

The medical visit where the need for dialysis was announced engendered feelings of fear, helplessness, and being completely lost. It was described as a very difficult moment by most patients. Due to their previous lack of awareness about CKD severity and progression, many were shocked at the news of dialysis, and were angry and resentful with their doctors for not having warned them. Patients reported fear of physical limitations and disability, which negatively impacted QoL.

These feelings and their impact on QoL remained present until the time the dialysis information consultation was held. During that session, a nurse explained to patients and caregivers the option to undergo peritoneal dialysis, explaining all relevant procedures. Patients expressed feeling relieved after this consultation; many did not know the option to undergo peritoneal dialysis from home existed and found this option much less dreadful than hemodialysis. Additionally, patients felt taken care of by the nurse undertaking the consultation; their understanding of what they would need to do was enhanced, which made them feel much more in control of the situation. As a result, they felt grateful to the nurse undertaking the consultation. That moment considerably improved their QoL.

Dialysis.

Dialysis had a major impact on patients’ QoL. Several patients on peritoneal dialysis experienced sleeping problems due to being connected to the machine during the night, especially during the first weeks of dialysis. Furthermore, patients reported concerns about self-image due to having a ‘tube sticking out’ of their body. For some, this translated into problems in sexual functioning. Additionally, patients saw their social life reduced. Having to be connected to the dialysis machine reduced travel possibilities, especially for those undergoing hemodialysis, and generally complicated making plans with others. As in stages 3 and 4, dietary limitations reduced the number of social outings where food and drinks were involved, to avoid falling into the temptation of consuming prohibited foods. Patients reported a lack of understanding of the limitations imposed by CKD in the social context, which contributed to the reduction of their social life. Additionally, patients feared having to depend on loved ones and becoming a burden to them. This fear was associated with the routines related to dialysis, such as transportation to and from the hemodialysis centers, and the need to clean and prepare the machine in case of peritoneal dialysis.

Throughout this stage of the patient journey, patients manifested hope for a kidney transplant and the consequent possibility of recovery. According to patients, this hope had a positive impact on their QoL.

Table 2 presents quotes on the impact of CKD on QoL throughout the patient journey.

Download:

Table 2. Quotes on the impact of CKD on patients’ QoL throughout the patient journey.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0341371.t002

Theme 2. Distinctive attitudes toward stage 5 CKD and their impact on QoL

Among patients with CKD stage 5, we found two contrasting sets of narratives informing two distinct attitudes: acceptance and powerlessness. According to patients, these attitudes influenced the impact of CKD on QoL.

When acceptance was the main characteristic of patients’ attitudes, they:

a) expressed optimistic feelings
b) focused on what they could do and created routines beyond treatment;
c) found comfort in feeling accompanied by their relatives, and sought to surround themselves with their family;
d) tried to view the security of hospital-administered dialysis in a positive manner, seeking to relieve domestic pressures of dialysis such as cleaning or maintenance; and
e) sought autonomy by relying heavily on family support to take dialysis at home.

When powerlessness was the main characteristic of patients’ attitudes, they:

a) expressed feelings related to discouragement and depression;
b) would like to give up and not rely on kidney replacement treatment anymore;
c) felt more isolated and lonelier from dialysis routines; and
d) regardless of the type of dialysis they took, felt hopeless, socially isolated, and feared overloading their caregiver.

Examples of patients’ attitudes towards stage 5 CKD can be found in Table 3.

Download:

Table 3. Examples of patients’ attitudes towards stage 5 CKD.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0341371.t003

Theme 3. Caregivers’ role and burden

Most of the caregivers who were interviewed along with CKD patients were family members (spouses or children) who were not paid for their services and were therefore designated as informal caregivers. Seventy-eight percent were female. Our study found that CKD also had a considerable impact on their lives.

First, CKD had a negative impact on the emotional wellbeing of caregivers, especially the medical visit where patients were told about impending dialysis. They described feelings of fear and helplessness. They worried about the health of the patient and were uncertain about the implications of dialysis, both for the patient and for themselves. Due to their worry about the added burden of peritoneal dialysis at home, some caregivers refused it and pressured the patient to undertake hemodialysis at the hospital. Like patients, caregivers expressed relief after they obtained clarity on the possibilities and implications of dialysis during the pre-dialysis consultation with nurses.

Second, CKD had a negative impact on the social life of many caregivers, which was restricted due to not wanting to leave the patient alone. This was felt particularly when caregivers were spouses.

Third, caregivers were burdened by the time spent and the physical labor required to care for CKD patients. Caregivers were often responsible for the preparation of patients’ low sodium or potassium diets. Additionally, caregivers helped patients carry heavy objects, such as shopping bags, and frequently drove patients to medical appointments. Caregivers were also in charge of the maintenance of the peritoneal dialysis machine. When caregivers were the adult children of the patient, they were left to take on all health-related decision-making, especially if the patient was a widow or widower. We identified a gender bias in the provision of care and therefore its impact. Male caregivers tended to more frequently assume tasks such as carrying heavy objects and driving the patient to medical appointments. Female caregivers tended to assume to a greater extent tasks related to the preparation of a low sodium or potassium diet and the maintenance of the peritoneal dialysis machine. As a result of traditional gender roles in Spain, male patients tended to depend on their wives’ care to a greater extent than vice versa. Consequently, female caregivers who were spouses reported feeling alone and overloaded by care-related tasks, to a much greater extent than male caregivers.

Examples of patients’ and caregivers’ responses related to “Caregivers’ role and burden” can be found in Table 4.

