Dataset Information

The extent of informed decision-making about starting dialysis: does patients' age matter?

ABSTRACT: A growing number of elderly patients with end-stage renal disease start dialysis. We examined elderly (?65 years) patients' views about their decision-making experience after starting dialysis in comparison with patients aged 50-64 years, and patients ?49 years.Ninety-nine patients from 15 outpatient dialysis centers in North Carolina, USA completed a semi-structured interview asking them about the context of decision-making and their decision-making experience, and a 10-item investigator-developed Informed Decision-Making (IDM) questionnaire with binary response options (yes/no).While IDM scores were low for all three groups (<5 out of 10), they were significantly lower for the older group compared to the other two younger groups (p = 0.02). A significantly lower percentage of the older group said that the doctor explained underlying conditions that led to kidney failure (p = 0.04), the impact of dialysis on daily life (p = 0.04), and the life-long need for dialysis (p < 0.01), and that the doctor tried to make sure the patient understood the information (p = 0.01). Also a significantly higher percentage of elderly patients felt the decision was made by the doctor rather than on their own or with their family, or collaboratively with the doctor (p = 0.04).Informed decision-making is significantly poorer in patients aged 65 years or older than in younger patients. Clinicians should communicate clearly about the benefits and burdens of dialysis to older adults and provide an opportunity for them to understand the significant trade-offs that dialysis may require.

SUBMITTER: Song MK

PROVIDER: S-EPMC4130809 | biostudies-literature | 2014 Oct

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

The extent of informed decision-making about starting dialysis: does patients' age matter?

Song Mi-Kyung MK Ward Sandra E SE

Journal of nephrology 20140212 5

<h4>Background</h4>A growing number of elderly patients with end-stage renal disease start dialysis. We examined elderly (≥65 years) patients' views about their decision-making experience after starting dialysis in comparison with patients aged 50-64 years, and patients ≤49 years.<h4>Methods</h4>Ninety-nine patients from 15 outpatient dialysis centers in North Carolina, USA completed a semi-structured interview asking them about the context of decision-making and their decision-making experience ...[more]

PMID: 24519843

Similar Datasets

Project description: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.

Project description:Background and objectivesBehavioral stage of change (SoC) algorithms classify patients' readiness for medical treatment decision-making. In the precontemplation stage, patients have no intention to take action within 6 months. In the contemplation stage, action is intended within 6 months. In the preparation stage, patients intend to take action within 30 days. In the action stage, the change has been made. This study examines the influence of SoC on dialysis modality decision-making.Design, setting, participants, & measurementsSoC and relevant covariates were measured, and associations with dialysis decision-making were determined. In-depth interviews were conducted with 16 patients on dialysis to elicit experiences. Qualitative interview data informed the survey design. Surveys were administered to adults with CKD (eGFR?25 ml/min/1.73 m(2)) from August, 2012 to June, 2013. Multivariable logistic regression modeled dialysis decision-making with predictors: SoC, provider connection, and dialysis knowledge score.ResultsFifty-five patients completed the survey (71% women, 39% white, and 59% black), and median annual income was $17,500. In total, 65% of patients were in the precontemplation/contemplation (thinking) and 35% of patients were in the preparation/maintenance (acting) SoC; 62% of patients had made dialysis modality decisions. Doctors explaining modality options, higher dialysis knowledge scores, and fewer lifestyle barriers were associated with acting versus thinking SoC (all P<0.02). Patients making modality decisions had doctors who explained dialysis options (76% versus 43%), were in the acting versus the thinking SoC (50% versus 10%), had higher dialysis knowledge scores (1.4 versus 0.5), and had lower eGFR (13.9 versus 16.8 ml/min/1.73 m(2); all P<0.05). In adjusted analyses, dialysis knowledge was significantly associated with decision-making (odds ratio, 4.2; 95% confidence interval, 1.4 to 12.9; P=0.01), and SoC was of borderline significance (odds ratio, 5.8; 95% confidence interval, 1.0 to 32.6; P=0.05). The model C statistic was 0.87.ConclusionsDialysis decision-making was associated with SoC, dialysis knowledge, and physicians discussing treatment options. Future studies determining ways to assist patients with CKD in making satisfying modality decisions are warranted.

