Indian Journal of Urology Users online:167  
Home Current Issue Ahead of print Editorial Board Archives Symposia Guidelines Subscriptions Login 
Print this page  Email this page Small font sizeDefault font sizeIncrease font size
Year : 2015  |  Volume : 31  |  Issue : 3  |  Page : 234-239

Socioeconomic rehabilitation of successful renal transplant patients and impact of funding source: Indian scenario

1 Department of Urology and Renal Transplantation, Sanjay Gandhi Post Graduate Institute of Medical Sciences, Lucknow, India
2 Department of Nephrology, Sanjay Gandhi Post Graduate Institute of Medical Sciences, Lucknow, India
3 Department of Surgery, Era Medical College, Sarfarazganj, Lucknow, India

Correspondence Address:
Prof. Rakesh Kapoor
Department of Urology and Renal Transplantation, Sanjay Gandhi Post Graduate Institute of Medical Sciences, Lucknow - 226 014
Login to access the Email id

Source of Support: None, Conflict of Interest: None

DOI: 10.4103/0970-1591.159629

Rights and Permissions

Introduction: Socio-economic rehabilitation is an important outcome parameter in successful renal transplant recipients, particularly in developing countries with low income patients who often depend on extraneous sources to fund their surgery costs. We studied the socioeconomic rehabilitation and changes in socioeconomic status (SES) of successful renal allograft recipients among Indian patients and its correlation with their source of funding for the surgery. Materials and Method: A cross-sectional, questionnaire-based study was conducted on 183 patients between January 2010 to January 2013. Patients with follow up of at least 1 year after successful renal transplant were included. During interview, two questionnaires were administered, one related to the SES including source of funding before transplantation and another one relating to the same at time of interview. Changes in SES were categorized as improvement, stable and deterioration if post-transplant SES score increased >5%, increased or decreased by <5% and decreased >5% of pre-transplant value, respectively. Results: In this cohort, 97 (52.7%), 67 (36.4%) and 19 (10.3%) patients were non-funded (self-funded), one-time funded and continuous funded, respectively. Fifty-six (30.4%) recipients had improvement in SES, whereas 89 (48.4%) and 38 (20.7%) recipients had deterioration and stable SES. Improvement in SES was seen in 68% patients with continuous funding support whereas, in only 36% and 12% patients with non-funded and onetime funding support (P = 0.001) respectively. Significant correlation was found (R = 0.715) between baseline socioeconomic strata and changes in SES after transplant. 70% of the patients with upper and upper middle class status had improving SES. Patients with middle class, lower middle and lower class had deterioration of SES after transplant in 47.4%, 79.6% and 66.7% patients, respectively. Conclusions: Most of the recipients from middle and lower social strata, which included more than 65% of our patient's population, had deteriorating SES even after a successful transplant. One-time funding source for transplant had significant negative impact on SES and rehabilitation.

Print this article     Email this article
 Next article
 Previous article
 Table of Contents

 Similar in PUBMED
   Search Pubmed for
   Search in Google Scholar for
 Related articles
 Citation Manager
 Access Statistics
 Reader Comments
 Email Alert *
 Add to My List *
 * Requires registration (Free)

 Article Access Statistics
    PDF Downloaded69    
    Comments [Add]    

Recommend this journal