Download:

Table 4. Examples of the caregivers’ role and burden.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0341371.t004

Discussion

This study, which aimed to identify the impact of CKD on QoL for patients with stage 3–5 early- and advanced-stage CKD and their caregivers, generated three main themes: 1) Impact on QoL throughout the patient journey; 2) Distinctive attitudes towards the disease; and 3) Caregivers’ role and burden. These themes should be considered in future studies as factors to improve the QoL and care of CKD patients.

In Theme 1 (Impact on QoL throughout the patient journey), we documented patients’ perceptions and QoL impact in stages 3–4 - early to mid-stage of CKD-, a period for which literature is scarce, since most studies focus on stage 5 late-stage CKD and kidney failure. Our finding that the diagnosis had a greater impact on people who considered themselves “healthy” and with fewer comorbidities complements the interpretation of previous studies reporting that earlier-stage patients had a lower perception of the disease’s consequences.[10,37,38] As patients journey through the stages of CKD and healthcare milestones, their perception evolves in a dynamic manner. For example, when they are given the news they must receive dialysis, their perception of the treatment in the period before and after the nurse pre-dialysis education session shifts from fearful to more relieved, improving patient QoL. This evolution occurs in parallel with their social role as well, as seen in a Spanish qualitative study that showed that CKD’s dietary restrictions and pharmacological treatments burden women more. This is confirmed by our finding that female patients who had to act as their own caregiver to adapt their diet resulted in extra burden.[39] These results may be interpreted as a result of women’s socialized role as caretakers of their family.[37]

It is apparent that the negative impact of feeling restricted dietarily on QoL found in early stages may be reflective of the fact that patients do not feel symptoms of the disease initially. Later, in stage 5 dialysis, complaints about diet are less expressed. The focus and importance given to these dietary restrictions needs to be understood in light of patients’ lack of awareness of the severity of CKD and its future complications. This phenomenon is comparable to the analogy of cancer patients who rarely ever mention diet as impacting their QoL, as it pales in comparison to their fear of the condition itself and its treatment. For this reason, the use of quantitative PRO questionnaires became an important tool to initiate the conversation about QoL during the interview. This method enabled researchers to explore the ‘why’ behind the ‘what’ and to distinguish between different channels to provide information.

In Theme 2 (Distinctive attitudes towards the disease among stage 5 patients), our finding that patients worried about being a burden to their caregivers and being unable to support their families aligns with a Spanish qualitative study which showed that convergence of a patient’s self-identity with the perceptions of dialysis generated a protective role to avoid feeling burdensome.[39] This finding has implications regarding the importance of QoL as a predictive marker for studies demonstrating that negative perception of social/family support is associated with poorer health outcomes.[40–42] Furthermore, patients with the attitude of powerlessness reported a higher impact on the mental aspect of QoL. This points to the importance of prioritizing psychological interventions for this segment.

Furthermore, the present data may explain why providing patient education may not be enough to ensure patients understand their condition. For example, a Spanish study showed that a lack of knowledge persisted throughout the journey despite the educational information offered to patients.[39] Our findings could contribute to the explanation of these results, since the lack of psychological assistance during disease progression negatively impacted patients’ and caregivers’ QoL, likely precluding effective patient education. In this regard, our findings suggest that when patients show an attitude characterized by powerlessness, providing educational information is insufficient. In such cases, psychological interventions may be more effective to ensure that patients understand their condition.

Our findings of the distinct attitudes and key moments of the journey impacting QoL may reflect patient acceptance of the situation and optimism for transplantation. These perceptions could be used to inform a novel patient categorization, complementary to biomarkers, to provide new associations with clinical outcomes.[43] Addressing the need for education and social support may help to increase treatment adherence, minimize the impact of exacerbations, and modify health-related behaviors, leading to better outcomes. Furthermore, raising awareness of CKD and changing its perception can encourage proactive behaviors.

In Theme 3 (Caregivers’ role and burden), our finding that caregivers pushed for the choice of hemodialysis to avoid the additional home burden of peritoneal dialysis aligns with a meta-analysis that found family carers censored treatment option information incompatible with their own wishes.[47] The divergence of caregivers’ dialysis perception from that of patients’ points to the importance of measuring QoL from multiple perspectives. Further, the gendered strain of dietary limitations on the marital relationship between a male patient and their spouse caregiver highlights the importance of context, as a formal caregiver would be less likely to engender this effect on QoL.

A randomized study of a caregiver-based educational program for patients synchronously undergoing hemodialysis showed that caregiver QoL significantly increased after the intervention.[48] Another randomized study notably found that caregiver-centered education (implemented during HD) reduced the care burden more effectively than patient-centered education (implemented prior to HD initiation).[49] This finding emphasizes the importance of directly educating caregivers. Considering this, our finding that patient and caregiver QoL was negatively impacted during the pre-dialysis stage and improved according to patients after the nurse-lead pre-dialysis education session fosters a novel suggestion: to minimize the time between the medical consultation outlining the need for dialysis and the pre-dialysis educational session. Providing joint patient-caregiver and individual education sessions before initiation could not only reduce care burden and improve QoL, but also impact the choice of dialysis type. For this reason, it is important to continue designing studies that separate the elicitation of caregiver views from that of patient views.

Regarding our finding that caregivers were concerned about social and health deterioration, female caregivers reported being lonelier and more overburdened. This occurred whilst taking care of generally male patients (typically their partner). Divergences between caregivers’ and patients’ perceptions and attitudes toward the disease are relevant for female patients who have male caregivers, as this may manifest as an underestimation of and inattention to female patients’ condition. This underestimation of not taking the condition as seriously or not paying as strict attention to treatment and lifestyle changes may lead to lower QoL and worse patient outcomes.[44–46] These observations justify the integration of caregivers’ perspectives into future quantitative and qualitative studies to improve outcomes.

Strengths and limitations

Strengths of this study include the ethnographic approach, which involved in-depth interviews with patients at their homes and with their caregivers; this allowed the collection of relevant data not normally shared in healthcare facilities. Both patients and caregivers could speak freely and explain the aspects of the disease that they considered important. However, the first limitation of this study is that the small sample size, which - although not unusual in qualitative research which requires extensive and detailed analysis of each patient - may not fully represent the diversity of people with CKD in Spain. Secondly, as is the case in other ethnographic studies, interviewing patients and caregivers together may have inadvertently resulted in individual perspectives being altered or withheld. In future studies, it would be ideal to recruit more adult children caregivers as compared to spouse caregivers. It would have also been ideal to go beyond retrospective data by conducting two interviews, for instance, one held pre- and one held post-consultation with the nurse about pre-dialysis education, so as to measure the change in QoL. Finally, the consecutive recruitment method resulted in the enrolment of a mostly elderly CKD population. Therefore, the experiences reported in this paper may differ from those of a younger cohort; for instance, the themes described in this paper do not reveal worries about parenthood, educational disruption or career opportunities, which have been found to be major concerns of young adults with CKD [50–53].

Conclusion

In conclusion, the impact of symptoms and treatment burden on QoL is significant in individuals across the CKD spectrum. This finding reinforces the relevance of qualitative research which uncovered the following: (i) the need to develop accurate, reliable patient-centered initiatives for more holistic care that can detect changes over time in interventional settings; and (ii) improve patient-doctor communication and attention to patient-important outcomes. With this, progress will be made in understanding and applying insights from the experience of living with CKD and its most frequent comorbidities.

Supporting information

S1 Table. Results of the KDQOL-36 questionnaire.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0341371.s001

(DOCX)

S2 Table. Results of the SF-36 questionnaire.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0341371.s002

(DOCX)

S3 Table. Interview guide.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0341371.s003

(DOCX)

Acknowledgments

We would like to thank all study participants for kindly sharing their experiences with us. We also extend our gratitude to the study coordinators, who ensured this study was smoothly executed.