Project description:BackgroundHealth insurance enrollment is a difficult financial decision with large health impacts. Challenges such as low health insurance literacy and lack of knowledge about choosing a plan further complicate this decision-making process. Therefore, to support consumers in their choice of a health insurance plan, it is essential to understand how individuals go about making this decision.ObjectiveThis study aims to understand the sources of information used by individuals to support their employer-provided health insurance enrollment decisions. It seeks to describe how individual descriptive factors lead to choosing a particular type of information source.MethodsAn introduction was presented on health insurance plan selection and the sources of information used to support these decisions from the 1980s to the present. Subsequently, an electronic survey of 151 full-time faculty and staff members was conducted. The survey consisted of four sections: demographics, sources of information, health insurance literacy, and technology acceptance. Descriptive statistics were used to show the demographic characteristics of the 126 eligible respondents and to study the response behaviors in the remaining survey sections. Proportion data analysis was performed using the Cochran-Armitage trend test to understand the strength of the association between our variables and the types of sources used by the respondents.ResultsIn terms of demographics, most of the respondents were women (103/126, 81.7%), represented a small household (1-2 persons; 87/126, 69%), and used their insurance 3-12 times a year (52/126, 41.3%). They assessed themselves as having moderate to high health insurance literacy and high acceptance of technology. The most selected and top-ranked sources were Official employer or state websites and Official Human Resources Virtual Benefits Counselor Alex. From our data analysis, we found that the use of official primary sources was constant across age groups and health insurance use groups. Meanwhile, the use of friends or family as a primary source slightly decreased as age and use increased.ConclusionsIn this exploratory study, we identified the main sources of health insurance information among full-time employees from a large state university and found that most of the respondents needed 2-3 sources to gather all the information that they desired. We also studied and identified the relationships between individual factors (such as age, gender, and literacy) and 2 dependent variables on the types of primary sources of information. We encountered several limitations, which will be addressed in future studies.

Project description:BackgroundPublic health professionals are increasingly expected to engage in evidence-informed decision making to inform practice and policy decisions. Evidence-informed decision making involves the use of research evidence along with expertise, existing public health resources, knowledge about community health issues, the local context and community, and the political climate. The National Collaborating Centre for Methods and Tools has identified a seven step process for evidence-informed decision making. Tools have been developed to support public health professionals as they work through each of these steps. This paper provides an overview of tools used in three Canadian public health departments involved in a study to develop capacity for evidence-informed decision making.MethodsAs part of a knowledge translation and exchange intervention, a Knowledge Broker worked with public health professionals to identify and apply tools for use with each of the steps of evidence-informed decision making. The Knowledge Broker maintained a reflective journal and interviews were conducted with a purposive sample of decision makers and public health professionals. This paper presents qualitative analysis of the perceived usefulness and usability of the tools.ResultsTools were used in the health departments to assist in: question identification and clarification; searching for the best available research evidence; assessing the research evidence for quality through critical appraisal; deciphering the 'actionable message(s)' from the research evidence; tailoring messages to the local context to ensure their relevance and suitability; deciding whether and planning how to implement research evidence in the local context; and evaluating the effectiveness of implementation efforts. Decision makers provided descriptions of how the tools were used within the health departments and made suggestions for improvement. Overall, the tools were perceived as valuable for advancing and sustaining evidence-informed decision making.ConclusionTools are available to support the process of evidence-informed decision making among public health professionals. The usability and usefulness of these tools for advancing and sustaining evidence-informed decision making are discussed, including recommendations for the tools' application in other public health settings beyond this study. Knowledge and awareness of these tools may assist other health professionals in their efforts to implement evidence-informed practice.

Project description:BACKGROUND:Some studies, mainly coming from the U.S., indicate disparities in heart failure (HF) treatment according to migration/ethnicity. However, respective results are inconsistent and cannot be transferred to other health care systems. Thus, we will address the following research question: Are there differences in the diagnosis and management of HF between patients with and without a Turkish migration background in Germany? METHODS:A factorial experimental design with video vignettes was applied. In the filmed simulated initial encounters, professional actors played patients, who consulted a primary care physician because of typical HF symptoms. While the dialog was identical in all videos, patients differed in terms of Turkish migration history (no/yes), sex (male/female), and age (55?years/75?years). After viewing the video, primary care physicians (N =?128) were asked standardized and open ended questions concerning their decisions on diagnosis and therapy. RESULTS:Analyses revealed no statistically significant differences (p <?0.05), but a consistent tendency: Primary care doctors more often asked lifestyle and psychosocial questions, they more often diagnosed HF, they gave more advice to rest and how to behave in case of deterioration, they more often auscultated the lung, and more often referred to a specialist when the patient has a Turkish migration history compared to a non-migrant patient. Differences in the medical decisions between the two groups ranged between 1.6 and 15.8%. In 10 out of 12 comparisons, differences were below 10%. CONCLUSIONS:Our results indicate that are no significant inequalities in diagnosis and management of HF according to a Turkish migration background in Germany. Primary care physicians' behaviour and medical decision making do not seem to be influenced by the migration background of the patients. Future studies are needed to verify this result and to address inequalities in HF therapy in an advanced disease stage.

Dataset Information

The extent of informed decision-making about starting dialysis: does patients' age matter?

Publications

The extent of informed decision-making about starting dialysis: does patients' age matter?

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets