Dataset Information

The economic considerations of patients and caregivers in choice of dialysis modality.

ABSTRACT: Introduction Broader adoption of home dialysis could lead to considerable cost savings for health services. Globally, however, uptake remains low. The aim of this study was to describe patient and caregiver perspectives of the economic considerations that influence dialysis modality choice, and elicit policy-relevant recommendations. Methods Semistructured interviews with predialysis or dialysis patients and their caregivers, at three hospitals in New Zealand. Interview transcripts were analyzed thematically. Findings 43 patients and 9 caregivers (total n?=?52) participated. The three themes related to economic considerations were: (i) productivity losses associated with changes in employment; (ii) the need for personal subsidization of home dialysis expenses; and (iii) the role of socio-economic disadvantage as a barrier to home dialysis. Patients weighed the flexibility of home dialysis which allowed them to remain employed, against time required for training and out-of-pocket costs. Patients saw the lack of reimbursement of home dialysis costs as unjust and suggested that reimbursement would incentivize home dialysis uptake. Social disadvantage was a barrier to home dialysis as patients' housing was often unsuitable; they could not afford the additional treatment costs. Home hemodialysis was considered to have the highest out-of-pocket costs and was sometimes avoided for this reason. Discussion Our data suggests that economic considerations underpin the choices patients make about dialysis treatments, however these are rarely reported. To promote home dialysis, strategies to improve employment retention and housing, and to minimize out-of-pocket costs, need to be addressed directly by healthcare providers and payers.

SUBMITTER: Walker RC

PROVIDER: S-EPMC5324572 | biostudies-literature | 2016 Oct

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

The economic considerations of patients and caregivers in choice of dialysis modality.

Walker Rachael C RC Howard Kirsten K Tong Allison A Palmer Suetonia C SC Marshall Mark R MR Morton Rachael L RL

Hemodialysis international. International Symposium on Home Hemodialysis 20160515 4

Introduction Broader adoption of home dialysis could lead to considerable cost savings for health services. Globally, however, uptake remains low. The aim of this study was to describe patient and caregiver perspectives of the economic considerations that influence dialysis modality choice, and elicit policy-relevant recommendations. Methods Semistructured interviews with predialysis or dialysis patients and their caregivers, at three hospitals in New Zealand. Interview transcripts were analyzed ...[more]

PMID: 27196634

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:IntroductionKidney disease is associated with significant cognitive dysfunction. Subjective reports of cognitive ability have not been studied extensively in chronic kidney disease. We investigated the association between objective and subjective cognitive functions in predialysis patients and their association with self-care dialysis modality choice.MethodsCross-sectional data from the Barriers to Successful Implementation of Care in Home Haemodialysis study were used for the study of cognition in 220 predialysis patients. The data were used to ascertain the demographics, clinical, laboratory, and neuropsychometric variables. The latter includes Trail Making Tests (TMT) parts A and B, Modified Mini Mental State Examination, and metacognition questionnaire for subjective assessment of one's cognitive ability. The outcome variable was fully assisted and self-care dialysis modality choice.ResultsWithin the study cohort, 90 patients chose fully assisted hemodialysis and 114 patients chose self-care dialysis. The median Modified Mini Mental State Examination, TMT part A, and TMT part B scores were greater for the assisted versus the self-care group. Metamemory was not significantly different between groups, but the metaconcentration score was significantly worse in the group choosing assisted dialysis. Higher (i.e., better) metaconcentration scores were significantly associated with the self-care modality choice in the univariate and hierarchical regression analyses. Adjusted and unadjusted analyses showed a significant association between perceived concentration and TMT part B scores (P < 0.01). With every 1.6-minute increase in TMT part B score, there was a 1-unit reduction in metaconcentration score, and the latter was associated with 20% lower odds of choosing self-care dialysis over a fully assisted dialysis modality.DiscussionPatients' self-perception of cognitive ability is a significant predictor of self-care dialysis modality choice. Subjective report of "metaconcentration" is also strongly associated with poorer outcome on the TMT part B.