References

1. Prevalence of chronic renal disease in Spain: Results of the EPIRCE study. Nefrología [Internet]. 2010 Jan [cited 2023 Nov 9];(30). Available from: https://doi.org/10.3265/Nefrologia.pre2009.Dic.5732
2. Ortiz A, Sanchez-Niño MD, Crespo-Barrio M, De-Sequera-Ortiz P, Fernández-Giráldez E, García-Maset R, et al. The Spanish Society of Nephrology (SENEFRO) commentary to the Spain GBD 2016 report: Keeping chronic kidney disease out of sight of health authorities will only magnify the problem. Nefrologia (Engl Ed). 2019;39(1):29–34. pmid:30503082
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
3. Liyanage T, Ninomiya T, Jha V, Neal B, Patrice HM, Okpechi I, et al. Worldwide access to treatment for end-stage kidney disease: a systematic review. Lancet. 2015;385(9981):1975–82. pmid:25777665
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
4. Gorostidi M, Sánchez-Martínez M, Ruilope LM, Graciani A, De La Cruz JJ, Santamaría R. Prevalencia de enfermedad renal crónica en España: impacto de la acumulación de factores de riesgo cardiovascular. Nefrología. 2018;38(6):606–15.
- View Article
- Google Scholar
5. Ortiz A, Roger M, Jiménez VM, Perez JCR, Furlano M. RICORS2040: the need for collaborative research in chronic kidney disease. Clin Kidney J. 2022;15(3):372–87.
- View Article
- Google Scholar
6. Fraser SDS, Roderick PJ, May CR, McIntyre N, McIntyre C, Fluck RJ, et al. The burden of comorbidity in people with chronic kidney disease stage 3: a cohort study. BMC Nephrol. 2015;16:193. pmid:26620131
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
7. Tsai Y-C, Hung C-C, Hwang S-J, Wang S-L, Hsiao S-M, Lin M-Y, et al. Quality of life predicts risks of end-stage renal disease and mortality in patients with chronic kidney disease. Nephrol Dial Transplant. 2010;26(1):392–392.
- View Article
- Google Scholar
8. Devins GM, Mendelssohn DC, Barré PE, Binik YM. Predialysis psychoeducational intervention and coping styles influence time to dialysis in chronic kidney disease. Am J Kidney Dis. 2003;42(4):693–703. pmid:14520619
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
9. Kefale B, Alebachew M, Tadesse Y, Engidawork E. Quality of life and its predictors among patients with chronic kidney disease: A hospital-based cross sectional study. PLoS One. 2019;14(2):e0212184. pmid:30811447
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
10. Pagels AA, Söderkvist BK, Medin C, Hylander B, Heiwe S. Health-related quality of life in different stages of chronic kidney disease and at initiation of dialysis treatment. Health Qual Life Outcomes. 2012;10:71. pmid:22710013
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
11. Zimbudzi E, Lo C, Ranasinha S, Gallagher M, Fulcher G, Kerr PG, et al. Predictors of Health-Related Quality of Life in Patients with Co-Morbid Diabetes and Chronic Kidney Disease. PLoS One. 2016;11(12):e0168491. pmid:27992595
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
12. Fructuoso M, Castro R, Oliveira L, Prata C, Morgado T. Quality of life in chronic kidney disease. Nefrologia. 2011;31(1):91–6. pmid:21270919
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
13. Barata NERRC. Dyadic relationship and quality of life patients with chronic kidney disease. J Bras Nefrol. 2015;37(3).
- View Article
- Google Scholar
14. Belayev LY, Mor MK, Sevick MA, Shields AM, Rollman BL, Palevsky PM, et al. Longitudinal associations of depressive symptoms and pain with quality of life in patients receiving chronic hemodialysis. Hemodial Int. 2015;19(2):216–24. pmid:25403142
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
15. Cukor D, Cohen SD, Peterson RA, Kimmel PL. Psychosocial aspects of chronic disease: ESRD as a paradigmatic illness. J Am Soc Nephrol. 2007;18(12):3042–55. pmid:18003775
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
16. El-Majzoub S, Mucsi I, Li M, Moussaoui G, Lipman ML, Looper KJ, et al. Psychosocial Distress and Health Service Utilization in Patients Undergoing Hemodialysis: A Prospective Study. Psychosomatics. 2019;60(4):385–92. pmid:30396686
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
17. Cohen SD, Sharma T, Acquaviva K, Peterson RA, Patel SS, Kimmel PL. Social support and chronic kidney disease: an update. Adv Chron Kidney Dis. 2007;14(4):335–44.
- View Article
- Google Scholar
18. Yapa HE, Chambers S, Purtell L, Bonner A. Impact of chronic kidney disease on everyday life: A descriptive qualitative study. J Ren Care. 2024;50(3):201–11. pmid:37573481
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
19. Evangelidis N, Sautenet B, Madero M, Tong A, Ashuntantang G, Sanabria LC, et al. Standardised Outcomes in Nephrology - Chronic Kidney Disease (SONG-CKD): a protocol for establishing a core outcome set for adults with chronic kidney disease who do not require kidney replacement therapy. Trials. 2021;22(1):612. pmid:34503563
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
20. Wilkinson C, Bhatty A, Batra G, Aktaa S, Smith AB, Dwight J, et al. Definitions of clinical study outcome measures for cardiovascular diseases: the European Unified Registries for Heart Care Evaluation and Randomized Trials (EuroHeart). Eur Heart J. 2025;46(2):190–214. pmid:39545867
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
21. Roberti J, Cummings A, Myall M, Harvey J, Lippiett K, Hunt K, et al. Work of being an adult patient with chronic kidney disease: a systematic review of qualitative studies. BMJ Open. 2018;8(9):e023507. pmid:30181188
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
22. Cruz MC, Andrade C, Urrutia M, Draibe S, Nogueira-Martins LA, Sesso R de CC. Quality of life in patients with chronic kidney disease. Clinics (Sao Paulo). 2011;66(6):991–5. pmid:21808864
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
23. Giacomini MK, Cook DJ, For The Evidence-Based Medicine Working Group. Users’ Guides to the Medical Literature: XXIII. Qualitative Research in Health Care A. Are the Results of the Study Valid? JAMA. 2000;284(3):357.
- View Article
- Google Scholar
24. Tong A, Winkelmayer WC, Craig JC. Qualitative research in CKD: an overview of methods and applications. Am J Kidney Dis. 2014;64(3):338–46. pmid:24768353
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
25. van Dipten C, de Grauw WJC, Wetzels JFM, Assendelft WJJ, Scherpbier-de Haan ND, Dees MK. What Patients with Mild-to-Moderate Kidney Disease Know, Think, and Feel about Their Disease: An In-Depth Interview Study. J Am Board Fam Med. 2018;31(4):570–7. pmid:29986983
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
26. McDonagh TA, Metra M, Adamo M, Gardner RS, Baumbach A, Böhm M, et al. 2021 ESC Guidelines for the diagnosis and treatment of acute and chronic heart failure. Eur Heart J. 2021;42(36):3599–726. pmid:34447992
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
27. Watanabe R. Hyperkalemia in chronic kidney disease. Rev Assoc Med Bras (1992). 2020;66(Suppl 1):s31–6. pmid:31939533
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
28. Belmar Vega L, Galabia ER, Bada da Silva J, Bentanachs González M, Fernández Fresnedo G, Piñera Haces C, et al. Epidemiología de la hiperpotasemia en la enfermedad renal crónica. Nefrología. 2019;39(3):277–86.
- View Article
- Google Scholar
29. Xanthopoulos A, Papamichail A, Briasoulis A, Loritis K, Bourazana A, Magouliotis DE. Heart Failure in Patients with Chronic Kidney Disease. JCM. 2023;12(18):6105.
- View Article
- Google Scholar
30. Flick U. An introduction to qualitative research. London: SAGE Publications Ltd.; 2023.
31. Saunders B, Sim J, Kingstone T, Baker S, Waterfield J, Bartlam B, et al. Saturation in qualitative research: exploring its conceptualization and operationalization. Qual Quant. 2018;52(4):1893–907. pmid:29937585
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
32. Guest G, Namey E, Chen M. A simple method to assess and report thematic saturation in qualitative research. PLoS One. 2020;15(5):e0232076. pmid:32369511
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
33. Lipscomb M. Abductive reasoning and qualitative research: abductive reasoning. Nurs Philos. 2012;13:244–56.
- View Article
- Google Scholar
34. Krishnan A, Teixeira-Pinto A, Lim WH, Howard K, Chapman JR, Castells A. Health-related quality of life in people across the spectrum of CKD. Kidney Int Rep. 2020;5(12):2264–74.
- View Article
- Google Scholar
35. Ponikowski P, Voors AA, Anker SD, Bueno H, Cleland JGF, Coats AJS, et al. 2016 ESC Guidelines for the diagnosis and treatment of acute and chronic heart failure: The Task Force for the diagnosis and treatment of acute and chronic heart failure of the European Society of Cardiology (ESC)Developed with the special contribution of the Heart Failure Association (HFA) of the ESC. Eur Heart J. 2016;37(27):2129–200. pmid:27206819
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
36. Ricardo AC, Hacker E, Lora CM, Ackerson L, DeSalvo KB, Go A, et al. Validation of the Kidney Disease Quality of Life Short Form 36 (KDQOL-36) US Spanish and English versions in a cohort of Hispanics with chronic kidney disease. Ethn Dis. 2013;23(2):202–9. pmid:23530302
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
37. Jansen DL, Heijmans MJWM, Rijken M, Spreeuwenberg P, Grootendorst DC, Dekker FW, et al. Illness perceptions and treatment perceptions of patients with chronic kidney disease: different phases, different perceptions?. Br J Health Psychol. 2013;18(2):244–62. pmid:23126527
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
38. Vélez‐Vélez E, Bosch RJ. Illness perception, coping and adherence to treatment among patients with chronic kidney disease. J Adv Nurs. 2016;72(4):849–63.
- View Article
- Google Scholar
39. Vélez E, Ramasco M. Meaning of illness and illness representations, crucial factors to integral care. EDTNA ERCA J. 2006;32(2):81–5. pmid:16898099
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
40. Wang Q, Yang Z-K, Sun X-M, Du Y, Song Y-F, Ren Y-P, et al. Association of Social Support and Family Environment with Cognitive Function in Peritoneal Dialysis Patients. Perit Dial Int. 2017;37(1):14–20. pmid:28153965
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
41. Hoang VL, Green T, Bonner A. Informal caregivers’ experiences of caring for people receiving dialysis: A mixed-methods systematic review. J Ren Care. 2018;44(2):82–95. pmid:29357407
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
42. Li J, Wu X, Lin J, Zou D, Yang X, Cheng S, et al. Type D personality, illness perception, social support and quality of life in continuous ambulatory peritoneal dialysis patients. Psychol Health Med. 2017;22(2):196–204. pmid:27550710
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
43. Martínez-Guiu J, Arroyo-Fernández I, Rubio R. Impact of patients’ attitudes and dynamics in needs and life experiences during their journey in COPD: an ethnographic study. Expert Rev Respir Med. 2022;16(1):121–32. pmid:34238094
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
44. Richardson AE, Morton R, Broadbent E. Caregivers’ Illness Perceptions Contribute to Quality of Life in Head and Neck Cancer Patients at Diagnosis. J Psychosoc Oncol. 2015;33(4):414–32. pmid:25996835
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
45. Nikmanesh Z, Shahinfar M. The role of caregiver burden in quality of life and perception of patients with chronic kidney failure on hemodialysis. Ann Mil Health Sci Res. 2016;14(3).
- View Article
- Google Scholar
46. Weinman J, Petrie KJ, Sharpe N, Walker S. Causal attributions in patients and spouses following first‐time myocardial infarction and subsequent lifestyle changes. British J Health Psychol. 2000;5(3):263–73.
- View Article
- Google Scholar
47. Morton RL, Tong A, Howard K, Snelling P, Webster AC. The views of patients and carers in treatment decision making for chronic kidney disease: systematic review and thematic synthesis of qualitative studies. BMJ. 2010;340(jan19 2):c112–c112.
- View Article
- Google Scholar
48. Sotoudeh R, Alavi M. The effect of educational intervention on the quality of life of family caregivers of hemodialysis patients: A randomized controlled trial. J Educ Health Promot. 2023;12:62. pmid:37113425
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
49. Hayati M, Bagherzadeh R, Mahmudpour M, Heidari F, Vahedparast H. Effect of teaching health-promoting behaviors on the care burden of family caregivers of hemodialysis patients: a four-group clinical trial. BMC Nurs. 2023;22(1):436. pmid:37978371
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
50. Beanlands H, McCay E, Pahati S, Hladunewich MA. Through the Lens of Chronic Kidney Disease: A Qualitative Study of the Experiences of Young Women Living With CKD. Can J Kidney Health Dis. 2020;7:2054358120945475. pmid:32864150
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
51. Bailey PK, Hamilton AJ, Clissold RL, Inward CD, Caskey FJ, Ben-Shlomo Y, et al. Young adults’ perspectives on living with kidney failure: a systematic review and thematic synthesis of qualitative studies. BMJ Open. 2018;8(1):e019926. pmid:29326196
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
52. Tong A, Henning P, Wong G, McTaggart S, Mackie F, Carroll RP, et al. Experiences and perspectives of adolescents and young adults with advanced CKD. Am J Kidney Dis. 2013;61(3):375–84. pmid:23312724
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
53. Kerklaan J, Hannan E, Hanson C, Guha C, Cho Y, Christian M, et al. Perspectives on life participation by young adults with chronic kidney disease: an interview study. BMJ Open. 2020;10(10):e037840. pmid:33067282
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar

[ref1] 1. Prevalence of chronic renal disease in Spain: Results of the EPIRCE study. Nefrología [Internet]. 2010 Jan [cited 2023 Nov 9];(30). Available from: https://doi.org/10.3265/Nefrologia.pre2009.Dic.5732

[ref2] 2. Ortiz A, Sanchez-Niño MD, Crespo-Barrio M, De-Sequera-Ortiz P, Fernández-Giráldez E, García-Maset R, et al. The Spanish Society of Nephrology (SENEFRO) commentary to the Spain GBD 2016 report: Keeping chronic kidney disease out of sight of health authorities will only magnify the problem. Nefrologia (Engl Ed). 2019;39(1):29–34. pmid:30503082
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[3] View Article

[4] PubMed/NCBI

[5] Google Scholar

[ref3] 3. Liyanage T, Ninomiya T, Jha V, Neal B, Patrice HM, Okpechi I, et al. Worldwide access to treatment for end-stage kidney disease: a systematic review. Lancet. 2015;385(9981):1975–82. pmid:25777665
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[7] View Article

[8] PubMed/NCBI

[9] Google Scholar

[ref4] 4. Gorostidi M, Sánchez-Martínez M, Ruilope LM, Graciani A, De La Cruz JJ, Santamaría R. Prevalencia de enfermedad renal crónica en España: impacto de la acumulación de factores de riesgo cardiovascular. Nefrología. 2018;38(6):606–15.
View Article
Google Scholar

[11] View Article

[12] Google Scholar

[ref5] 5. Ortiz A, Roger M, Jiménez VM, Perez JCR, Furlano M. RICORS2040: the need for collaborative research in chronic kidney disease. Clin Kidney J. 2022;15(3):372–87.
View Article
Google Scholar

[14] View Article

[15] Google Scholar

[ref6] 6. Fraser SDS, Roderick PJ, May CR, McIntyre N, McIntyre C, Fluck RJ, et al. The burden of comorbidity in people with chronic kidney disease stage 3: a cohort study. BMC Nephrol. 2015;16:193. pmid:26620131
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[17] View Article

[18] PubMed/NCBI

[19] Google Scholar

[ref7] 7. Tsai Y-C, Hung C-C, Hwang S-J, Wang S-L, Hsiao S-M, Lin M-Y, et al. Quality of life predicts risks of end-stage renal disease and mortality in patients with chronic kidney disease. Nephrol Dial Transplant. 2010;26(1):392–392.
View Article
Google Scholar

[21] View Article

[22] Google Scholar

[ref8] 8. Devins GM, Mendelssohn DC, Barré PE, Binik YM. Predialysis psychoeducational intervention and coping styles influence time to dialysis in chronic kidney disease. Am J Kidney Dis. 2003;42(4):693–703. pmid:14520619
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[24] View Article

[25] PubMed/NCBI

[26] Google Scholar

[ref9] 9. Kefale B, Alebachew M, Tadesse Y, Engidawork E. Quality of life and its predictors among patients with chronic kidney disease: A hospital-based cross sectional study. PLoS One. 2019;14(2):e0212184. pmid:30811447
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[28] View Article

[29] PubMed/NCBI

[30] Google Scholar

[ref10] 10. Pagels AA, Söderkvist BK, Medin C, Hylander B, Heiwe S. Health-related quality of life in different stages of chronic kidney disease and at initiation of dialysis treatment. Health Qual Life Outcomes. 2012;10:71. pmid:22710013
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[32] View Article

[33] PubMed/NCBI

[34] Google Scholar

[ref11] 11. Zimbudzi E, Lo C, Ranasinha S, Gallagher M, Fulcher G, Kerr PG, et al. Predictors of Health-Related Quality of Life in Patients with Co-Morbid Diabetes and Chronic Kidney Disease. PLoS One. 2016;11(12):e0168491. pmid:27992595
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[36] View Article

[37] PubMed/NCBI

[38] Google Scholar

[ref12] 12. Fructuoso M, Castro R, Oliveira L, Prata C, Morgado T. Quality of life in chronic kidney disease. Nefrologia. 2011;31(1):91–6. pmid:21270919
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[40] View Article

[41] PubMed/NCBI

[42] Google Scholar

[ref13] 13. Barata NERRC. Dyadic relationship and quality of life patients with chronic kidney disease. J Bras Nefrol. 2015;37(3).
View Article
Google Scholar

[44] View Article

[45] Google Scholar

[ref14] 14. Belayev LY, Mor MK, Sevick MA, Shields AM, Rollman BL, Palevsky PM, et al. Longitudinal associations of depressive symptoms and pain with quality of life in patients receiving chronic hemodialysis. Hemodial Int. 2015;19(2):216–24. pmid:25403142
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[47] View Article

[48] PubMed/NCBI

[49] Google Scholar

[ref15] 15. Cukor D, Cohen SD, Peterson RA, Kimmel PL. Psychosocial aspects of chronic disease: ESRD as a paradigmatic illness. J Am Soc Nephrol. 2007;18(12):3042–55. pmid:18003775
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[51] View Article

[52] PubMed/NCBI

[53] Google Scholar

[ref16] 16. El-Majzoub S, Mucsi I, Li M, Moussaoui G, Lipman ML, Looper KJ, et al. Psychosocial Distress and Health Service Utilization in Patients Undergoing Hemodialysis: A Prospective Study. Psychosomatics. 2019;60(4):385–92. pmid:30396686
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[55] View Article

[56] PubMed/NCBI

[57] Google Scholar

[ref17] 17. Cohen SD, Sharma T, Acquaviva K, Peterson RA, Patel SS, Kimmel PL. Social support and chronic kidney disease: an update. Adv Chron Kidney Dis. 2007;14(4):335–44.
View Article
Google Scholar

[59] View Article

[60] Google Scholar

[ref18] 18. Yapa HE, Chambers S, Purtell L, Bonner A. Impact of chronic kidney disease on everyday life: A descriptive qualitative study. J Ren Care. 2024;50(3):201–11. pmid:37573481
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[62] View Article

[63] PubMed/NCBI

[64] Google Scholar

[ref19] 19. Evangelidis N, Sautenet B, Madero M, Tong A, Ashuntantang G, Sanabria LC, et al. Standardised Outcomes in Nephrology - Chronic Kidney Disease (SONG-CKD): a protocol for establishing a core outcome set for adults with chronic kidney disease who do not require kidney replacement therapy. Trials. 2021;22(1):612. pmid:34503563
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[66] View Article

[67] PubMed/NCBI

[68] Google Scholar

[ref20] 20. Wilkinson C, Bhatty A, Batra G, Aktaa S, Smith AB, Dwight J, et al. Definitions of clinical study outcome measures for cardiovascular diseases: the European Unified Registries for Heart Care Evaluation and Randomized Trials (EuroHeart). Eur Heart J. 2025;46(2):190–214. pmid:39545867
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[70] View Article

[71] PubMed/NCBI

[72] Google Scholar

[ref21] 21. Roberti J, Cummings A, Myall M, Harvey J, Lippiett K, Hunt K, et al. Work of being an adult patient with chronic kidney disease: a systematic review of qualitative studies. BMJ Open. 2018;8(9):e023507. pmid:30181188
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[74] View Article

[75] PubMed/NCBI

[76] Google Scholar

[ref22] 22. Cruz MC, Andrade C, Urrutia M, Draibe S, Nogueira-Martins LA, Sesso R de CC. Quality of life in patients with chronic kidney disease. Clinics (Sao Paulo). 2011;66(6):991–5. pmid:21808864
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[78] View Article

[79] PubMed/NCBI

[80] Google Scholar

[ref23] 23. Giacomini MK, Cook DJ, For The Evidence-Based Medicine Working Group. Users’ Guides to the Medical Literature: XXIII. Qualitative Research in Health Care A. Are the Results of the Study Valid? JAMA. 2000;284(3):357.
View Article
Google Scholar

[82] View Article

[83] Google Scholar

[ref24] 24. Tong A, Winkelmayer WC, Craig JC. Qualitative research in CKD: an overview of methods and applications. Am J Kidney Dis. 2014;64(3):338–46. pmid:24768353
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[85] View Article

[86] PubMed/NCBI

[87] Google Scholar

[ref25] 25. van Dipten C, de Grauw WJC, Wetzels JFM, Assendelft WJJ, Scherpbier-de Haan ND, Dees MK. What Patients with Mild-to-Moderate Kidney Disease Know, Think, and Feel about Their Disease: An In-Depth Interview Study. J Am Board Fam Med. 2018;31(4):570–7. pmid:29986983
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[89] View Article

[90] PubMed/NCBI

[91] Google Scholar

[ref26] 26. McDonagh TA, Metra M, Adamo M, Gardner RS, Baumbach A, Böhm M, et al. 2021 ESC Guidelines for the diagnosis and treatment of acute and chronic heart failure. Eur Heart J. 2021;42(36):3599–726. pmid:34447992
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[93] View Article

[94] PubMed/NCBI

[95] Google Scholar

[ref27] 27. Watanabe R. Hyperkalemia in chronic kidney disease. Rev Assoc Med Bras (1992). 2020;66(Suppl 1):s31–6. pmid:31939533
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[97] View Article

[98] PubMed/NCBI

[99] Google Scholar

[ref28] 28. Belmar Vega L, Galabia ER, Bada da Silva J, Bentanachs González M, Fernández Fresnedo G, Piñera Haces C, et al. Epidemiología de la hiperpotasemia en la enfermedad renal crónica. Nefrología. 2019;39(3):277–86.
View Article
Google Scholar

[101] View Article

[102] Google Scholar

[ref29] 29. Xanthopoulos A, Papamichail A, Briasoulis A, Loritis K, Bourazana A, Magouliotis DE. Heart Failure in Patients with Chronic Kidney Disease. JCM. 2023;12(18):6105.
View Article
Google Scholar

[104] View Article

[105] Google Scholar

[ref30] 30. Flick U. An introduction to qualitative research. London: SAGE Publications Ltd.; 2023.

[ref31] 31. Saunders B, Sim J, Kingstone T, Baker S, Waterfield J, Bartlam B, et al. Saturation in qualitative research: exploring its conceptualization and operationalization. Qual Quant. 2018;52(4):1893–907. pmid:29937585
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[108] View Article

[109] PubMed/NCBI

[110] Google Scholar

[ref32] 32. Guest G, Namey E, Chen M. A simple method to assess and report thematic saturation in qualitative research. PLoS One. 2020;15(5):e0232076. pmid:32369511
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[112] View Article

[113] PubMed/NCBI

[114] Google Scholar

[ref33] 33. Lipscomb M. Abductive reasoning and qualitative research: abductive reasoning. Nurs Philos. 2012;13:244–56.
View Article
Google Scholar

[116] View Article

[117] Google Scholar

[ref34] 34. Krishnan A, Teixeira-Pinto A, Lim WH, Howard K, Chapman JR, Castells A. Health-related quality of life in people across the spectrum of CKD. Kidney Int Rep. 2020;5(12):2264–74.
View Article
Google Scholar

[119] View Article

[120] Google Scholar

[ref35] 35. Ponikowski P, Voors AA, Anker SD, Bueno H, Cleland JGF, Coats AJS, et al. 2016 ESC Guidelines for the diagnosis and treatment of acute and chronic heart failure: The Task Force for the diagnosis and treatment of acute and chronic heart failure of the European Society of Cardiology (ESC)Developed with the special contribution of the Heart Failure Association (HFA) of the ESC. Eur Heart J. 2016;37(27):2129–200. pmid:27206819
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[122] View Article

[123] PubMed/NCBI

[124] Google Scholar

[ref36] 36. Ricardo AC, Hacker E, Lora CM, Ackerson L, DeSalvo KB, Go A, et al. Validation of the Kidney Disease Quality of Life Short Form 36 (KDQOL-36) US Spanish and English versions in a cohort of Hispanics with chronic kidney disease. Ethn Dis. 2013;23(2):202–9. pmid:23530302
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[126] View Article

[127] PubMed/NCBI

[128] Google Scholar

[ref37] 37. Jansen DL, Heijmans MJWM, Rijken M, Spreeuwenberg P, Grootendorst DC, Dekker FW, et al. Illness perceptions and treatment perceptions of patients with chronic kidney disease: different phases, different perceptions?. Br J Health Psychol. 2013;18(2):244–62. pmid:23126527
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[130] View Article

[131] PubMed/NCBI

[132] Google Scholar

[ref38] 38. Vélez‐Vélez E, Bosch RJ. Illness perception, coping and adherence to treatment among patients with chronic kidney disease. J Adv Nurs. 2016;72(4):849–63.
View Article
Google Scholar

[134] View Article

[135] Google Scholar

[ref39] 39. Vélez E, Ramasco M. Meaning of illness and illness representations, crucial factors to integral care. EDTNA ERCA J. 2006;32(2):81–5. pmid:16898099
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[137] View Article

[138] PubMed/NCBI

[139] Google Scholar

[ref40] 40. Wang Q, Yang Z-K, Sun X-M, Du Y, Song Y-F, Ren Y-P, et al. Association of Social Support and Family Environment with Cognitive Function in Peritoneal Dialysis Patients. Perit Dial Int. 2017;37(1):14–20. pmid:28153965
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[141] View Article

[142] PubMed/NCBI

[143] Google Scholar

[ref41] 41. Hoang VL, Green T, Bonner A. Informal caregivers’ experiences of caring for people receiving dialysis: A mixed-methods systematic review. J Ren Care. 2018;44(2):82–95. pmid:29357407
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[145] View Article

[146] PubMed/NCBI

[147] Google Scholar

[ref42] 42. Li J, Wu X, Lin J, Zou D, Yang X, Cheng S, et al. Type D personality, illness perception, social support and quality of life in continuous ambulatory peritoneal dialysis patients. Psychol Health Med. 2017;22(2):196–204. pmid:27550710
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[149] View Article

[150] PubMed/NCBI

[151] Google Scholar

[ref43] 43. Martínez-Guiu J, Arroyo-Fernández I, Rubio R. Impact of patients’ attitudes and dynamics in needs and life experiences during their journey in COPD: an ethnographic study. Expert Rev Respir Med. 2022;16(1):121–32. pmid:34238094
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[153] View Article

[154] PubMed/NCBI

[155] Google Scholar

[ref44] 44. Richardson AE, Morton R, Broadbent E. Caregivers’ Illness Perceptions Contribute to Quality of Life in Head and Neck Cancer Patients at Diagnosis. J Psychosoc Oncol. 2015;33(4):414–32. pmid:25996835
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[157] View Article

[158] PubMed/NCBI

[159] Google Scholar

[ref45] 45. Nikmanesh Z, Shahinfar M. The role of caregiver burden in quality of life and perception of patients with chronic kidney failure on hemodialysis. Ann Mil Health Sci Res. 2016;14(3).
View Article
Google Scholar

[161] View Article

[162] Google Scholar

[ref46] 46. Weinman J, Petrie KJ, Sharpe N, Walker S. Causal attributions in patients and spouses following first‐time myocardial infarction and subsequent lifestyle changes. British J Health Psychol. 2000;5(3):263–73.
View Article
Google Scholar

[164] View Article

[165] Google Scholar

[ref47] 47. Morton RL, Tong A, Howard K, Snelling P, Webster AC. The views of patients and carers in treatment decision making for chronic kidney disease: systematic review and thematic synthesis of qualitative studies. BMJ. 2010;340(jan19 2):c112–c112.
View Article
Google Scholar

[167] View Article

[168] Google Scholar

[ref48] 48. Sotoudeh R, Alavi M. The effect of educational intervention on the quality of life of family caregivers of hemodialysis patients: A randomized controlled trial. J Educ Health Promot. 2023;12:62. pmid:37113425
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[170] View Article

[171] PubMed/NCBI

[172] Google Scholar

[ref49] 49. Hayati M, Bagherzadeh R, Mahmudpour M, Heidari F, Vahedparast H. Effect of teaching health-promoting behaviors on the care burden of family caregivers of hemodialysis patients: a four-group clinical trial. BMC Nurs. 2023;22(1):436. pmid:37978371
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[174] View Article

[175] PubMed/NCBI

[176] Google Scholar

[ref50] 50. Beanlands H, McCay E, Pahati S, Hladunewich MA. Through the Lens of Chronic Kidney Disease: A Qualitative Study of the Experiences of Young Women Living With CKD. Can J Kidney Health Dis. 2020;7:2054358120945475. pmid:32864150
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[178] View Article

[179] PubMed/NCBI

[180] Google Scholar

[ref51] 51. Bailey PK, Hamilton AJ, Clissold RL, Inward CD, Caskey FJ, Ben-Shlomo Y, et al. Young adults’ perspectives on living with kidney failure: a systematic review and thematic synthesis of qualitative studies. BMJ Open. 2018;8(1):e019926. pmid:29326196
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[182] View Article

[183] PubMed/NCBI

[184] Google Scholar

[ref52] 52. Tong A, Henning P, Wong G, McTaggart S, Mackie F, Carroll RP, et al. Experiences and perspectives of adolescents and young adults with advanced CKD. Am J Kidney Dis. 2013;61(3):375–84. pmid:23312724
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[186] View Article

[187] PubMed/NCBI

[188] Google Scholar

[ref53] 53. Kerklaan J, Hannan E, Hanson C, Guha C, Cho Y, Christian M, et al. Perspectives on life participation by young adults with chronic kidney disease: an interview study. BMJ Open. 2020;10(10):e037840. pmid:33067282
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[190] View Article

[191] PubMed/NCBI

[192] Google Scholar

Figures

Abstract

Introduction

Materials and methods

Study design

Sample and recruitment

Data collection and analysis

Ethics statement

Results

Theme 1. Impact of CKD on QoL throughout the patient journey

CKD diagnosis.

Stages 3–4.

Pre-dialysis.

Dialysis.

Theme 2. Distinctive attitudes toward stage 5 CKD and their impact on QoL

Theme 3. Caregivers’ role and burden

Discussion

Strengths and limitations

Conclusion

Supporting information

S1 Table. Results of the KDQOL-36 questionnaire.

S2 Table. Results of the SF-36 questionnaire.

S3 Table. Interview guide.

Acknowledgments

References