Table 1.

General characteristics and quality assessment of the studies (n=12)

Author	Year	Country	Sample size	Assessment tools	Relevant factor
Zhang et al.	2022	Shanghai, China	97	SIS	(1), (2), (3), (5), (8)
Chen et al.	2021	Anhui, China	191	SIS	(4), (6), (8), (9), (12)
Zhang et al.	2019	Sichuan, China	134	SIS	(8), (10), (11)
Zheng et al.	2021	Jiangsu, China	213	SIS	(2), (3), (7), (11), (13)
Yu et al.	2019	Zhejiang, China	150	SIS	(1), (3), (8), (15)
Li et al.	2023	Liaoning, China	204	SIS	(12), (19), (21), (22)
He et al.	2022	Fujian, China	382	SIS	(13), (17)
Lu et al.	2022	Shandong, China	301	SIS	(14), (23), (24)
Guan et al.	2022	Anhui, China	117	SIS	(14), (21)
Wang et al.	2020	Shandong, China	156	SIS	(16)
Wei et al.	2022	Sichuan, China	256	SIS	(18), (25)
Chen et al.	2022	Liaoning, China	179	SIS	(19), (20)

Note: SIS = Social Impact Scale. (1) Gender; (2) Age; (3) Per capita monthly family income; (4) Education; (5) Occupation; (6) Residence; (7) Complications; (8) Duration of dialysis; (9) Participation in renal club activities; (10) Nurse attitudes; (11) General self-efficacy; (12) Social support; (13) Family functioning; (14) Psychological distress; (15) Narrative disorders; (16) Self-concealment; (17) Self-esteem; (18) Purposeful rumination; (19) Perceived stress; (20) Coping styles; (21) Hope levels; (22) Fear of progression of illness; (23) Self-care; (24) Depression; (25) Quality of life.