Show simple item record

Use of a Decision Aid for Patients Considering Peritoneal Dialysis and In-Center Hemodialysis: A Randomized Controlled Trial

dc.contributor.authorSubramanian, Lalita
dc.contributor.authorZhao, Junhui
dc.contributor.authorZee, Jarcy
dc.contributor.authorKnaus, Megan
dc.contributor.authorFagerlin, Angela
dc.contributor.authorPerry, Erica
dc.contributor.authorSwartz, June
dc.contributor.authorMcCall, Margie
dc.contributor.authorBryant, Nicole
dc.contributor.authorTentori, Francesca
dc.date.accessioned2020-08-24T19:34:07Z
dc.date.available2020-08-24T19:34:07Z
dc.date.issued2019-09
dc.identifier.issn0272-6386
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/1803/15562
dc.description.abstractRationale & Objective: Annually, about 100,000 US patients face the difficult choice between the most common dialysis types, in-center hemodialysis and peritoneal dialysis. This study evaluated the value of a new decision aid to assist in the choice of dialysis modality. Study Design: A parallel-group randomized controlled trial to test the efficacy of the decision aid on decision-making outcomes. Setting & Participants: English-speaking US adults with advanced chronic kidney disease and internet access enrolled in 2015. Intervention: Participants randomly assigned to the decision aid intervention received information about chronic kidney disease, peritoneal dialysis, and hemodialysis and a value clarification exercise through the study website using their own electronic devices. Participants in the control arm were only required to complete the control questionnaire. Questionnaire responses were used to assess differences across arms in decision-making outcomes. Outcomes: Treatment preference, decisional conflict, decision self-efficacy, knowledge, and preparation for decision making. Results: Of 234 consented participants, 94 (40.2%) were lost to follow-up before starting the study. Among the 140 (70 in each arm) who started the study, 7 were subsequently lost to follow-up. Decision aid users had lower decisional conflict scores (42.5 vs 29.1; P < 0.001) and higher average knowledge scores (90.3 vs 76.5; P < 0.001). Both arms had high decisional self-efficacy scores independent of decision aid use. Uncertainty about choice of dialysis treatment declined from 46% to 16% after using the decision aid. Almost all (>90%) users of the decision aid reported that it helped in decision making. Limitations: Limited generalizability from the study of self-selected study participants who had to have internet access, speak English, and have computer literacy. High postrandomization loss to follow-up. Evaluation of only short-term outcomes. Conclusions: The decision aid improves decision-making outcomes immediately after use. Implementation of the decision aid in clinical practice may allow further assessment of its effects on patient engagement and empowerment in choosing a dialysis modality.en_US
dc.description.sponsorshipDr Tentori is an employee of DaVita HealthCare Partners, Inc. She was employed by Arbor Research Collaborative for Health, which administers the Dialysis Outcomes and Practice Patterns Study (DOPPS) Program, which is funded by a consortium of private industry, public funders, and professional societies. Principal funders: Amgen, Kyowa Hakko Kirin, and Baxter Healthcare. Additional support for specific DOPPS projects and/or program activities in specific countries provided by: Amgen, Association of German Nephrology Centres (Verband Deutsche Nierenzentren e.V.), AstraZeneca, European Renal Association-European Dialysis and Transplant Association, German Society of Nephrology, Hexal AG, Janssen, Japanese Society for Peritoneal Dialysis, Keryx, Proteon, Relypsa, Roche, Societa Italiana di Nefrologia, Spanish Society of Nephrology, and Vifor Fresenius Medical Care Renal Pharma. Public funding and support is provided for specific DOPPS projects, ancillary studies, or affiliated research projects by: Australia: National Health & Medical Research Council; Canada: Canadian Institutes of Health Research and Ontario Renal Network; France: Agence Nationale de la Recherche; Thailand: Thailand Research Foundation, Chulalongkorn University Matching Fund, King Chulalongkorn Memorial Hospital Matching Fund, and the National Research Council of Thailand; United Kingdom: National Institute for Health Research via the Comprehensive Clinical Research Network; and United States: National Institutes of Health and PCORI. All support is provided without restrictions on publications. The remaining authors declare that they have no relevant financial interests.en_US
dc.language.isoen_USen_US
dc.publisherAmerican Journal of Kidney Diseasesen_US
dc.rights© 2019 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Inc. on behalf of the National Kidney Foundation, Inc. This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license (http:// creativecommons.org/ licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).
dc.source.urihttps://www.ajkd.org/article/S0272-6386(19)30160-X/abstract#articleInformation
dc.titleUse of a Decision Aid for Patients Considering Peritoneal Dialysis and In-Center Hemodialysis: A Randomized Controlled Trialen_US
dc.typeArticleen_US
dc.identifier.doi10.1053/j.ajkd.2019.01.030


Files in this item

Icon

This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show simple item record