Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
1
Does an Online Decision Aid Help People with Advanced Chronic Kidney Disease Choose between Two Treatment Options?
Lalita Subramanian,1 Junhui Zhao,1 Jarcy Zee,1 and Francesca Tentori1,2
1Arbor Research Collaborative for Health, Ann Arbor, Michigan ²Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, Tennessee
Original Project Title: Selection of Peritoneal Dialysis or Hemodialysis for Kidney Failure: Gaining Meaningful Information for Patients and CaregiversPCORI ID: 1109 HSRProj ID: 20142213ClinicalTrials.gov ID: NCT02440659
_______________________________
To cite this document, please use: Subramanian L., Zhao, J., Zee, J., et al. 2018. Does an Online Decision Aid Help People with Advanced Chronic Kidney Disease Choose between Two Treatment Options. Washington, DC: Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute (PCORI). https://doi.org/10.25302/10.2018.CER.1109.
2
Table of Contents
ABSTRACT .......................................................................................................................................... 4
BACKGROUND ................................................................................................................................... 6
STAKEHOLDER ENGAGEMENT .................................................................................................................. 9
AIM 1: TO IDENTIFY OUTCOMES MOST IMPORTANT TO KIDNEY DISEASE PATIENTS WITH DIFFERENT
CHARACTERISTICS ............................................................................................................................. 9
Methods .................................................................................................................................................... 9
Recruitment of participants .......................................................................................................... 10 Data collection .............................................................................................................................. 10 Data analysis .................................................................................................................................. 10
Results ..................................................................................................................................................... 13
Study sample ................................................................................................................................. 13 Patient characteristics ................................................................................................................... 13 Factors important to patients when choosing dialysis ................................................................. 16 Choice of dialysis modality ........................................................................................................... 21 Discussion ...................................................................................................................................... 27
AIM 2: TO COMPARE THE EFFECT OF HEMODIALYSIS AND PERITONEAL DIALYSIS REGARDING PATIENT-
CENTERED OUTCOMES AND DIALYSIS MODALITY DECISION ............................................................. 28
Methods .................................................................................................................................................. 28
Survey design ................................................................................................................................ 28 Recruitment of participants .......................................................................................................... 29 Statistical analysis .......................................................................................................................... 29
Results ..................................................................................................................................................... 31
Study sample ................................................................................................................................. 31 Experience with dialysis modality choice ...................................................................................... 31 Involvement of family and peers ................................................................................................... 32 Experiences and satisfaction with dialysis modality decision ...................................................... 34 Impact of dialysis on patients’ lives ............................................................................................... 35 Discussion ...................................................................................................................................... 37
AIM 3: TO COMPARE MEASURES RELATED TO THE DECISION-MAKING PROCESS BETWEEN PATIENTS
RECEIVING AND NOT RECEIVING A DECISION AID .............................................................................. 40
Methods .................................................................................................................................................. 40
Decision aid development ............................................................................................................ 40 Survey design ................................................................................................................................ 42 Questionnaire design .................................................................................................................... 44 Recruitment of participants .......................................................................................................... 44
3
Statistical analysis .......................................................................................................................... 45 Results ..................................................................................................................................................... 46
Study sample ................................................................................................................................. 46 Patient characteristics ................................................................................................................. 47 Efficacy of the decision aid ............................................................................................................ 47 Discussion ...................................................................................................................................... 53
CONCLUSION ................................................................................................................................... 56 REFERENCES .................................................................................................................................... 58
4
Abstract:
Background: End-stage kidney disease poses a high health and societal burden on US patients
and their families, with more than 100 000 patients starting dialysis every year. Although other
treatment options are available, more than 90% of patients receive hemodialysis (HD) as their
first renal replacement therapy modality. Little is known about factors that are important to
chronic kidney disease (CKD) patients and their perspectives at the time they choose a dialysis
modality.
Objectives: The Empowering Patients on Choices for Renal Replacement Therapy (EPOCH-RRT)
study aimed to identify patient priorities and gaps in shared decision making with the support
of the large cohort of nationally representative dialysis patients participating in the Dialysis
Outcomes and Practice Patterns Study Program, to inform the development of a new web-
based patient decision aid (DA) that would provide relevant information about the 2 most
widely used dialysis options: in-center HD and peritoneal dialysis (PD).
Methods: Aim 1 was a mixed methods approach involving open-ended and closed-ended
interview responses from 180 patients. This was followed by Aim 2, implementation of a
retrospective quantitative survey assessing the dialysis modality decision-making process and
impact on the daily lives of 1963 HD and PD patients. We based the interview and survey design
and subsequent development of the DA on feedback from a patient advisory panel. In Aim 3,
we measured the effectiveness of the DA through a randomized controlled study of 140
predialysis CKD patients, including a pre–post assessment.
Results: The EPOCH-RRT study identified independence, flexibility, concerns about looks, and
quality and quantity of life as some of the most frequently reported patient priorities.55 The
results from our surveys suggest that people who start PD are more often informed, engaged in
the decision-making process, and satisfied with their dialysis modality; however, overall, a need
for improving patient education, access to peers, and other support was identified. The DA
developed in this study was subsequently shown to be effective in increasing knowledge and
decreasing decisional conflict.
Conclusions: EPOCH-RRT provided novel information that helps fill the knowledge gap on
patients’ perspectives on the choice of dialysis modality. A key innovation is the inclusion of
5
patient representatives, caregivers (family members), and patient advocacy organizations as
collaborators in all aspects of the study. Priorities, identified by patients and confirmed in a
representative sample of US patients receiving HD and PD treatments, guided the development
of the DA. The DA, now publicly available at www.choosingdialysis.org, will help empower
patients in selecting the appropriate treatment modality that best fits their clinical as well as
personal needs and lifestyle—thereby improving satisfaction with modality choice and
potentially improving patient outcomes.
6
BACKGROUND
Chronic kidney disease (CKD) poses a high health and societal burden on US patients and their
families. According to data from the 1999-2004 National Health and Nutrition Examination
Survey, 16.8% of the US population aged > 20 years had CKD, a 15.9% increase compared with
1988-1994.1 Further, the data also indicated that people with diabetes or cardiovascular
disease had a greater prevalence of CKD. In 2009, approximately 116 000 patients were
diagnosed with kidney failure, and more than 390 000 were on dialysis.2 The mortality rate for
patients on dialysis was 199.5 per 1000 patient-years, and the adjusted rate was 6.5 to 7.4
times higher than that of the general population. Hospitalization rates were 1836 admissions
per 1000 patient-years, accounting on average for 12 days in the hospital per year per dialysis
patient.2 Dialysis patients also present with poor quality of life, higher rates of depression, and
other debilitating symptoms, including fatigue, poor sleep quality, and lack of appetite.3,4,5
Most patients starting dialysis present with multiple chronic conditions, including diabetes,
ischemic heart disease, and congestive heart failure.6 In 2005, total Medicare spending for end-
stage renal disease (ESRD) was more than $30 billion, representing 6.7% of the entire Medicare
budget.2
As kidneys fail, patients face the difficult decision of which treatment is the most
appropriate for them. Conservative treatment—medications and dietary restrictions without
dialysis—is an option chosen by few patients, usually the elderly with limited life expectancy.7
Patients who receive a kidney transplant have the best outcomes.8,9 However, due to organ
shortage, the median waiting time is more than 43 months,10 and only 2% of incident ESRD
patients receive a transplant without receiving dialysis first. Thus, the choice between other
renal replacement therapy (RRT) options is very relevant, even for patients for whom kidney
transplantation may eventually occur.
More than 90% of patients receive hemodialysis (HD) at a dialysis center (“in-center”) as
their first RRT modality. During HD sessions, patients are connected to a machine that removes
wastes, excess fluid, and electrolytes from the blood; currently, < 2% of HD patients perform
HD at home.2 Peritoneal dialysis (PD) involves placing fluid in the abdominal cavity, using the
peritoneal membrane to filter toxins from the blood. Patients perform PD at home or at work,
7
thus enjoying more freedom and flexibility, along with greater responsibility in their own care.
Mortality rates of patients treated with HD and PD are similar, yet PD use in the United States
is much lower than that in other countries.11,12
Clinical contraindications may restrict modality choice for some; however, most patients
are candidates for both PD and HD. Either modality may be a better fit for a specific patient
based on dialysis treatment characteristics and associated impacts on daily life. Thus, the choice
between modalities should be based on patient preferences, and it is critical to include and
engage patients in the dialysis modality decision.13,14 This is supported by increasing evidence
that aligning treatment with patient preferences may improve quality of life and adherence as
well as better medical outcomes.3,15-17
Current clinical practice guidelines recommend involving patients and their care partners
in the dialysis modality decision-making process.15,18-20 Unfortunately, studies have shown that
many do not feel they were given an active choice of modality,13,21,22 despite a desire to be
involved in decision making.13,23 To do so effectively, patients and their care partners must have
a comprehensive understanding of differences between dialysis modalities and their impacts on
daily life.24,25 However, previous studies have shown many patients feel unprepared and ill-
informed about starting dialysis and about different dialysis modalities.22,26 Therefore, dialysis
education could not only prepare patients for shared decision making but could also increase
ESRD knowledge and may ultimately lead to better outcomes through more active engagement
in care.24,27-30 Shared decision making (SDM) is the collaborative process involving, at a
minimum, the patient and the clinician finding the optimal treatment option for a patient; it is a
central concept in patient-centered care.31 Studies on the benefits of SDM are primarily in the
context of patient decision aids. Patient decision aids are tools used to facilitate patient decision
making about 2 or more health care options.32 Such tools aim to provide unbiased information
to improve patients’ understanding of their options, increase participation in the decision-
making process, reduce perceived pressure in selecting treatment choice, and mitigate
decisional conflict. Increasing patients’ clarity on the available options as they relate to their own
personal values facilitates greater decision-making self-efficacy—i.e., the belief that patients are
able to make the right decision for themselves.33 Several studies have shown that decision aids
8
can substantially affect key outcomes, including satisfaction with and confidence in the decision
made, and that these outcomes may affect treatment adherence.33-35
Our study comprised 3 specific aims, each described in detail as separate sections in this
report. In Aim 1, we identified and compared patient-centered outcomes across patient groups
by applying qualitative research methods in a large cohort of CKD patients. For Aim 2, we
leveraged the existing infrastructure of both the Dialysis Outcomes and Practice Patterns Study
and the Peritoneal Dialysis Outcomes and Practice Patterns Study to compare patient-centered
outcomes between HD and PD. In Aim 3, priorities identified by patients in Aim 1 and confirmed by
surveying patients receiving HD and PD treatments in Aim 2 guided the development of a web-
based dialysis modality decision aid. We then tested the decision aid using a randomized
controlled study of predialysis CKD patients to measure its effect on decision-making outcomes.
This study is registered with clinicaltrials.gov, and study outcomes have been submitted
and results have been released (ID NCT02488317, Appendix 12). All study procedures were
approved by local institutional review boards (Ethical and Independent Review Services E&I
#13016, Henry Ford Health Systems IRB #8144, University of Michigan IRBMED HUM00073058),
as appropriate.
STAKEHOLDER ENGAGEMENT
A key innovation of our study is the inclusion of patient representatives, care partners (family
members), and patient advocacy organizations as collaborators. At the start of the study, with
the help of the National Kidney Foundation of Michigan and Nephrologists in southeast
Michigan, we recruited 9 patients and family members with experience in kidney disease,
kidney transplants, different dialysis modalities, and peer mentoring; we further recruited
clinicians (nephrologists and social workers) involved in the dialysis treatment decision process
to form our advisory panel. Researchers worked closely with the advisory panel through
quarterly in-person meetings in Ann Arbor, Michigan, and teleconferences as well as email
correspondence between meetings throughout the entire study. The advisory panel was
particularly instrumental in developing study protocol and survey and decision aid content,
prioritizing the focus for analyses, and interpreting and disseminating findings. The advisory
panel was involved in all 3 aims of the study, as described in the methods for each aim. The
9
National Kidney Foundation and American Association of Kidney Patients were involved in
recruitment efforts for Aims 1 and 3 (review of the decision aid and dissemination of the
website). In this report, we divide the text into separate sections for Aim 1, Aim 2, and Aim 3.
Within each section, we subdivide into Methods, Results, and Discussion. The contributions of
stakeholders to specific study design decisions appear in the pertinent sections.
AIM 1: To identify outcomes most important to kidney disease patients with different
characteristics
The choice between the 2 most frequent treatment options—hemodialysis (HD) and peritoneal
dialysis (PD)—is often driven by the patient’s clinical conditions and the nephrologist’s
familiarity with each technique, with little attention paid to individual patient preferences.22,36-
39 There is a paucity of literature on patient preferences in the dialysis community. In Aim 1 of
the Empowering Patients on Choices for Renal Replacement Therapy study, we conducted semi
structured interviews of chronic kidney disease (CKD) and end-stage renal disease (ESRD)
patients to understand factors important to patients at the time they face the choice of dialysis
modality.
