Abstract

BackgroundPatients with kidney failure experience a complex decision on dialysis modality performed either at home or in hospital. The options have different levels of impact on their physical and psychological condition and social life. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the implementation of an intervention designed to achieve shared decision-making for dialysis choice. Specific objectives were: 1) to measure decision quality as indicated by patients’ knowledge, readiness and achieved preferences; and 2) to determine if patients experienced shared decision-making.MethodA mixed methods descriptive study was conducted using both questionnaires and semi-structured interviews. Eligible participants were adults with kidney failure considering dialysis modality. The intervention, based on the Three-Talk model, consisted of a patient decision aid and decision coaching meetings provided by trained dialysis coordinators. The intervention was delivered to 349 patients as part of their clinical pathway of care. After the intervention, 148 participants completed the Shared Decision-Making Questionnaire and the Decision Quality Measurement, and 29 participants were interviewed. Concordance between knowledge, decision and preference was calculated to measure decision quality. Interview transcripts were analysed qualitatively.ResultsThe participants obtained a mean score for shared decision-making of 86 out of 100. There was no significant difference between those choosing home- or hospital-based treatment (97 versus 83; p = 0.627). The participants obtained a knowledge score of 82% and a readiness score of 86%. Those choosing home-based treatment had higher knowledge score than those choosing hospital-based treatment (84% versus 75%; p = 0.006) but no significant difference on the readiness score (87% versus 84%; p = 0.908). Considering the chosen option and the knowledge score, 83% of the participants achieved a high-quality decision. No significant difference was found for decision quality between those choosing home- or hospital-based treatment (83% versus 83%; p = 0.935). Interview data informed the interpretation of these results.ConclusionsAlthough there was no control group, over 80% of participants exposed to the intervention and responded to the surveys experienced shared decision-making and reached a high-quality decision. Both participants who chose home- and hospital-based treatment experienced the intervention as shared decision-making and made a high-quality decision. Qualitative findings supported the quantitative results.Trial registrationThe full trial protocol is available at ClinicalTrials. Gov (NCT03868800). The study has been registered retrospectively.

Highlights

  • Patients with kidney failure experience a complex decision on dialysis modality performed either at home or in hospital

  • Conclusions: there was no control group, over 80% of participants exposed to the intervention and responded to the surveys experienced shared decision-making and reached a high-quality decision

  • In 2018, nine studies evaluating interventions based on shared decision-making (SDM) in dialysis choice were identified [7], but few had been rigorously evaluated in clinical practice

Read more

Summary

Introduction

Patients with kidney failure experience a complex decision on dialysis modality performed either at home or in hospital. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the implementation of an intervention designed to achieve shared decision-making for dialysis choice. Involving the patient in making the decision on dialysis choice has been recommended internationally for a decade [1] but is difficult to implement in clinical practice [2,3,4]. PDAs facilitate shared decision-making (SDM) defined as: An approach where clinicians and patients share the best available evidence when faced with the task of making decisions, and where patients are supported to consider options, to achieve informed preferences [6]. In 2018, nine studies evaluating interventions based on SDM in dialysis choice were identified [7], but few had been rigorously evaluated in clinical practice. None of these studies evaluated the SDM process or the decisional outcomes

Objectives
Methods
Results
Discussion
Conclusion
Full Text
Published version (Free)

Talk to us

Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have

Schedule a call