Search

Background: Food insecurity, the limited or uncertain availability of food, is reported in college students, but little is known about its prevalence in nursing students. Nursing students have extensive required clinical hours limiting their ability to work and spend money on academic and living expenses before spending on food., Purpose: To estimate the prevalence of food insecurity and characterize its relationship to social support and first-generation status among nursing students at a public university., Methods: A cross-sectional survey study design was used to assess food security and social support in full-time nursing students (n=55)., Results: The prevalence of food insecurity reported by the survey respondents was 60%. Statistically significant correlations between food security and social support scores were found; as food security worsened, so did social support. Food-insecure students had lower grade point averages, and first-generation students (p=.001) reported food insecurity more frequently than did other participants., Conclusions: Findings support that food insecurity is negatively associated with academic performance, and level of social support may impact food insecurity in nursing students. Nursing programs should consider early assessments of cohorts to increase the potential for early intervention with food-insecure students. Collaboration with university-based food pantries and student engagement in hunger initiatives through the Student Nurses Association can support early interventions., (Copyright © 2021 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

The benefit of transplantation without prior dialysis might be contravened by the failure to develop possible immunologic disabilities associated with chronic uremia and dialysis. This study compares graft and patient outcome, cyclosporine toxicity, pharmacokinetics, rejection episodes, nutritional status, and social and vocational rehabilitation between a preemptive group of 85 patients transplanted without prior dialysis and a cohort of 84 demographically, temporally, and disease-matched recipients of renal transplants after a minimum of 6 months' chronic dialysis therapy. The groups were matched for donor type, gender, and age, as well as immunologic risk factors of HLA-mismatch and percent panel-reactive antibody. All patients received CsA and prednisone immunosuppression. There were only two differences between the cohorts. The preemptive group included more diabetic patients: 32 versus 15 (P less than 0.01). The control cohort included more recipients who had received any pretransplant transfusion: 55 versus 28 (P less than 0.001). Both of these factors (if having any impact) would be expected to reduce graft survival in the preemptive group. All patients in the study had a minimum follow-up of 1 year and over half of the recipients are beyond 40 months. The preemptive patients showed survival rates of 94, 93, and 91 percent at 1, 2, and 5 years. These rates were not significantly different from those of the control group, namely 96, 96, and 93 percent, respectively. The actuarial graft survival rates in the preemptive group of 83, 81, 76, 73, and 73 percent at 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5 years were not statistically different from the control group rates, namely 90, 81, 80, 77, and 76 percent. Preoperative blood transfusion or percent positive panel-reactive antibodies had no effect on postoperative outcome in either group. The incidence of CsA nephrotoxicity was 9.4 percent in the preemptive group, which was not statistically different from the 17.9 percent in the control group. The incidence of rejection episodes in the absence of patient noncompliance was comparable between the groups. Seven of the irreversible rejection episodes in the preemptive group were due to noncompliance, compared with none in the control group (P less than 0.001). Preemptive recipients were also more likely than control group patients to be employed fulltime both before transplantation (36 vs. 22, P less than 0.05) as well as after transplantation (38 vs. 20, P less than 0.01).(ABSTRACT TRUNCATED AT 400 WORDS)