Methods
We designed three distinct interview protocols (Appendices 1-3) for (1) CKD not yet on dialysis
(CKD-ND) patients, (2) HD patients, and (3) PD patients based on input from the advisory panel.
Protocols used a mixed methods approach comprising open-ended and closed-ended
questions, with closed-ended questions including yes/no, categorical, and Likert-type (1-10)
scales. Protocols were similar in content and sequence across the 3 patient subgroups, with
appropriate differences in probes for each subgroup. Protocols included questions assessing
demographics, clinical history, and patients’ perception of their health. We developed
standardized interview protocols to ensure uniform data collection. The advisory panel
members reviewed all protocols to ensure understandable content and language, and they
were also involved in prioritizing analysis and interpreting findings.
10
Recruitment of participants
Inclusion criteria were (1) aged > 18 years, and (2) either estimated glomerular filtration rate
(eGFR) < 25 mL/min/1.73 m2 or on dialysis (HD or PD) for at least 3 months. Recruitment and
data collection occurred between June and December 2013. We, with the help of some of the
advisory panel members, recruited participants both through nationwide social media outreach
and locally (Figure 1. Aim 1). The national outreach involved email blasts and postings on
Facebook and Twitter in collaboration with the National Kidney Foundation and the American
Association of Kidney Patients. We received a high volume of responses primarily through
phone messages. Only those we could recontact by phone and who self-identified as CKD-ND,
HD, or PD patients were eligible for inclusion in the study. In Michigan, social workers on the
study team approached potential participants in person at renal clinics or dialysis units.
Participants provided informed consent either verbally before the start of telephone interviews
or in person. Participants also received a $25 gift card upon completion of the interview.
Data collection
Study investigators conducted a 1-day interviewer training session that offered background
information about the study, tips and guidelines on conducting qualitative interviews, coaching,
and role playing for various scenarios. Between June and December 2013, 2 trained
interviewers conducted digitally recorded and transcribed telephone interviews (30-40
minutes) of study participants.
Data analysis
Two independent coders entered interview transcripts into NVivo 10 ([computer program]. QSR
International Pty Ltd; 2014), coded the qualitative data, and identified common themes using
content analysis. Coders discussed and resolved discrepancies. We collected theme categories
in a codebook that included both overarching themes identified prior to coding and subthemes
that emerged directly from patient responses. We identified common themes across all
patients as well as within each of the 3 patient subgroups. We further classified yes/no
responses on the patients’ perceived role in selection of dialysis modality into 4 mutually
exclusive categories: (1) “Strong Yes”—Yes response was consistent with an informed or
11
deliberate decision. (2) “Weak Yes”—Yes response, but the transcript indicated medical
conditions determined modality choice, or that the patient felt pressure to choose 1 type of
dialysis. (3) “No”—No response consistent with not having made the decision. (4)
“Combined”—Response consistent with making the decision collaboratively with a doctor or a
family member.
We calculated standard descriptive statistics (i.e., means and frequencies) for
quantitative data across patient groups using SAS, version 9.2. To test for differences across
patient subgroups, we used chi-square tests of homogeneity for categorical variables and
analysis of variance with a Bonferroni correction for multiple comparisons for continuous
variables.
12
Figure 1. Aim 1. Recruitment Flow of Study Participants
Notes: Recruitment and interviews occurred between June and December 2013. Participants are grouped by geographic regions per US Census Bureau: West (W), South (S), Northeast (NE), Midwest (MW); see https://www.census.gov/geo/maps-data/maps/pdfs/reference/us_regdiv.pdf. NE = Connecticut, Maine, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Vermont. MW = Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri, Nebraska, North Dakota, Ohio, South Dakota, Wisconsin. S = Alabama, Arkansas, Delaware, District of Columbia, Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maryland, Mississippi, North Carolina, Oklahoma, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, Virginia, West Virginia. W = Alaska, Arizona, California, Colorado, Hawaii, Idaho, Montana, Nevada, New Mexico, Oregon, Utah, Washington, Wyoming. CKD-ND = chronic kidney disease not on dialysis; HD = hemodialysis; PD = peritoneal dialysis; ICHD = in-center HD; HHD = home HD. * = Previously on another dialysis modality (HD or PD), 1 = Only on reported dialysis modality (HD or PD); no previous experience with other modality. a = 72 Respondents to a national outreach effort that relied on email blasts and postings on Facebook and Twitter in collaboration with the National Kidney Foundation and the American Association of Kidney Patients. Patients were identified as CKD-ND, HD, or PD patients, and determined eligible, consented and interviewed by phone. A high volume of responses was received, primarily through phone messages, and only those who could be recontacted by phone and self-identified as ESRD patients were tracked. b = Interested participants provided their contact information during the consent process. Three attempts were made on different days at different times to contact participants by phone for interviews. After 3 unsuccessful attempts, participants were classified as unreachable.
13
Results
Study sample
Among 302 responders to the national outreach, we interviewed 72 patients (Figure 1. Aim 1).
In Michigan, we approached 181 patients and interviewed 109 respondents. The most common
reason for not completing the interview was inability to reach the participant to conduct the
interview after he or she had provided informed consent. We conducted a total of 181 (72 +
109) interviews, and we included 180 in this analysis; we excluded 1 interview because the
participant lived outside of the United States, where clinical practices and education on RRT
may be different. While participants represented the 4 major geographic regions, most resided
in the Midwest (Michigan). Of participants, 65 had CKD-ND, 77 were on HD, and 38 were on PD.
Some had prior dialysis experience.
Patient characteristics
Patient characteristics (demographics and health status) were markedly different across CKD-
ND/dialysis modality groups (Tables 1 and 2. Aim 1). Compared with the US Renal Data System
data from 2012, the study sample was younger and included a higher percentage of females
and African Americans/black participants.41 PD participants ranked their health slightly better
than did either HD or CKD-ND patients but were also more likely to report that kidney disease
limited their daily activities. A higher percentage of CKD-ND patients reported having diabetes
and high blood pressure compared with HD and PD patients.
14
Table 1. Aim 1. Study Sample’s Demographics, Overall and by Chronic Kidney Disease Not Yet on Dialysis/Dialysis Modality
Characteristics
All CKD-ND HD PD (N = 180) (N = 65) (N = 77) (N = 38) P Value*
Age, mean (SD) 57.5 (16.8) 63.4 (16.2) 56.1 (16.6) 50.4 (14.8) < 0.001 Female (%) 55.0 66.2 46.8 52.6 0.06 Race/ethnicity (%) 0.89
Caucasian/white 54.0 53.9 51.3 60.0 African American/black 39.8 40.0 43.4 31.4 Asian/Pacific Islander 2.8 1.5 2.6 5.7 Hispanic 1.1 1.5 1.3 0 Other 2.3 3.1 1.3 2.9
Education level (%) 0.71 High school 29.4 32.3 28.6 26.3 Some college 34.4 27.7 37.7 39.5 College grad or above 36.1 40.0 33.8 34.2
Lives with others (%) 76.7 69.2 77.9 86.8 0.12 Employment Status (%) 0.004
Employed 19.0 18.8 14.3 29.0 Not employed 38.6 23.4 50.7 31.6 Retired 42.5 57.8 35.1 39.5
*P value for difference across modality groups using a chi-square test of homogeneity for categorical variables and analysis of variance with a Bonferroni correction for multiple comparisons for the continuous variables.
CKD-ND = chronic kidney disease not yet on dialysis; HD = hemodialysis; PD = peritoneal dialysis; SD = standard deviation.
15
Table 2. Aim 1. Study Sample’s Health Characteristics, Overall and by Chronic Kidney Disease Not Yet on Dialysis/Dialysis Modality
Characteristics All CKD-ND HD PD (N = 180) (N = 65) (N = 77) (N = 38) P Value*
Self-rated health,** mean (SD) 3.2 (1.0) 3.4 (1.0) 3.1 (0.9) 3.0 (0.9) 0.07 Recent diagnosis of kidney disease (within past 5 years) (%) 38.3 47.7 33.8 31.6 0.16
Respondents reporting daily activities are limited due to kidney disease (%) 66.1 49.2 71.4 84.2 < 0.001
Have had a kidney transplant (%) 24.4 N/A 20.8 31.6 0.20 Of those, how many transplants? 0.07
1 64.3 N/A 50.0 83.3 More than 1 35.7 N/A 50.0 16.7
Number of chronic conditions 0.16 Range (min-max) (0,6) (0,6) (0,6) (0,6) 0 (%) 6.7 9.2 6.5 2.6 1 (%) 20.0 16.9 15.6 34.2 2 (%) 26.1 21.5 32.5 21.1 3 or more (%) 47.2 52.3 45.5 42.1
Chronic conditions (%) Diabetes 40.0 49.2 40.3 23.7 0.04 High blood pressure 80.6 89.2 70.1 86.8 0.009 Heart disease 36.1 36.9 37.7 31.6 0.80 Other conditions 41.7 44.6 42.9 34.2 0.56
* P value for difference across modality groups using a chi-square test of homogeneity for categorical variables and analysis of variance with a Bonferroni correction for multiple comparisons for the continuous variables. ** Self-rated health score ranges from 1 = excellent to 5 = poor
CKD-ND = chronic kidney disease not yet on dialysis; HD = hemodialysis; PD = peritoneal dialysis; SD = standard deviation.
16
Factors important to patients when choosing dialysis
As Figure 2. Aim 1, Panel A shows, overall, the 3 most important factors identified by patients
were keeping as much independence as possible (96%), issues related to quality and quantity of
life (94%), and flexibility in daily schedule (92%). The 3 factors less often cited as important
were concern about appearance (39%), spending time with other patients at the dialysis center
(37% of HD patients; not asked of PD patients), and worrying about how dialysis will affect
others (36%).
Differences were observed among patient groups, including CKD-ND/dialysis modality
(Figure 2. Aim 1, Panel B), age (Panel C), and marital status (Panel D). Going to work or school
was important to a larger percentage of PD patients compared with CKD-ND patients and for
participants aged 45-49 compared with younger (< 45) and older (60 and older) patients.
Patients in the youngest age group affirmed concern about physical appearance more often
compared with patients in the older age groups.
Further analysis revealed several subthemes. For example, different patient subgroups
defined “quality and quantity of life” differently. Compared with PD patients, HD patients were
more likely to respond with themes about extending life (quantity of life) and less likely to
respond with quality of life themes. A common theme was that quantity of life was most
important because patients were on dialysis to stay alive; dialysis had negatively affected the
quality of their life, but within their limitations they felt they were choosing the best dialysis
option. However, PD patients responded that quality of life was very important and that PD
allowed them to take part in hobbies and be engaged in activities and maintain a more normal
lifestyle. CKD-ND patients responded that quality of life meant being able to maintain a
somewhat normal lifestyle (e.g., continue with hobbies or household activities) after starting
dialysis, but they worried dialysis would negatively impact their quality of life by making them
feel tired or run down.
17
Figure 2. Aim 1. Factors Important to Patients When Choosing Dialysis Panel A. Overall
96%94%
92%
75%73%
66%
53%
39%37% 36%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
Keeping asmuch
independenceas possible
Issues relatedto quality and
quantity
Flexibility indaily schedule
Important to dodialysis in
privacy andcomfort of own
home
Plannedschedule at
dialysis center
Safer to dodialysis at a
medical place
Ability to go toschool or work
Concern aboutthe way you
look
Spending timewith otherpatients at
dialysis center
Worry abouthow dialysis
will affectothers
% o
f Affi
rmat
ive
Resp
onse
s
Factors Important to Patients
18
Figure 2. Aim 1. Factors Important to Patients When Choosing Dialysis
Panel B. By Chronic Kidney Disease/Dialysis Modality
* p < 0.05 difference in proportion of “yes” versus “no” and “don’t know” responses between groups. PD patients were not asked the following probes: planned schedule at dialysis center; safer to do dialysis at a medical place; spending time with other patients at the dialysis center. HD patients were not asked the following probes: flexibility in daily schedule; important to do dialysis in privacy and comfort of own home; ability to go to school or work.
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
Keeping as muchindependence
as possible
*Issues relatedto quality and
quantity
Flexibility indaily schedule
*Important todo dialysis inprivacy and
comfort of ownhome
Plannedschedule at
dialysis center
*Safer to dodialysis at a
medical place
*Ability to go toschool or work
Concern aboutthe way you
look
*Spending timewith otherpatients at
dialysis center
Worry abouthow dialysis will
affect others
% o
f Affi
rmat
ive
Resp
onse
s
Factors Important to Patients
OverallChronic Kidney DiseaseHemodialysisPeritoneal Dialysis
19
Figure 2. Aim 1. Factors Important to Patients When Choosing Dialysis Panel C. By Age
* p < 0.05 difference in proportion of “yes” versus “no” and “don’t know” responses between groups. ** Difference in proportion of “yes” versus the “no” and “don’t know” responses between groups achieved borderline statistical significance (p = 0.06).
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
Keeping asmuch
independenceas possible
Issues related toquality and
quantity
Flexibility indaily schedule
**Important todo dialysis inprivacy and
comfort of ownhome*
Plannedschedule at
dialysis center
Safer to dodialysis at a
medical place
*Ability to go toschool or work
*Concern aboutthe way you
look
Spending timewith otherpatients at
dialysis center
Worry abouthow dialysis will
affect others
% o
f Affi
rmat
ive
Resp
onse
s
Factors Important to Patients
Overall<4545-5960-7475+
20
Figure 2. Aim 1. Factors Important to Patients When Choosing Dialysis Panel D. By Marital Status
* p < 0.05 difference in proportion of “yes” versus “no” and “don’t know” responses between groups. ** Difference in proportion of “yes” versus the “no” and “don’t know” responses between groups achieved borderline statistical significance (p = 0.06).
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
Keeping asmuch
independenceas possible
Issues relatedto quality and
quantity
Flexibility indaily schedule
Important todo dialysis inprivacy and
comfort of ownhome
**Plannedschedule at
dialysis center*
Safer to dodialysis at a
medical place
Ability to go toschool or work
Concern aboutthe way you
look
*Spending timewith otherpatients at
dialysis center
Worry abouthow dialysis
will affectothers
% o
f Affi
rmat
ive
Resp
onse
s
Factors Important to Patients
OverallNot MarriedMarried
21
Choice of dialysis modality
Perceived role in the choice
Among 115 participants on dialysis (either HD or PD), more than a third felt that their dialysis
modality had not been their choice, 5.2% responded that their modality choice was a combined
decision, and 62.6% stated it was their choice (Table 3. Aim 1). However, patients’ perceptions
of their role were dramatically different between dialysis modalities: 94.7% of PD versus 46.8%
of HD patients said the decision was largely their choice. Among patients responding “Yes,” a
much higher percentage of PD patients were classified as “Strong Yes” versus “Weak Yes”
(88.9% versus 11.1%) than compared with HD patients (61.1% versus 38.9%).
Patients responding “No” identified acute medical need or crisis situation and doctor’s
decision as the primary factors attributed to not having a choice. The “Weak Yes” themes
suggest that medical conditions strongly governed patients’ modality decision. Informed choice,
fits lifestyle, switched from HD to PD, and investigated options about dialysis were the main
themes within the category of patients grouped as “Strong Yes.”
22
Table 3. Aim 1. Perceived Role in Choice of Dialysis Modality: Participants’ Responses to the Question, “Do You Feel That the Decision to Go on Hemodialysis/Peritoneal Dialysis Was Largely Your Choice?” (N = 115)^
Response and %
Theme Participant Quote
No: 32.2* HD: 46.8 PD: 2.6
Crisis situation: Patient was in a crisis situation and his kidneys were failing
“Well, I guess the doctors at the hospital [chose] while I was in with my heart failure episode.” [HD, male, aged 69]
Doctor’s decision: Doctor made the dialysis decision
“I don’t think it was my choice, it was the doctors’ choice!” [HD, male, aged 59]
Combined decision: 5.2*
HD: 6.5 PD: 2.6
Joint decision with doctor: Doctor and patient decided together
“I want to say it was the doctor’s recommendation . . . but the choice was mine too. . . . So, I did go with the doctor.” [HD, female, aged 57]
Yes: 62.6* HD: 46.8 PD: 94.7
Weak Yes: 25**
HD: 38.9 PD: 11.1
Medical condition: Patient said it was her choice but she was able to do only 1 type of dialysis because of medical condition(s)
“It was largely my choice. Well, the doctor actually said . . . because I had the polycystic kidney . . . that I did not have room in my abdomen to do peritoneal dialysis. So, that wasn’t even tried, or discussed.” [HD, female, aged 72]
Negative side effects from PD: Switched from PD to HD because of negative side effects
“I thought I would stay on peritoneal until I could get a kidney, but . . . like I said the sugar was just wreaking havoc with my body. . . . So I really didn’t have much choice.” [HD, male, aged 69]
Pushed toward HD: HD was default choice; felt pushed toward that modality
“They sent me right to a . . . guy to do my fistula. Then, about a month later, I went down to a dialysis center and started up.” [HD, male, aged 78]
Strong Yes: 75** HD: 61.1 PD: 88.9
Informed choice: Patient made an informed choice after talking with health provider(s)
“Yeah, when the options were put forward to me . . . it was my choice. I talked with the doctors.” [HD, female, aged 53]
Fits lifestyle: Chose modality that fit best with his circumstances or lifestyle
“It was just more suitable for my lifestyle, my age group, and the active, younger individual. It was best for me.” [PD, male, aged 39]
Switched from HD to PD: Made own decision to switch from HD to PD
“Well, I already had experience with hemodialysis and so I was pretty well set on trying something different . . . so I started with peritoneal.” [PD, female, aged 37]
Investigated options: Made decision after doing his own research on options
“My mom and I did the research and asked questions . . . because they were just going to basically ship me straight off to a dialysis clinic like I didn’t even know there were other options. No one told us about it [PD] until we brought it up.” [PD, male, aged 31]
^ Asked only of HD and PD patients on dialysis. * No N = 37; Combined N = 6; Yes N = 72. Responses were classified as “Combined” if patient said he or she made the decision together with a doctor or a family member. ** Among respondents who answered “Yes,” Weak Yes N = 18 and Strong Yes N = 54. Responses classified as “Weak Yes” if patient stated that he or she made the decision but medical conditions determined the modality choice, or he or she later admitted being pushed toward 1 type. Convergence was found between “Weak Yes” and “No” responses. HD = hemodialysis; PD = peritoneal dialysis.
23
Factors contributing to the choice of one dialysis modality over another
Patients were asked to explain why they chose HD or PD (Table 4. Aim 1). Patients who chose
HD and classified as “Weak Yes” identified Medical Condition as a common theme. For PD
patients, a common theme was side effects from HD. Among HD patients classified as “Strong
Yes,” themes included fear of infection from PD and having trained medical personnel
administer dialysis therapy. PD patient responses classified as “Strong Yes” were associated
with the themes of better quality of life on PD, convenience of home dialysis, and ability to
work. Individual themes emerging from choice of dialysis modality were not mutually exclusive,
and based on some patient responses, multiple themes emerged.
Table 4. Aim 1. Factors Contributing to the Choice of One Dialysis Modality Over Another: Participants’ Responses to the Question, “What Led You to Choose Hemodialysis/Peritoneal Dialysis”? (N = 115)^
Role in Dialysis Choice*
HD Patients PD Patients Theme Participant Quote Theme Participant Quote
No Developed infection on PD
“Well I had no choice. What happened was, when I was on the peritoneal . . . I got a really bad infection and developed a lot of scar tissue . . . so they tried to put it back in but it wouldn’t work so I had to go on hemo.” [female, aged 45]
Negative side effects from HD
“[With] hemodialysis I was feeling so sick. I had all the headaches. . . . I didn’t have energy to even walk . . . to do anything . . . and I looked so sick on it.” [female, aged 27]
HD was default choice
“So, it was more beneficial for me to go on hemo, which was the instant plan. . . . I started it the same day as they put the catheter in . . .” [male, aged 45]
Combined decision
Developed infection on PD
“I got peritonitis and . . . the surgeon told me that after he removed the second catheter for an infection, he told me my body didn’t like the catheter and was rejecting it. So, because I was . . . frequently with infections, then it would be better for me to not do peritoneal.” [female, aged 57]
Convenience of home dialysis
“If I want to plug in at 3:00 in the morning and be plugged in until late the following day, it doesn’t really matter. . . . I know it’s something I have to do every day. At least I have the flexibility of . . . when I want to do it.” [male, aged 27]
Too much time on machine with PD
“It was really my time . . . doing that every day for 12 hours . . . was rough.” [male, aged 39]
PD makes you look like a patient
“I didn’t want any tubes hanging out of my belly.” [female, aged 33]
24
^ Asked only of HD and PD patients on dialysis. * Classified by perceived role in choice of dialysis modality reported in Table 3 (No, Combined, Weak Yes, and Strong Yes) and dialysis modality selection. HD = hemodialysis; PD = peritoneal dialysis.
Metathemes related to the choice of dialysis modality
We took the responses to “Was the dialysis modality largely your choice?” (Table 3. Aim 1) and
the corresponding individual themes for the question “What led you to choose HD/PD?” (Table
4. Aim 1) and mapped them to the 2 metathemes (Table 5. Aim 1). The metathemes represent
higher-level conceptual categories containing the individual themes.
The 2 metathemes suggest patients primarily considered perceived benefits or
perceived risks when making their decision about the type of dialysis. Perceived benefits
include maintaining independence, quality of life, continuing daily activities, ability to work,
convenience of doing dialysis at home, and making an informed choice about dialysis. Perceived
risks or constraints contains themes about medical conditions constraining the decision on
modality choice, negative side effects from dialysis, starting dialysis in a crisis situation, fear of
infection, and greater comfort having trained medical personnel administering dialysis. In some
Weak Yes
Medical Condition
“It [PD] was not an option. Because of surgery that I’ve had, the cancer in my abdomen. . . . So, it couldn’t be done.” [male, aged 70]
Negative side effects from HD
“The hemo was giving me horrible headaches. The last couple days . . . it was making me sick. I couldn’t tolerate it any longer.” [male, aged 56]
Strong Yes
Fear of infection from PD
“To me, hemo just seems to be . . . more clean. Because the peritoneal, you have a lot of chances of getting infections, and I didn’t want to do that.” [female, aged 52]
Better quality of life on PD
“I felt like the PD would allow me to have a normal life. Other than the dialysis . . . I could still go out, do everything.” [female, aged 43]
Want trained medical person
“While I’m doing my dialysis, I like the fact that there’s someone there . . . that could help me if something went wrong or something like that. I don’t know, I just feel more comfortable . . . going into the center and having it done there.” [male, aged 37]
Convenience of home dialysis
“Well, just the fact that I can do it at home. The idea of going into a center 3 times a week for 4 or 5 hours just absolutely does not appeal to me.” [male, aged 82]
Ability to work
“The fact that I was still able to work and take care of my family . . . ” [male, aged 48]
25
cases, patient responses resulted in the emergence of multiple themes associated with both
metathemes.
Regardless of perceived choice in the dialysis decision, HD patients tended to highlight
burden, medical concerns, or limitations of treatment—characteristics associated within the
perceived risks or constraints metatheme. In contrast, PD patients highlighted maintaining
some semblance of their lifestyle, which we associated with the perceived benefits metatheme.
Table 5. Aim 1. Metathemes Related to the Choice of Dialysis Modality; Perceived Benefits and Perceived Risks or Constraints
Note: The table describes overlap of individual themes across different classifications. Patient responses to the question, “Do you feel that the decision to go on HD/PD was largely your choice?” were classified as “Strong Yes” (rectangle) “Weak Yes” (triangle) and “No” (diamond). Individual themes (text within the tables) emerged from responses to the question, “What led you to choose HD/PD?” Circles represent the 2 metathemes (perceived benefits and perceived risks or constraints), each containing the individual themes (text within the shapes). The 2 metathemes suggest patients consider both “benefits” and “risks” when making a decision about the type of dialysis. HD = hemodialysis.
26
Discussion
In this large set of interviews, the top 3 factors identified as most important to patients when
choosing a treatment modality were keeping as much independence as possible, quality and
quantity of life, and flexibility in daily schedule. Among patients who had started dialysis,
almost half of HD patients felt that the HD decision had not been their choice, compared with
only 2% of PD patients. Perceived benefits and perceived risks were the major metathemes
related to the choice of dialysis modality.
From patient decision making and dialysis modality choice literature,13,22,26,37,39,42-53
several common themes have emerged, suggesting the importance of patient choice and
specific factors that help determine dialysis modality selection.13,39,44,45,47,51,54 Factors identified
as most important by participants in this study are consistent with prior findings.39,42,44,45,49,52 As
anticipated, different factors were more or less important to specific patient subgroups; for
example, fewer older participants (> 75 years) reported that flexibility in daily schedule was
important.
A sobering and key finding of our study is that approximately one-third of respondents
felt that the dialysis modality decision had largely not been their choice. This has been reported
in other smaller studies22,52 as well as from a large multi-country study in Europe .50 These
findings clearly indicate the need to improve communication strategies between the health
care team and patients, so that dialysis modality decision making is truly shared between
patients and providers. The lack of choice was overwhelmingly more common among patients
who had started HD (~46%), while only reported by ~2% of PD patients, reflecting a need for
greater engagement of HD patients in decision making and treatment.
Study participants also identified distinct reasons for choosing a specific dialysis
modality (e.g., PD included better quality of life and convenience of doing dialysis at home,
while for HD, reasons included fear of infection and wanting trained medical personnel to
deliver treatment). Similar reasons for modality choice have been observed in other studies.26,39
However, factors previously identified in a UK cohort study,47 such as distance to the dialysis
center and receipt of verbal and written information, did not emerge in our analyses.
27
The perceived benefits and perceived risks metathemes that emerged from our analysis
highlighted the benefits and the risks patients consider when selecting a modality and provide a
framework for clinicians to better understand the patient perspectives. These results suggest
patients qualitatively emphasized varying benefits and risk tradeoffs.
A potential limitation to our study is that participants tended to be younger, had higher
educational attainment, and included a higher percentage of females and African Americans
compared with the US national population for each modality. The selected study sample is in
part the result of our recruitment method using social media and being concentrated in a
geographic region. Given their willingness and ability to participate in lengthy telephone
interviews, participants were potentially healthier and more engaged compared with the
general US population of CKD-ND and dialysis patients; however, this may have allowed
participants to better articulate their experiences and provide greater detail in their responses.
Finally, we were not able to account for whether patients had timely referral to a nephrologist.
Our study makes several unique contributions and expands findings of earlier research.
A unique strength and innovation was the collaboration with patients, family members,
and other stakeholders throughout the study. This was a new experience for both researchers
and the advisory panel and required creative thinking on different styles of collaboration to
ensure that study questions and methods were relevant and appropriate for patients and other
stakeholders. Ultimately, this resulted in increased knowledge and acquisition of new
perspectives for all study team members. To our knowledge, this is the largest series of
qualitative interviews conducted in patients with kidney disease. While the large sample size
was crucial for analysis, the level of enthusiasm and interest expressed by patients supports the
importance of this study’s objective: to identify factors important to patients using a rigorous
scientific approach. We recruited a more diverse sample of patients throughout the United
States compared with prior studies on the US CKD-ND and dialysis population. Finally, interview
questions covered a comprehensive set of topics identified in collaboration with the
stakeholder advisory panel, thus allowing us to expand beyond prior studies and to assess the
reasons patients chose a specific dialysis modality.
28
AIM 2: To compare the effect of hemodialysis and peritoneal dialysis regarding patient-
centered outcomes and dialysis modality decision
In Aim 1, we identified independence, flexibility, and both quality and quantity of life as the
most frequently reported patient priorities.55 In Aim 2, with the guidance of the advisory panel,
we developed a survey based on Aim 1 interviews, and we administered the survey to the large,
nationally representative US cohorts of the Dialysis Outcomes and Practice Patterns Study
(DOPPS) and Peritoneal Dialysis Outcomes and Practice Patterns Study (PDOPPS). We designed
the survey to compare the dialysis modality decision process among hemodialysis (HD) and
peritoneal dialysis (PD) patients by assessing involvement of clinical staff, peers, family, and
friends, as well as patients’ understanding of dialysis and satisfaction with their modality
choice. We also assessed the extent of impact of PD and HD on patients’ lives to identify
opportunities for patient engagement to improve patient-centered outcomes.
Methods
Survey design
We developed a 39-question survey (Appendices 4-7) to assess patients’ experiences with the
dialysis modality decision and factors that patients had previously identified as important
(patient-centered outcomes).55 The advisory panel tested the survey for readability and
comprehension and helped review and finalize survey questions.
The survey asked whether the participant was told that he or she had a choice between
PD and HD when starting dialysis and to indicate if his or her involvement in this decision was
more, less, or just what was desired. The survey proceeded with 3 sets of questions: (1)
Patients ranked the degree to which 10 groups of family members, peers, and clinical staff were
involved in their dialysis modality decision. (2) Patients rated their level of agreement with 9
statements focused on recollection of their experiences and satisfaction with their dialysis
modality decision. Additionally, patients indicated whether the information they had received
before starting dialysis was more, less, or just the amount that they had wanted, and whether
they and their doctor agreed on the type of dialysis best for them. (3) Patients ranked the
29
degree 16 different factors were affected by dialysis. We designed the survey for both paper
and electronic (tablet) formats and provided both English and Spanish versions.
Recruitment of participants
The DOPPS and PDOPPS are ongoing, international prospective cohort studies of dialysis facility
practices and patient outcomes for adult HD and PD patients, respectively.56-58 The Empowering
Patients on Choices for Renal Replacement Therapy (EPOCH-RRT) survey was administered to
patients as an additional patient questionnaire in the DOPPS and PDOPPS studies. All DOPPS
and PDOPPS consented patients were eligible for the EPOCH-RRT study. Study coordinators
targeted eligible patients between February 2015 and August 2015 to participate in the EPOCH-
RRT survey based on patient visit schedules and staff availability (Figure 1. Aim 2). Some
patients departed the dialysis facility before study coordinators could approach them with the
EPOCH-RRT survey or were unable to participate due to other reasons (e.g., cognitive, physical,
language, or social impediments); others were approached for participation but unwilling to
complete the EPOCH-RRT survey. Facilities were randomly assigned to receive the survey on
either paper or tablet platforms.
Statistical analysis
For questions related to involvement of families and peers in the dialysis modality decision, we
treated the responses as continuous outcomes. For outcomes on experiences and satisfaction
with the dialysis modality decision, we dichotomized responses into agreement (agree or
strongly agree) versus nonagreement (strongly disagree, disagree, or neither agree nor
disagree). For outcomes on factors important to patients, we dichotomized responses into a
large impact (very much or extremely) versus not large impact (not at all, somewhat, or
moderately). We excluded patients who reported not applicable from analyses of each
corresponding question and excluded missing responses for each question.
For dichotomized outcomes (experiences and satisfaction with the dialysis modality decision
and factors important to patients), we used generalized estimating equation (GEE) logistic
regression models to compare outcomes between HD and PD patients. We used an
exchangeable working covariance matrix to account for patient clustering within facility in GEE
30
Figure 1. Aim 2. Flow of Study Participants
models. For continuous outcomes (involvement of families and peers), we used linear mixed
regression models to compare dialysis modality, accounting for clustering by including a
random intercept for each facility. In all models the primary predictor was dialysis modality and
adjusted for age, sex, black race, years on dialysis, and diabetes. In sensitivity analyses, we
added paper or tablet platform used for collecting survey data as an additional adjustment
factor and tested for effect modification by platform by including an interaction term between
platform and dialysis modality. We conducted all analyses using SAS, Version 9.4 ([computer
program]. Cary, NC: SAS Institute Inc.; 2013).
• 76 Departed facility • 66 Unable participate for
other reasons
423 Not targeted for participation by study coordinators
Peritoneal Dialysis
1372 Eligible
949 Targeted for Participation
614 Participated in Study
Hemodialysis
807 Approached with Survey
• 193 Unwilling to complete survey
• 103 Departed facility • 211 Unable participate
for other reasons
700 Not targeted for participation by study coordinators
2697 Eligible
1997 Targeted for Participation
1346 Participated in Study
1683 Approached with Survey
• 337 Unwilling to complete survey
31
Results
Study sample
Out of 807 PD and 1683 HD patients approached for participation in the EPOCH-RRT study, 614
(76.1%) PD patients and 1346 (80.0%) HD patients responded to at least 1 question in the
survey (Figure 1. Aim 2). Among patients < 65 years old, response rates across platform (i.e.,
paper or tablet) were similar among both PD and HD patients; however, patients > 65 years
who were offered tablets had lower response rates than those offered paper surveys. Thus, we
controlled for platform and explored effect modification by platform in sensitivity analyses. The
median (interquartile range) number of questions answered was 36 (33-38) among PD patients
and 35 (32-37) among HD patients. The amount of missingness for each question ranged from
3% to 7%, with the exception of question 2 (Appendices 4-7) about the amount of patient
involvement in the dialysis modality decision compared with what the patient wanted. This
question was left unanswered by 11% of PD patients and 35% of HD patients. Table 1. Aim 2
displays patient characteristics. Compared with HD patients, PD patients were, on average,
younger, had shorter dialysis vintage, and were less likely to be black and to have diabetes.
Experience with dialysis modality choice
PD patients were more frequently (93%) told they had a choice between dialysis modalities
than were HD patients (66%). Ten percent of PD patients and 20% of HD patients felt their
involvement in the type of dialysis they would start on was either more than or less than they
wanted compared with just what they wanted.
32
Table 1. Aim 2. Patient Characteristics, by Dialysis Modality
Variable Peritoneal
Dialysis (n = 614)a
Hemodialysis (n = 1346)a
Patient age, years
< 45 years 17% 11% 45-59 years 29% 28% 60-74 years 37% 38% 75+ years 17% 23% Male 54% 57% Race
White 70% 60% Black 23% 36% Other 7% 5% Years on dialysis
0-1.9 years 46% 32% 2-5.9 years 43% 45% 6-9.9 years 8% 15% 10+ years 4% 9% Diabetes 41% 43% a One PD patient and 9 HD patients were missing demographic data.
Involvement of family and peers
Clinical staff members, especially nephrologists, were most frequently involved in the dialysis
modality decision overall compared with involvement of family members and friends (Figure 2.
Aim 2). Fewer PD patients than HD patients reported at least some involvement of primary care
doctors (60% versus 70%) but slightly more involvement of a nephrologist in their dialysis
modality decision (94% versus 92%). We observed greater differences in the 2 modalities for
lack of involvement of other clinical staff. For example, 40% of HD patients and 22% of PD
patients reported no involvement at all of nursing staff in the dialysis decision. More than 35%
of all patients reported that they did not know someone on dialysis at the time of their
modality decision. Among those who did know a peer on dialysis, more than 50% recalled no
peer involvement. More PD patients than HD patients recalled at least some involvement of
physician assistants and nursing staff in their dialysis modality decision. Also, more PD patients
than HD patients reported at least some
33
Figure 2. Aim 2. Involvement of Family and Peers in the Dialysis Modality Decision for Peritoneal Dialysis and Hemodialysis Patients
Note: Patients who reported not applicable (range: 3% for nephrologist to 35% for peer and 47% for adult child/children) were excluded from relevant question. * β represents adjusted differences in the degree of involvement of family members and peers between PD and HD patients. Estimates are from linear mixed regression models adjusted for age, sex, black race, years on dialysis, and diabetes, and accounting for facility clustering. CI = confidence interval; HD = hemodialysis; PD = peritoneal dialysis.
34
involvement of partners/spouses (79% of PD patients, with 55% reporting very much or
extremely involved; 70% of HD patients, with 46% reporting very much or extremely involved).
For both PD and HD patients, involvement of other family and friends was low to moderate
(32% -60%) and mostly similar across dialysis modalities. In adjusted models, PD patients
indicated more involvement than HD patients by physician assistants, nursing staff,
partner/spouse, and adult child/children.
Experiences and satisfaction with dialysis modality decision
Overall, HD patients felt less informed and less confident than PD patients at the time of the
dialysis modality decision and were less satisfied with their dialysis modality choice (Figure 3.
Aim 2). PD patients more often felt that the information received was enough and easy to
understand, dialysis choices were explained, advantages and disadvantages of PD and HD were
understood, and that they were happy with their dialysis decision compared with HD patients.
Almost all PD patients felt their dialysis choices were explained easily and understandable,
whereas ~20% of HD patients did not. Additionally, 11% of HD patients regretted their dialysis
modality choice, compared with 6% of PD patients (p < 0.001). While 26% of PD patients
reported the information, they had before starting dialysis was not the amount that they
wanted but, rather, either more or less than they wanted (9% and 17%, respectively), 36% of
HD patients reported they had either more or less information (11% and 25%, respectively; p =
0.178) than they wanted. Finally, 95% of PD patients and 84% of HD patients reported that they
and their doctor agreed on the type of dialysis that was best for them.
35
Figure 3. Aim 2. Proportion of Peritoneal Dialysis and Hemodialysis Patients Who Agreed With Statements on Experiences and Satisfaction With the Dialysis Modality Decision
* Adjusted odds ratio (OR) and 95% confidence interval (CI) of agreement with each statement comparing PD to HD. Estimates from logistic generalized estimating equation model adjusted for age, sex, black race, years on dialysis, and diabetes, and accounting for facility clustering. HD = hemodialysis; PD = peritoneal dialysis.
Impact of dialysis on patients’ lives
For all factors, many patients reported that dialysis had a large impact (range 17%-46%; Figure
4. Aim 2). HD patients were more affected than PD patients by 15 of 16 factors, although most
differences were small. PD patients more often felt that their dialysis modality largely affected
self-reliance compared with HD patients. In contrast, HD patients more often felt their dialysis
modality had a large effect compared with PD patients on doing what I want in my free time,
doing activities I am interested in (hobbies), drinking as much water as I want, eating what I
like, and feeling healthy.
36
Figure 4. Aim 2. Proportion of Peritoneal Dialysis and Hemodialysis Patients Indicating a Large Effect of Dialysis on Patient-centered Outcomes
Note: Patients who reported not applicable (range: 1% to 9%) were excluded from relevant question. * Adjusted odds ratio (OR) and 95% confidence interval (CI) of a large impact of dialysis on each factor comparing peritoneal dialysis versus hemodialysis. Estimates from logistic generalized estimating equation model adjusted for age, sex, black race, years on dialysis, and diabetes, and accounting for facility clustering. HD = hemodialysis; PD = peritoneal dialysis.
For all outcomes, similar results were obtained after adjusting additionally for platform (tablet
versus paper). In analyses testing for interactions between modality (PD versus HD) and
questionnaire platform (tablet versus paper), we found little effect modification.
37
Discussion
Through dissemination of our survey to DOPPS and PDOPPS patients, we found that PD patients
were more informed and engaged in dialysis modality decision making compared with HD
patients. This may be expected, given that PD patients undergo intense training coordinated by
clinical staff and that this dialysis technique impacts household routine, space needs, and
organization (e.g., space to store PD supplies). Therefore, those who choose PD may already be
more involved in their own care and likely more receptive to the education they receive.
Nonetheless, the low involvement of several groups in the dialysis modality decision for both
PD and HD patients demonstrates an opportunity to increase family and peer engagement to
promote shared decision making. Such engagement may result in a better fit of the dialysis
modality with each patient’s life as well as improved experience for their families and other
caregivers. Furthermore, the large number of dialysis patients who did not know someone else
on dialysis highlights a potentially useful but underutilized resource: Peer mentoring programs
have proved to be successful in different clinical conditions,59-62 and anecdotal evidence
indicates that existing peer support programs in dialysis are highly valued by patients and their
care partners.63,64 By improving awareness of and access to peers, patients new to dialysis may
benefit from increased practical information about dialysis, empathy and understanding, advice
on coping strategies, and a greater sense of empowerment and agency.64
We found large differences in understanding and satisfaction with current dialysis
modality between PD and HD patients. PD patients were much more likely than HD patients to
report that they had enough information during the dialysis modality decision, that the
information given was easy to understand, and that they understood differences between
dialysis modalities. Previous studies have found that deficiencies in knowledge are a barrier to
choosing PD and that educational interventions can increase PD use.65-67 Thus, those who
choose PD are likely to be patients who have sufficient knowledge about dialysis modalities and
willingness to participate in self-care. PD patients also more frequently indicated that they were
happy with the modality they chose compared with HD patients. This result may reflect a more
deliberate and informed decision-making process among PD patients and/or greater
involvement in the dialysis modality decision. Still, more than 20% of PD patients did not know
38
the disadvantages of their modality, and more than 10% did not feel they had easy-to-
understand written information. Furthermore, some patients from both PD and HD groups
reported not receiving enough information and expressed regret in dialysis modality choice.
This finding is consistent with previous research that found anecdotal evidence of dialysis
patients who were not satisfied with their dialysis modality decision process.21,22,26 Therefore,
opportunities exist to improve CKD education to increase understanding of dialysis modalities
and satisfaction with treatment, especially among HD patients.
Patients perceived a moderate to high impact of dialysis on factors previously identified
as important to patients in EPOCH-RRT interviews. Particularly, many patients felt their ability
to rely on themselves and travel out of town was affected by starting dialysis. Several life-
affecting factors were more frequently identified by HD patients than by PD patients, which
may be explained by the differences in modalities. For example, clinical characteristics (e.g.,
lack of residual urine output) of HD patients may require more restrictive diets and fluid intake,
while technical aspects of HD (e.g., intermittent dialysis in a facility setting) often limit the time
HD patients have for their own interests. Some HD patients have also reported that dialyzing in
a clinical setting and being surrounded by other patients makes them feel less healthy, although
this opportunity to interact with other patients in the in-center setting was not always
perceived as a negative aspect of HD.13
Overall, the proportion of patients who skipped each question was low, providing some
evidence that the survey questions were appropriate and easily interpretable by most dialysis
patients. This likely reflected the high engagement of the advisory panel in the development of
the survey and the reviews of its questions. There was a higher amount of missingness for 1
question about the amount of the patient’s involvement in the dialysis modality decision. The
reasons for which 11% of PD patients and 35% of HD patients did not answer this question
could include not having preconceived desires about involvement in the dialysis modality
decision and/or unwillingness to admit low involvement. Both suggest that more effort should
be made to give patients adequate choice and involvement in their dialysis modality decision
process.
39
There are a few limitations of the Aim 2 survey worth noting. First, survey questions
asked the extent to which patients felt affected by dialysis—without options to indicate
whether the effects were positive or negative. Therefore, the interpretation of differences
between HD and PD patients must be speculated based on what is known about the different
modalities. Second, we administered surveys to both incident and prevalent dialysis patients, so
the time between dialysis initiation and survey was variable. Particularly for those who had
longer dialysis vintage, recall bias may have affected survey responses related to the dialysis
modality decision; however, we have no reason to believe that the recall bias would be
different across PD and HD patients, indicating that our comparisons of interest may still have
little bias. Third, we did not have information on whether patients in the study had
contraindications to either dialysis modality, which also may have affected survey responses.
For example, some HD patients may not have been eligible for PD, which limited their exposure
to PD information. Still, the fact that HD patients sometimes felt that they did not have enough
information about their own modality supports the conclusion that increased access to
information on dialysis options is warranted.
Despite these limitations, our study has several strengths and important implications for
end-stage renal disease patients, their families, and health care providers. By collaborating with
an advisory panel and using analyses from qualitative data collected from patient interviews,
our survey was specifically designed to focus on patient-centered outcomes. This approach—
consistent with Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute goals for multi-stakeholder
engagement in research—was invaluable for informing the survey content and interpretation of
results. We were able to compare factors important to patients in choosing a dialysis modality
and living with dialysis treatments. We found that dialysis largely affects patients, which
emphasizes the need to optimize the dialysis experience. By comparing the experiences of PD
and HD patients, we identified significant differences between dialysis modalities. We found
several aspects of the dialysis modality decision that require improvement, including patient
education, access to peers, and other support. Increased efforts are needed to encourage
multidisciplinary care and to provide resources, such as decision aids for patients facing the
choice between dialysis modalities.
40
AIM 3: To compare measures related to the decision-making process between patients
receiving and not receiving a decision aid
Patient decision aids are tools used to facilitate patient decision making about treatment
options. They provide unbiased information to improve patients’ understanding of the
treatment options, increase participation in the decision-making process, reduce perceived
pressure, and mitigate decisional conflict. Patients’ increased clarity on available treatment
options and their values facilitates greater decision-making self-efficacy, which is one’s belief
that he or she is able to make the right decision for him- or herself.33-35
In the past few years, several dialysis option decision aids focusing on different aspects
of dialysis-related decision making have been developed, and some are archived by Ottawa
Hospital Research Institute and assessed for compliance with International Patient Dialysis Aid
Standards (IPDAS) criteria.68-70 While valuable, these decision aids have either been developed
outside the United States in other health care contexts or have not been tested for effects on
decisional outcomes among patients with CKD in the United States. To address a need for an
easily accessible, freely available decision aid based on the experiences of patients with chronic
kidney disease (CKD) in the United Sates, in Aim 3 of the Empowering Patients on Choices for
Renal Replacement Therapy (EPOCH-RRT) study, we developed a web-based decision aid with
active collaboration from the advisory panel on content and design. The decision aid is designed
to provide support to patients deciding between in-center hemodialysis (HD) and peritoneal
dialysis (PD), the 2 most common dialysis treatment options in the United States, informed by
results from Aims 1 and 2. We then tested the decision aid for efficacy in supporting decision
making among patients with advanced CKD and measured the effect of the decision aid on
decision-making outcomes (i.e., decision preference, decisional conflict, self-efficacy, and
knowledge).
Methods
Decision aid development
We collaboratively developed the decision aid content based on literature review, the US Renal
Data System data,71 and results from Aims 1 and 2; further, the advisory panel reviewed and
41
refined the decision aid in an iterative method. Patients and social workers with different
dialysis modality experience and who educate CKD patients reviewed the decision aid on
several iterations of the refinement process. An additional set of people with no prior exposure
to the study nor the decision aid and some with no exposure to kidney disease reviewed the
content. We sought additional input from members of a kidney disease patient advocacy
organization. We performed formal usability testing using think-aloud methodology by direct
observation of 6 patients recruited from the University of Michigan Health System. We
recorded reactions to the website and asked participants to describe what they liked or disliked
about each page of the decision aid; this feedback further modified its design, structure, and
content.
The finalized decision aid contained the following sections: (1) CKD and its progression,
(2) information and comparison of PD and HD from the patient perspective, and (3) value
clarification exercise to map personal preferences to dialysis modality features. It included
information on potential lifestyle changes associated with each option and consequences of
changing one’s mind after choosing either option. The decision aid integrated quotes from
patients collected from interviews in Aim 1 and tips for talking with health care professionals
collected during the refinement process. Printing options were provided in sections that might
be useful when discussing dialysis options with medical staff (Appendix 8).
Per IPDAS,32,72 the decision aid addresses all the qualifying criteria—i.e., describes kidney
disease, explicitly states the dialysis treatment decision between HD and PD, describes these 2
options, and describes positive and negative features of each option and side effects of both.
The following IPDASi v3.0 certification criteria were addressed: balanced information on both
HD and PD; each page on the website references the funding source (Patient-Centered
Outcomes Research Institute); offers additional resources and information about research used
to develop the decision aid; and the year of website publication and terms of use and privacy
policy. The website, which will be managed and updated by Arbor Research Collaborative for
Health, can be updated whenever new information is available.
The design focused on intuitive navigation and accessibility of information. For the
study, we designed the website to collect questionnaire data and walk users through all the
42
steps without skipping ahead. We provided hover-over definitions for commonly used terms
throughout the site and logged progress so that users could resume where they left off when
unable to complete in a single session.
Study design
We recruited advanced CKD adults (eGFR < 25 mL/min/1.73 m2) with internet access to test the
decision aid from CKD clinics in southeast Michigan; we also conducted national online outreach
with the help of the National Kidney Foundation and American Association of Kidney Patients
(Figure 1. Aim 3). Each of the 4 recruiters, immediately after obtaining informed consent,
provided the participant with a user login ID chosen sequentially from a list generated by the
study team. The list of user login IDs provided to each recruiter was ordered to alternate
between intervention and control arm user login IDs, but neither the recruiter nor the
participant could discern the assignment based on the login ID. This ensured even distribution
of intervention and control arm assignments of consented participants.
Once the participant granted informed consent, we provided instructions, login
information, links to the test website, and contact information for technical or other support.
Participants could access the study website from their own computers or portable devices by
following the instructions and using the login credentials provided. Study coordinators could
track task completion for each participant who logged into the website. They followed up
weekly with consented participants to check on any technical issues and to promote study
completion.
Participants in the control arm were required only to complete 1 questionnaire and click
the submit button prior to accessing the decision aid. Participation in the control arm was
considered complete once the questionnaire was completed and the submit button was clicked.
Participants in this arm were included in the analysis if they answered all questions in the
control questionnaire. Participants in the intervention arm were required to click on answers
43
Figure 1. Aim 3. Recruitment and Flow of Study Participants
* Some participants provided 2 reasons for declining; each response was assigned 0.5 to ensure no individual was double-counted.
44
for all the pretest questions and click the submit button in order to proceed to the decision aid.
Similarly, participants in the intervention arm were asked to click a button to indicate they had
completed review of the decision aid and this would enable them to proceed to the posttest. All
participants consented to complete each questionnaire in 1 sitting.
We designed the website to force intervention arm participants to click through sections
of the decision aid sequentially and at their leisure. Participants could return to a section at any
time, as many times as needed. The last page of the decision aid study website required
participants to click a button to proceed to the posttest. We considered intervention arm
participants to have completed the study if they answered all questions in the posttest and
clicked the submit button.
Questionnaire design
The questionnaires (Appendices 9-11) developed to test the efficacy of the decision aid in
promoting shared decision making included several established and/or validated measures of
the following parameters: preference for shared decision making,73 decisional conflict,74
decision self-efficacy,75 knowledge based on the contents of the decision aid and adapted from
Cavanaugh,76 literacy,77 numeracy,78,79 and demographics. The posttest also included the
Preparation for Decision Making Scale80 and questions to help assess usability, satisfaction with
the decision aid, adequacy, and relevance and quality of content, as well as open-ended
questions for positive and negative feedback.
Recruitment of participants
Inclusion criteria were (1) aged > 18 years, (2) eGFR < 25 L/min/1.73 m2, (3) internet access
through a computer or tablet, and (4) English language fluency. We recruited participants
through both nationwide social media outreach and local efforts (Figure 1. Aim 3). The national
outreach involved email blasts and postings on Facebook and Twitter in collaboration with the
National Kidney Foundation and American Association of Kidney Patients. We received a high
volume of responses, primarily through emails and telephone messages. We tracked only those
who could be recontacted by telephone and self-identified as CKD, HD, or PD patients and who
met all eligibility criteria. Clinic staff reviewed patient visit schedules to identify potential
45
participants meeting clinical criteria. Social workers on the study team approached these
patients at the renal clinic for interest in participation. We obtained informed consent either
verbally before the start of telephone interviews or in person. Participants received a $25 gift
card upon completion or attempted completion of study questionnaires. Local institutional
review boards (Ethical and Independent Review Services E&I #13016, Henry Ford Health
Systems IRB #8144, University of Michigan IRBMED HUM00073058) approved all study
procedures. We considered enrolled participants who did not complete the study as lost to
follow-up after 5 unsuccessful attempts to contact them by phone or email. One month prior to
data collection completion, we attempted to contact every patient who had consented but had
not completed the study.
Statistical analysis
We tested for differences between the intervention and control arms using pretest intervention
arm responses and control arm responses. We statistically tested differences in demographic
composition regarding age, race, sex, education, ethnicity, and numeracy based on t tests,
Pearson’s chi-square tests, and Fisher’s exact tests. We compared outcomes between the
pretest and posttest within the intervention arm using paired t tests, Wilcoxon signed rank
tests, and tests for marginal homogeneity. We compared the intervention posttest with the
control arm using unpaired t tests, Wilcoxon rank sum tests, and Pearson’s chi-square tests.
We also assessed whether the effects of the decision aid differed across subgroups
regarding self-efficacy, decisional conflict, preparation for decision making, and knowledge of
dialysis options. Thus, we tested whether differences between intervention pretest and
posttest responses and differences between intervention posttest and control arms differed
across age, sex, education level, or race groups. We used generalized estimating equation
logistic or linear regression models for these tests by including an interaction term between
subgroups and different arms in models.81 Models accounted for the correlations within
subjects when comparing pretest and posttest intervention arm responses using an
exchangeable correlation structure and sandwich-type estimator for standard errors.
46
Results
Study sample
Figure 1. Aim 3 summarized the participant flow. In Michigan, we could not reach all screened
patients at the renal clinics; some were ineligible for participation as determined by clinic staff.
Several eligible patients could not be contacted either in person or over the phone for consent.
Among those who were available and approached, reasons for ineligibility included prior
experience of dialysis or patients having started dialysis by the time they were approached for
consent. A large number of the patients did not have internet connectivity or access to a
computer. Of those patients who declined to participate because they were not interested or
were not comfortable providing consent (131), approximately 24% of these patients self-
described level of computer-literacy (23) or English-fluency (8) as not sufficient for study
requirements. Other patients were unable to participate because their eyesight was too poor
for the study tasks.
We received informed consent from 234 participants. Some consented participants (96)
across both control and intervention arms did not start the study, and 78 were not reachable by
phone or email (Figure 1. Aim 3). A total of 140 participants logged into the site and started the
study. Demographic information was self-reported and collected from participants in the
control and pretest questionnaires for the 2 arms, respectively (Table 1. Aim 3). Seven
participants in the intervention arm started the study and completed the pretest but did not go
on to finish the posttest. The remaining 133 participants started and completed the study. Fifty
of the 63 intervention arm participants (79.3%) completed the pretests and posttests within 1
week, with 60% having completed both tests on the same day. Only 5 participants needed more
than 1 month to complete both tests.
47
Table 1. Aim 3. Questionnaire Design, Distribution of Sections in Control and Intervention Arms Sections Control Intervention
Pretest Posttest
Treatment preference
Preference for shared decision making73
Decisional conflict74
Decisional self-efficacy75
Knowledge76
Literacy77
Numeracy78,79
Demographics
Preparation for decision making80
Relevance, usability, and satisfaction
Open-ended feedback on decision aid
Patient characteristics
Patient characteristics in the control and intervention arms had similar demographic
composition regarding age, race, sex, education, ethnicity, and numeracy (Table 2. Aim 3).
Patients were mostly white, and almost all had graduated high school and considered English as
their native language. The Subjective Numeracy Scale is a self-report measure of perceived
ability to perform various mathematical tasks.78,79,82,83 Both arms were similar in terms of
overall subjective numeracy as well as ability and preference subscales.
Efficacy of the decision aid
Reduction in uncertainty
In the control arm and treatment arm, both before and after using the decision aid, patients
reported what type of dialysis they might do when starting treatment. Both the control and
pretest results suggest that both arms had similar baseline uncertainty on treatment choice:
40% and 47%, respectively. Those in the treatment arm reported a significant decrease to 16%
in uncertainty on choice of dialysis type after using the decision aid (Table 3. Aim 3).
48
Table 2. Aim 3. Participant Characteristics, by Control and Intervention Arms
Patient Characteristics Control Intervention P Value
Number of patients 70 70
Age (years), mean (std) 59 (14) 59 (15) 0.9065
Race
0.8366
White 79% 74%
Black 14% 17%
Other 7% 9%
Male 50% 43% 0.3968
Hispanic or Latino/Latina 3% 3% 1.0000
High school graduated 94% 99% 1.0000
English native language 96% 91% 0.4932
Ability to understand
Reading materialsa 2.94 (1.25) 3.67 (1.45) 0.3099
SNSb 3.83 (1.11) 3.92 (0.99) 0.7579
SNS abilityc 3.88 (1.18) 3.92 (1.10) 0.9761
SNS preferenced 3.74 (1.26) 3.93 (1.08) 0.4837
a Mean score (std) of answer choices from all of the time (0) through none of the time (4); higher is better. b Mean score for answers not at all good (1) through extremely good (6) of 3 questions: How good are you at working with fractions? How good are you at figuring out how much a shirt will cost if it is 25% off? How often do you find numerical information to be useful? c Mean score for answers not at all good (1) through extremely good (6) of 2 questions: How good are you at working with fractions? How good are you at figuring out how much a shirt will cost if it is 25% off? d Mean score for answers not at all good (1) through extremely good (6) of 1 question: How often do you find numerical information to be useful? SNS = Subjective Numeracy Scale.
49
Table 3. Aim 3. Outcome Measures for Decision Aid Efficacy
Outcome Measures
Control
Intervention Control Versus Pretest
Pretest Versus
Posttest
Control Versus
Posttest Pretest Posttest N 70 70 63
% (N) or Mean (SD) P value
Which dialysis type do you think you might choose?
0.8203 < .0001 0.0083
Hemodialysis 22.9 (16) 22.9 (16) 42.9 (27)
Peritoneal dialysis 31.4 (22) 25.7 (18) 36.5 (23)
Not sure 40.0 (28) 47.1 (33) 15.9 (10)
Other 5.7 (4) 4.3 (3) 4.8 (3)
Decisional conflict score (higher = more conflict)
42.5 (17.1)
44.3 (16.0)
29.1 (13.7) 0.5149 < .0001 <.0001
Decisional self-efficacy score (higher = more confident)
79.9 (17.6)
82.2 (18.6)
82.0 (18.4) 0.3642 0.9911 0.3621
Knowledge (higher = more correct answers chosen)
76.5 (15.3) 90.3
(11.9) < .0001
Reduction in decisional conflict
We measured decisional conflict scores using the validated Decisional Conflict Scale69 before
and after using the decision aid. The decision aid was effective in decreasing the average
decisional conflict score by 15 points, from 44 to 29 (Table 3. Aim 3). The average decisional
conflict score between the control and pretest responders was not significantly different, with
43 and 44, respectively. We did not observe differences by age, sex, or educational level on
decisional conflict scores.
No change in decisional self-efficacy
The baseline decisional self-efficacy scores (pretest and controls) were in the higher side of the
0-to-100 scale (approximately 80). There was no discernable change in this score in the
posttest.
50
Improving knowledge
The control group, on average, answered 77% of the knowledge questions accurately. After
going through the decision aid, the intervention group got 90% of the knowledge questions
right. Black patients in the control arm had significantly lower baseline knowledge scores
compared with nonblack participants (62.2 versus 78.9, respectively; p = 0.022). However, black
patients also showed a greater difference in knowledge scores between control and
intervention arms (26 points higher in the intervention arm) compared with nonblack
participants (12 points). Our study design was not powered for comparing other minority
groups. We did not observe differences by age, sex, or educational level on scores.
Feedback on the relevance, usability and satisfaction with the decision aid
Greater than 90% of participants in the intervention arm felt that the decision aid helped
somewhat to a great deal, both for preparing for dialysis and for follow-up with care providers,
with approximately 80% responding “quite a bit” and “a great deal” (Figures 2 and 3. Aim 3).
Only 1 person did not like the website, and 2 people said they would not recommend the
decision aid to others. Most participants (92%) felt the decision aid was balanced and not
slanted toward HD or PD, 88% trusted the website content, and 89% agreed/strongly agreed
the content was relevant to them, with 49% agreeing the decision aid was extremely helpful in
understanding dialysis options.
Participants provided open-ended feedback on what they liked about the decision aid
and how it might be improved. Overall, participants most frequently cited that the decision aid
was informative (65%) and helpful (40%), with 22% providing critical comments and 3% unsure
about what they thought of the decision aid. One participant said, “There was a lot of very good
information to assist me to make a very serious decision when and if the time comes. I hope I
won’t need to make the choice, but if necessary, I can make a knowledge-based decision that is
best for me. I do appreciate the unbiased information. Thank you!” Another wrote, “I was
knowledgeable already on 80% of the information, but it was helpful. Since I am hopefully still
years away from needing dialysis, reviewing this info was a little depressing. I hope all
treatments improve.”
51
Figure 2. Aim 3. Summary of Responses Related to the Helpfulness of the Decision Aid
52
Figure 3. Aim 3. Opinions on the Decision Aid Website
When asked what they liked about the decision aid, participants often expressed that they
found the website easy to navigate and well organized, and they liked the value clarification
exercise and the testimonials from patients. One participant said, “I like the ‘feel’
perspective . . . the facts of each treatment can be found everywhere, but not often do you see
the feelings of the patient put in consideration. I had mixed feelings about which way to go, but
this site helped a great deal.”
A few participants (10%) had suggestions for improvements in usability, such as, “Make
this available to patients that do not have a computer” and “Maybe add video clips during the
decision aid to make it more interesting and captivating. People typically like to view videos on
53
their computers.” Another suggested, “Speak more about the positives in making this decision.
Include more testimonials on improving quality of life.”
We received considerable positive feedback regarding ease of readability and
comprehensiveness of content, especially the juxtaposition of PD and HD. The most critical
feedback was concerns about missing information on dietary restrictions (29%); how patients
deal with side effects; RRT options other than PD, HD, and the slow overnight in-center HD
option; effects of PD on family members; complications from treatment; and data on
demographics and life expectancy. For example, 1 participant asked, “What about home hemo?
And what about info about having to change dialysis types if, for instance, your abdominal wall
becomes tough and can no longer filter?” Of respondents, 41% didn’t have any suggestions for
improvement.
Discussion
Decision aids have demonstrated improved communication between patients and their doctors.
A comprehensive review of decision aids suggests that more detailed decision aids are better
than simple decision aids in improving knowledge and lowering decisional conflict scores,
factors that are related to feeling uninformed and unclear about one’s personal values.33
Decision aids have proved to improve knowledge, increase risk perception, decrease decisional
conflict, and enhance participation in shared decision making among the elderly.84 However,
few decision aids have been developed specifically for people aged > 65 years to characterize
important components for this demographic.84 We are aware of a small number of decision aids
related to dialysis treatment modality choice and that incorporate value clarification tools: 3 in
the United States and some developed outside the United States in other health care
contexts.68,69,85-86 The main difference between our choosingdialysis.org decision aid and the
others developed in the United States are the use of qualitative interviews and patient-reported
data to identify factors important to patients; more detailed information on the 2 main dialysis
treatment options; involvement of the advisory panel throughout the study, including the
development of the decision aid; the use of quotes and tips from health care professionals
reflecting stakeholder perspectives throughout the decision aid; and testing the decision aid
54
with the end-users described in this paper to evaluate the effect of the decision aid on decision-
making outcomes.
We developed the content and format of the EPOCH-RRT decision aid for patients
deciding on dialysis treatment options in collaboration with an expert advisory panel, and we
were guided by decision aid development experts. The advisory panel included patients who
had faced this decision and social workers supporting CKD patients in their transition to dialysis.
Nephrologists and clinical researchers also reviewed content. Additionally, the EPOCH-RRT
decision aid content complements clinical information with the experiences of individuals
undergoing dialysis in the form of quotes to share experiences, quotes from their families, and
tips from health care professionals to address practical issues. Also included is a value
clarification exercise that assists in identifying factors that matter most to the reader or user
and how these factors influence which option may best suit him or her. Some participants in
our study provided feedback that they found this interactive value clarification tool helpful, but
the decision aid literature is uncertain of the benefits of the value clarification exercise to
decision-making outcomes.87,88 Users, patients, and family members are encouraged through
different print options to leverage the information gained through the decision aid as a tool to
inform discussions and increase communication with their health care teams. Involvement of
family members has been suggested as beneficial for patients’ health outcomes.89
Similar to other decision aids,33 this dialysis treatment choice decision aid improved
knowledge and reduced decisional conflict but did not significantly improve decisional self-
efficacy. We carried out subgroup analyses for these outcomes between intervention pretest
and posttest responses and differences between intervention posttest and control arms to test
for differences across age, sex, education level, or race groups. We observed no differences for
any outcomes other than the knowledge test, for which black participants had lower scores
before accessing the decision aid but showed greater improvement in knowledge upon
accessing the choosingdialysis.org decision aid than did nonblack participants. Racial disparities
in choices for RRT are well documented,90-92 and improving knowledge through CKD education
has been proposed as 1 solution to overcoming identified barriers, such as patients’ awareness
55
of choices and disparities in shared decision making and improved patient-centered care.89,90,93-
95
A recently published randomized controlled study of another web-based decision aid
about depression treatment options also showed improvement only in knowledge and
decisional conflict outcomes.96 It is possible that multiple factors contribute to decisional self-
efficacy, which would require a holistic socioecological approach to move the needle on this
indicator.
Our work suggests that this decision aid—a new and effective tool developed through a
stakeholder-engaged process—informs and supports CKD patients in making the difficult choice
of dialysis modality. The broader implementation of this decision aid would complement
current CKD education in clinical practice and could support both care providers and patients in
shared decision making, by facilitating communication about treatment options.
A limitation of this study is that self-selected participants were, on average, healthier,
more educated, and younger than the US CKD population.97 Patients with stage IV kidney
disease (eGFR < 25 mL/min/1.73 m2), the target population for this study, are often dealing
with a heavy medication burden and a multitude of physical and mental symptoms related to
kidney failure prior to the start of RRT.98,99 These factors could have negatively contributed to
willingness to participate in a research study and are reflected in the low consent rate, resulting
in a less generalizable participant cohort. We envisioned a web-based format as the ideal way
to quickly disseminate the decision aid to the broadest possible audience; however, lack of
internet access and computer literacy limitations challenged recruitment efforts, which also
contributed to differences in the composition of participants and the broader CKD population.
Further studies are needed to address the multiple social and demographic disadvantages that
may impact participation in shared decision making for those facing the dialysis decision.
Seven participants in the intervention arm did not complete the study. Sensitivity
analysis to compare the control and intervention groups, with and without the 7 participants in
the intervention arm who did not complete the study, suggests that these departures did not
affect our study results. Based on the study design, the time between pretest and posttest
questionnaire responses might have resulted in drift in the responses in the intervention arm
56
that would affect results, independent of the decision aid. Sensitivity analysis with and without
the 13 participants in the intervention arm who had a gap of more than 7 days between
completions of the 2 questionnaires did not change any of the measured outcomes nor the
reported statistical differences.
Most participants found the decision aid helpful and would recommend it to others. We
incorporated specific feedback from study participants and patient advocacy organizations to
further modify the layout and readability of the decision aid. We improved the decision aid
accessibility by modifying the language to a grade 10 Flesch-Kincaid readability level using the
readability statistics package embedded in Microsoft Word. As the content of the website was
finalized, we improved the navigation and architecture to ensure that information would be
easily discerned. We improved graphics and layout based on feedback from target users. The
advisory panel reviewed and approved the final content and design of the decision aid; it was
released to the public at http://choosingdialysis.org/.
CONCLUSIONS
The Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute–funded Empowering Patients on Choices
for Renal Replacement Therapy (EPOCH-RRT) study comprised 3 specific aims to result in a
public website designed to support patients and family members in making an informed
decision between the 2 most common dialysis treatment modalities (clinicaltrials.gov,
Identifier: NCT02488317, Appendix 12).
In the first aim, the advisory panel—comprising 9 patients and family members as well
as clinicians (nephrologists and social workers)—was involved in study protocol development,
prioritization of analyses, and interpretation of findings. Through qualitative interviews we
found that a third of patients on dialysis felt that the type of dialysis modality had largely not
been their choice. Those who were involved in decision making qualitatively emphasized
varying benefits and risk tradeoffs as contributing to choice of dialysis modality. These initial
findings were the foundation for other study aims and the development of the decision aid
tool.
57
In the second aim, the advisory panel was involved in reviewing and pretesting the survey and
discussing the findings. To assess how each treatment modality affected factors identified in
Aim 1, we collected patient-reported survey data from patients enrolled in the Dialysis
Outcomes and Practice Patterns Study (DOPPS) program studies. The results of this survey
highlighted opportunities to improve CKD education to increase understanding of dialysis
modalities and satisfaction with treatment, especially among HD patients.
In Aim 3, we used data collected in the first 2 aims to guide content development for the
choosingdialysis.org decision aid, in collaboration with the advisory panel. Some members
helped with recruitment for the study. When tested among predialysis CKD patients, the
decision aid was well received and showed improvements in knowledge and decrease in
decisional conflict, but it did not affect decision self-efficacy. Based on the findings, the advisory
panel was involved in finalizing the design and content of the decision aid, before making it
available to the public, and was engaged in supporting its dissemination.
By identifying factors important to patients and incorporating them into the decision aid
and providing printout options to enable better communication of patient preferences to their
health care providers, care teams will be more aware of patients’ conditions, values, and
preferences. This could result in better self-management, thereby potentially improving patient
health and quality-of-life outcomes.
58
References 1. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). Prevalence of chronic kidney disease and associated risk factors—United States 1999-2004. MMWR Weekly. March 2, 2007. http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm5608a2.htm. 2. National Institutes of Health, National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases. United States Renal Data System (USRDS) annual data report: atlas of chronic kidney disease and end-stage renal disease in the United States. Available at: http://www.usrds.org/adr.aspx. Published 2011. 3. Mapes DL, Lopes AA, Satayathum S, et al. Health-related quality of life as a predictor of mortality and hospitalization: the Dialysis Outcomes and Practice Patterns Study (DOPPS). Kidney Int. 2003;64(1):339-349. 4. Lopes AA, Elder SJ, Ginsberg N, et al. Lack of appetite in haemodialysis patients—associations with patient characteristics, indicators of nutritional status and outcomes in the international DOPPS. Nephrol Dial Transplant. 2007;22(12):3538-3546. 5. Turkmen K, Yazici R, Solak Y, et al. Health-related quality of life, sleep quality, and depression in peritoneal dialysis and hemodialysis patients. Hemodial Int. 2012;16(2):198-206. 6. Miskulin DC, Meyer KB, Athienites NV, et al. Comorbidity and other factors associated with modality selection in incident dialysis patients: the CHOICE Study. Choices for Healthy Outcomes in Caring for End-Stage Renal Disease. Am J Kidney Dis. 2002;39(2):324-336. 7. Swartz R, Perry E, Daley J. The frequency of withdrawal from acute care is impacted by severe acute renal failure. J Palliat Med. 2004;7(5):676-682. 8. Satayathum S, Pisoni RL, McCullough KP, et al. Kidney transplantation and wait-listing rates from the international Dialysis Outcomes and Practice Patterns Study (DOPPS). Kidney Int. 2005;68(1):330-337. 9. Wolfe RA, Ashby VB, Milford EL, et al. Comparison of mortality in all patients on dialysis, patients on dialysis awaiting transplantation, and recipients of a first cadaveric transplant. N Engl J Med. 1999;341(23):1725-1730. 10. Organ Procurement and Transplantation Network (OPTN) and Scientific Registry of Transplant Recipients (SRTR). OPTN/SRTR 2010 Annual Data Report. Rockville, MD: Department of Health and Human Services, Health Resources and Services Administration, Healthcare Systems Bureau, Division of Transplantation; 2011.
59
11. Weinhandl ED, Foley RN, Gilbertson DT, Arneson TJ, Snyder JJ, Collins AJ. Propensity-matched mortality comparison of incident hemodialysis and peritoneal dialysis patients. J Am Soc Nephrol. 2010;21(3):499-506. 12. Quinn RR, Hux JE, Oliver MJ, Austin PC, Tonelli M, Laupacis A. Selection bias explains apparent differential mortality between dialysis modalities. J Am Soc Nephrol. 2011;22(8):1534-1542. 13. Lee A, Gudex C, Povlsen JV, Bonnevie B, Nielsen CP. Patients’ views regarding choice of dialysis modality. Nephrol Dial Transplant. 2008;23(12):3953-3959. 14. Segall L, Nistor I, Van Biesen W, et al. Dialysis modality choice in elderly patients with end-stage renal disease: a narrative review of the available evidence. Nephrol Dial Transplant. 2017;32(1):41-49. 15. O’Hare AM, Armistead N, Funk Schrag WL, Diamond L, Moss AH. Patient-centered care: an opportunity to accomplish the “three aims” of the National Quality Strategy in the Medicare ESRD Program. Clin J Am Soc Nephrol. 2014;9(12):2189-2194. 16. Kimmel PL, Peterson RA. Depression in end-stage renal disease patients treated with hemodialysis: tools, correlates, outcomes, and needs. Semin Dial. 2005;18(2):91-97. 17. Lopes AA, Bragg J, Young E, et al; for the Dialysis Outcomes and Practice Patterns Study (DOPPS). Depression as a predictor of mortality and hospitalization among hemodialysis patients in the United States and Europe. Kidney Int. 2002;62(1):199-207. 18. National Kidney Foundation. K-DOQI clinical practice guidelines for hemodialysis adequacy: guideline 1; initiation of dialysis. 1.1 preparation for kidney failure. Available at: https://www.kidney.org/sites/default/files/docs/12-50-0210_jag_dcp_guidelines-hd_oct06_sectiona_ofc.pdf. Published 2006. 19. Renal Physicians Association. Shared Decision Making in the Appropriate Initiation of and Withdrawal From Dialysis. Clinical Practice Guideline. 2nd ed. Rockville, MD: Renal Physicians Association; 2010. 20. Williams AW, Dwyer AC, Eddy AA, et al. Critical and honest conversations: the evidence behind the “Choosing Wisely” campaign recommendations by the American Society of Nephrology. Clin J Am Soc Nephrol. 2012;7(10):1664-1672. 21. Winterbottom A, Bekker HL, Conner M, Mooney A. Choosing dialysis modality: decision making in a chronic illness context. Health Expect. 2012;17(5):710-723.
60
22. Song M, Lin F, Gilet CA, Arnold RM, Bridgman JC, Ward SE. Patient perspectives on informed decision-making surrounding dialysis initiation. Nephrol Dial Transplant. 2013;28(11):2815-2823. 23. Deber RB, Kraetschmer N, Irvine J. What role do patients wish to play in treatment decision making? Arch Intern Med. 1996;156(13):1414-1420. 24. Covic A, Bammens B, Lobbedez T, et al. Educating end-stage renal disease patients on dialysis modality selection: clinical advice from the European Renal Best Practice (ERBP) advisory board. Nephrol Dial Transplant. 2010;25(6):1757-1759. 25. Robinski M, Mau W, Wienke A, Girndt M. Shared decision-making in chronic kidney disease: a retrospection of recently initiated dialysis patients in Germany. Patient Educ Couns. 2016;99(4):562-570. 26. Whittaker AA, Albee BJ. Factors influencing patient selection of dialysis treatment modality. ANNA J. 1996;23(4):369-75, discussion 376-377. 27. Klang B, Björvell H, Clyne N. Predialysis education helps patients choose dialysis modality and increases disease-specific knowledge. J Adv Nurs. 1999;29(4):869-876. 28. King K. Patients’ perspective of factors affecting modality selection: a National Kidney Foundation patient survey. Adv Ren Replace Ther. 2000;7(3):261-268. 29. Mehrotra R, Marsh D, Vonesh E, Peters V, Nissenson A. Patient education and access of ESRD patients to renal replacement therapies beyond in-center hemodialysis. Kidney Int. 2005;68(1):378-390. 30. Golper T. Patient education: can it maximize the success of therapy? Nephrol Dial Transplant. 2001;16(suppl 7):20-24. 31. Barry MJ, Edgman-Levitan S. Shared decision making—the pinnacle of patient-centered care. N Engl J Med. 2012;366(9):780-781. 32. Joseph-Williams N, Newcombe R, Politi M, et al. Toward minimum standards for certifying patient decision aids: a modified delphi consensus process. Med Decis Making. 2014;34(6):699-710. 33. Stacey D, Légaré F, Col NF, et al. Decision aids for people facing health treatment or screening decisions (review). Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2014;(1):CD001431. DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD001431.pub5
61
34. O’Connor AM, Tugwell P, Wells GA, et al. A decision aid for women considering hormone therapy after menopause: decision support framework and evaluation. Patient Educ Couns. 1998;(33):267-279. 35. Rothert ML, Talarczyk GJ. Patient compliance and the decision-making process of clinicians and patients. J Compliance Health Care. 1987;2(1):55-71. 36. Department of Health and Human Services. Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services. The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Programs. Conditions for coverage for end-stage renal disease facilities; final rule. 42 CFR Parts 405, 410, 413, et al. April 15, 2008. Fed Regist. 2008;73(73). https://www.cms.gov/Regulations-and-Guidance/Legislation/CFCsAndCoPs/downloads/esrdfinalrule0415.pdf. Accessed May 2014. 37. Keeney S, McKenna H. An exploration of the choices of patients with chronic kidney disease. Patient Prefer Adherence. 2014;(8):1465-1474. 38. Johansson L. Shared decision making and patient involvement in choosing home therapies. J Ren Care. 2013;39(1)(suppl):9-15. 39. Morton RL, Devitt J, Howard K, Anderson K, Snelling P, Cass A. Patient views about treatment of stage 5 CKD: a qualitative analysis of semistructured interviews. Am J Kidney Dis. 2008;(55):431-440. 41. United States Renal Data System (USRDS) Annual Data Report: Atlas of Chronic Kidney Disease and End-stage Renal Disease in the United States. Bethesda, MD: National Institutes of Health, National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases; 2014. 42. Winterbottom AE, Bekker HL, Conner M, Mooney AF. Patient stories about their dialysis experience biases others’ choices regardless of doctor’s advice: an experimental study. Nephrol Dial Transplant. 2012;27(1):325-331. 43. Bass EB, Jenckes MW, Fink NE, et al. Use of focus groups to identify concerns about dialysis: Choice study. Med Decis Making. 1999;19(3):287-295. 44. Morton RL, Tong A, Webster AC, Snelling P, Howard K. Characteristics of dialysis important to patients and family caregivers: a mixed methods approach. Nephrol Dial Transplant. 2011;26(12):4038-4046. 45. Morton RL, Snelling P, Webster AC, et al. Dialysis modality preference of patients with CKD and family caregivers: a discrete-choice study. Am J Kidney Dis. 2012;60(1):102-111. 46. Tweed AE, Ceaser K. Renal replacement therapy choices for pre-dialysis renal patients. Br J Nurs. 2005;14(12):659-664.
62
47. Chanouzas D, Ng KP, Fallouh B, Baharani J. What influences patient choice of treatment modality at the pre-dialysis stage? Nephrol Dial Transplant. 2012;27(4):1542-1547. 48. Mooney A. Decision making around dialysis options. Contrib Nephrol. 2009;(163):257-260. 49. Breckenridge DM. Patient’s perceptions of why, how, and by whom dialysis treatment modality was chosen. ANNA J. 1997;24(3):313-319. 50. Van Biesen W, van der Veer SN, Murphey M, Loblova O, Davies S. Patients’ perceptions of information and education for renal replacement therapy: an independent survey by the European Kidney Patients’ Federation on information and support on renal replacement therapy. PLoS One. 2014;9(7):e103914. DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0103914 51. Harwood L, Wilson B, Sontrop J, Clark AM. Chronic kidney disease stressors influence choice of dialysis modality. J Adv Nurs. 2012;68(11):2454-2465. 52. Wuerth D, Finkelstein S, Schwetz O, Carey H, Kliger A, Finkelstein F. Patients’ descriptions of specific factors leading to modality selection of chronic peritoneal dialysis or hemodialysis. Perit Dial Int. 2002;22(2):184-190. 53. Harwood L, Clark AM. Understanding pre-dialysis modality decision-making: a meta-synthesis of qualitative studies. Int J Nurs Stud. 2013;50(1):109-120. 54. Murray MA, Brunier G, Chung JO, et al. A systematic review of factors influencing decision-making in adults living with chronic kidney disease. Patient Educ Couns. 2009;76(2):149-158. 55. Dahlerus C, Quinn M, Messersmith E, et al. Patient perspectives on the choice of dialysis modality: results from the Empowering Patients on Choices for Renal Replacement Therapy (EPOCH-RRT) study. Am J Kidney Dis. 2016;68(6):901-910. 56. Young EW, Goodkin DA, Mapes DL, et al. The Dialysis Outcomes and Practice Patterns Study: an international hemodialysis study. Kidney Int. 2000;(57):S74-S81. 57. Pisoni RL, Gillespie BW, Dickinson DM, Chen K, Kutner MH, Wolfe RA. The Dialysis Outcomes and Practice Patterns Study (DOPPS): design, data elements, and methodology. Am J Kidney Dis. 2004;44(suppl 2):7-15. 58. Perl J, Davies SJ, Lambie M, et al. The Peritoneal Dialysis Outcomes and Practice Patterns Study (PDOPPS): unifying efforts to inform practice and improve global outcomes in peritoneal dialysis. Perit Dial Int. 2016;36(3):297-307.
63
59. Giese-Davis J, Bliss-Isberg C, Carson K, et al. The effect of peer counseling on quality of life following diagnosis of breast cancer: an observational study. Psychooncology. 2006;15(11):1014-1022. 60. Latimer-Cheung AE, Arbour-Nicitopoulos KP, Brawley LR, et al. Developing physical activity interventions for adults with spinal cord injury. Part 2: motivational counseling and peer-mediated interventions for people intending to be active. Rehabil Psychol. 2013;58(3):307-315. 61. Ti L, Hayashi K, Kaplan K, et al. Willingness to access peer-delivered HIV testing and counseling among people who inject drugs in Bangkok, Thailand. J Community Health. 2013;38(3):427-433. 62. Hanks RA, Rapport LJ, Wertheimer J, Koviak C. Randomized controlled trial of peer mentoring for individuals with traumatic brain injury and their significant others. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2012;93(8):1297-1304. 63. Perry E, Swartz J, Brown S, Smith D, Kelly G, Swartz R. Peer mentoring: a culturally sensitive approach to end-of-life planning for long-term dialysis patients. Am J Kidney Dis. 2005;46(1):111-119. 64. Hughes J, Wood E, Smith G. Exploring kidney patients’ experiences of receiving individual peer support. Health Expect. 2009;12(4):396-406. 65. Manns BJ, Taub K, Vanderstraeten C, et al. The impact of education on chronic kidney disease patients’ plans to initiate dialysis with self-care dialysis: a randomized trial. Kidney Int. 2005;68(4):1777-1783. 66. McLaughlin K, Manns B, Mortis G, Hons R, Taub K. Why patients with ESRD do not select self-care dialysis as a treatment option. Am J Kidney Dis. 2003;41(2):380-385. 67. Devoe DJ, Wong B, James MT, et al. Patient education and peritoneal dialysis modality selection: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Am J Kidney Dis. 2016;68(3):422-433. 68. A to Z inventory of decision aids. The Ottawa Hospital Research Institute website. https://decisionaid.ohri.ca/AZsearch.php?criteria=dialysis. Accessed September 3, 2017. 69. Cochrane patient decision aid. Healthwise website. http://www.healthwise.net/cochranedecisionaid/Content/StdDocument.aspx?DOCHWID=tb1248. Accessed August 20, 2017. 70. Winterbottom A, Bekker H, Gavaruzi T, Mooney A, Wilkie M. Patient and staff views about the Yorkshire Dialysis Decision Aid (YoDDA): an interview study [abstract]. Renal Association; 2012.
64
71. United States Renal Data System. 2013 United States Renal Data System (USRDS) Annual Data Report: Atlas of Chronic Kidney Disease and End-stage Renal Disease in the United States. Bethesda, MD: National Institutes of Health, National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases; 2013. 72. Lewis KB, Wood B, Sepucha KR, Thomson RG, Stacey D. Quality of reporting of patient decision aids in recent randomized controlled trials: a descriptive synthesis and comparative analysis. Patient Educ Couns. 2017;100(7):1387-1393. 73. Degner LF, Sloan JA, Venkatesh P. The control preferences scale. Can J Nurs Res. 1997;29(3):21-43. 74. O’Connor AM. Validation of a decisional conflict scale. Med Decis Making. 1995;15(1):25-30. 75. O’Connor AM. User Manual—Decision Self-efficacy scale. Ottawa: Ottawa Hospital Research Institute; 1995 [modified 2002]. Available at: http://decisionaid.ohri.ca/docs/develop/User_Manuals/UM_Decision_SelfEfficacy.pdf. 76. Cavanaugh KL, Wingard RL, Hakim RM, Elasy TA, Ikizler TA. Patient dialysis knowledge is associated with permanent arteriovenous access use in chronic hemodialysis. Clin J Am Soc Nephrol. 2009;4(5):950-956. 77. Chew LD, Griffin JM, Partin MR, et al. Validation of screening questions for limited health literacy in a large VA outpatient population. J Gen Intern Med. 2008;23(5):561-566. 78. Fagerlin A, Zikmund-Fisher BJ, Ubel PA, Jankovic A, Derry HA, Smith DM. Measuring numeracy without a math test: development of the Subjective Numeracy Scale. Med Decis Making. 2007;27(5):672-680. 79. Zikmund-Fisher BJ, Smith DM, Ubel PA, Fagerlin A. Validation of the subjective numeracy scale: effects of low numeracy on comprehension of risk communications and utility elicitations. Med Decis Making. 2007;27(5):663-671. 80. Bennett C, Graham ID, Kristjansson E, Kearing SA, Clay KF, O’Connor AM. Validation of a preparation for decision making scale. Patient Educ Couns. 2010;78(1):130-133. 81. Liang KY, Zeger SL. Longitudinal data analysis using generalized linear models. Biometrika. 1986;(73):13-22. 82. Lipkus IM, Samsa G, Rimer BK. General performance on a numeracy scale among highly educated samples. Med Decis Making. 2001;21(1):37-44.
65
83. Zikmund-Fisher BJ, Smith DM, Ubel PA, Fagerlin A. Validation of the subjective numeracy scale: effects of low numeracy on comprehension of risk communications and utility elicitations. Med Decis Making. 2007;27(5):663-671. 84. van Weert JC, van Munster BC, Sanders R, Spijker R, Hooft L, Jansen J. Decision aids to help older people make health decisions: a systematic review and meta-analysis. BMC Med Inform Decis Mak. 2016;21(16):45. 85. Winterbottom AE, Gavaruzzi T, Mooney A, et al. Patient Acceptability of the Yorkshire Dialysis Decision Aid (YoDDA) Booklet: a prospective non-randomized comparison study across 6 predialysis services. Perit Dial Int. 2016;36(4):374-381. 86. Schatell D, Agar J, Witten B, Bauer M, Klicko K; Medical Education Institute, Inc. (MEI). My life, my dialysis choice. https://mydialysischoice.org/. Accessed September 1, 2017. 87. Nelson WL, Han PK, Fagerlin A, Stefanek M, Ubel PA. Rethinking the objectives of decision aids: a call for conceptual clarity. Med Decis Making. 2007;27(5):609-618. 88. Feldman-Stewart D, Tong C, Siemens R, et al. The impact of explicit values clarification exercises in a patient decision aid emerges after the decision is actually made: evidence from a randomized controlled trial. Med Decis Making. 2012;32(4):616-626. 89. Sheu J, Ephraim PL, Powe NR, et al. African American and non-African American patients’ and families’ decision making about renal replacement therapies. Qual Health Res. 2012;22(7):997-1006. 90. Norris KC, Agodoa LY. Unraveling the racial disparities associated with kidney disease. Kidney Int. 2005;68(3):914-924. 91. Ayanian JZ, Cleary PD, Weissman JS, Epstein AM. The effect of patients’ preferences on racial differences in access to renal transplantation. N Engl J Med. 1999;341(22):1661-1669. 92. United States Renal Data System. 2016 USRDS Annual Data Report: Epidemiology of Kidney Disease in the United States. Bethesda, MD: National Institutes of Health, National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases; 2016. 93. Narva AS, Norton JM, Boulware LE. Educating patients about CKD: the path to self-management and patient-centered care. Clin J Am Soc Nephrol. 2016;11(4):694-703. 94. Kazley AS, Johnson EE, Simpson KN, Chavin KD, Baliga P. Health care provider perception of chronic kidney disease: knowledge and behavior among African American patients. BMC Nephrol. 2014;(15):112.
66
95. Binik YM, Devins GM, Barre PE, et al. Live and learn: patient education delays the need to initiate renal replacement therapy in end-stage renal disease. J Nerv Ment Dis. 1993;181(6):371-376. 96. Perestelo-Perez L, Rivero-Santana A, Sanchez-Afonso JA, et al. Effectiveness of a decision aid for patients with depression: a randomized controlled trial. Health Expect. 2017;20(5):1096-1105. 97. United States Renal Data System. 2015 United States Renal Data System (USRDS) Annual Data Report: Epidemiology of kidney disease in the United States. Bethesda, MD: National Institutes of Health, National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases; 2015. 98. Weisbord SD. Symptoms and their correlates in chronic kidney disease. Adv Chronic Kidney Dis. 2007;14(4):319-327. 99. Clarke AL, Yates T, Smith AC, Chilcot J. Patient’s perceptions of chronic kidney disease and their association with psychosocial and clinical outcomes: a narrative review. Clin Kidney J. 2016;9(3):494-502.
67
Acknowledgments
This work would not have been possible without the contributions of all study participants
involved in all 3 aims. Of particular note are the successful collaboration, the active
engagement, and the participation of the advisory panel with the research team.
Copyright© 2018 Arbor Research Collaborative for Health. All Rights Reserved.
Disclaimer:
The [views, statements, opinions] presented in this report are solely the responsibility of the author(s) and do not necessarily represent the views of the Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute® (PCORI®), its Board of Governors or Methodology Committee.
Acknowledgement:
Research reported in this report was [partially] funded through a Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute® (PCORI®) Award (#1109). Further information available at: https://www.pcori.org/research-results/2012/does-online-decision-aid-help-people-advanced-chronic-kidney-disease-choose