Project description:Improvement in Home Dialysis (HoD) utilizations as a mean to improve the patient reported and health services outcomes, has been a long-held goal of the providers and healthcare system in United States. However, measures to improve HoD rates have yielded limited success so far. Lack of patient awareness of chronic kidney disease (CKD) and its management options, is one of the important barriers against patient adoption of HoD. Despite ample evidence that Comprehensive pre-ESERD Patient Education (CPE) improves patient awareness and informed HoD choice, use of CPE among US advanced CKD patients is low. Need for significant resources, lack of validated data showing unequivocal and reproducible benefits, and the lack of validated CPE protocols proven to have consistent efficacy in improving not only patient awareness but also HoD rates in US population, are major limitations deterring adoption of CPE in routine clinical practice. We recently demonstrated that if a structured, protocol based CPE is integrated within the routine nephrology care for patients with advanced CKD, it substantially improves informed HoD choice and utilizations. However, this requires establishing CPE resources within each nephrology practice. Efficacy of a stand-alone CPE model, independent of clinical care, has not been examined till date. In this report we report the efficacy of our structured CPE protocol, delivered outside the realm of routine nephrology care-as a stand-alone patient education program, in a geographically distant region, and show that: when provided opportunity for informed dialysis choice, a majority of advanced CKD patients in US would prefer HoD. We also show that initiating CPE leads to accelerated growth in HoD utilizations and reduces disparities in HoD utilizations, goals for system improvements. Finally, the reproducibility of our structured CPE protocol with consistent efficacy data suggest that initiating such programs at institutional levels has the potential to improve informed dialysis selection and HoD rates across any similar large healthcare institute within US.

Project description:BACKGROUND:Patients reaching end-stage renal disease must make a difficult decision regarding renal replacement therapy (RRT) options. Because the choice between dialysis modalities should include patient preferences, it is critical that patients are engaged in the dialysis modality decision. As part of the Empowering Patients on Choices for RRT (EPOCH-RRT) study, we assessed dialysis patients' perceptions of their dialysis modality decision-making process and the impact of their chosen modality on their lives. METHODS:A 39-question survey was developed in collaboration with a multi-stakeholder advisory panel to assess perceptions of patients on either peritoneal dialysis (PD) or in-center hemodialysis (HD). The survey was disseminated to participants in the large US cohorts of the Dialysis Outcomes and Practice Patterns Study (DOPPS) and the Peritoneal DOPPS (PDOPPS). Survey responses were compared between PD and in-center HD patients using descriptive statistics, adjusted logistic generalized estimating equation models, and linear mixed regression models. RESULTS:Six hundred fourteen PD and 1346 in-center HD participants responded. Compared with in-center HD participants, PD participants more frequently reported that they were engaged in the decision-making process, were provided enough information, understood differences between dialysis modalities, and felt satisfied with their modality choice. PD participants also reported more frequently than in-center HD participants that partners or spouses (79% vs. 70%), physician assistants (80% vs. 66%), and nursing staff (78% vs. 60%) had at least some involvement in the dialysis modality decision. Over 35% of PD and in-center HD participants did not know another dialysis patient at the time of their modality decision and over 60% did not know the disadvantages of their modality type. Participants using either dialysis modality perceived a moderate to high impact of dialysis on their lives. CONCLUSIONS:PD participants were more engaged in the modality decision process compared to in-center HD participants. For both modalities, there is room for improvement in patient education and other support for patients choosing a dialysis modality.

Project description:BackgroundRates of end-stage kidney disease in Australia are highest in the Northern Territory (NT), with the burden of disease heaviest in remote areas. However, the high cost of delivering dialysis services in remote areas has resulted in centralisation, requiring many people to relocate for treatment. Patients argue that treatment closer to home improves health outcomes and reduces downstream healthcare use. Existing dialysis cost studies have not compared total health care costs associated with treatment in different locations.ObjectiveTo estimate and compare, from a payer perspective, the observed health service costs (all cause hospital admissions, emergency department presentations and maintenance dialysis) associated with different dialysis models in urban, rural and remote locations.MethodsUsing cost weights attributed to diagnostic codes in the NT Department of Health's hospital admission data set (2008-2014), we calculated the mean (SD) total annual health service costs by dialysis model for 995 dialysis patients. Generalized linear modeling with bootstrapping tested the marginal cost differences between different explanatory variables to estimate 'best casemix'/'worst casemix' cost scenarios.ResultsThe mean annual patient hospital expenditure was highest for urban models at $97 928 (SD $21 261) and $43 440 (SD $5 048) and lowest for remote at $19 584 (SD $4 394). When combined with the observed maintenance dialysis costs, expenditure was the highest for urban models at $148 510 (SD $19 774). The incremental cost increase of dialysing in an urban area, compared with a rural area, for a relocated person from a remote area, was $5 648 more and increased further for those from remote and very remote areas to $10 785 and $15 118 respectively.ConclusionsThis study demonstrates that dialysis treatment in urban areas for relocated people has health and cost implications that maybe greater than the cost of remote service delivery. The study emphasises the importance of considering all health service costs and cost consequences of service delivery models.Key points for decision makersRelocation for dialysis treatment has serious health and economic consequences. Relocated people have low dialysis attendance and high hospital costs in urban areas. While remote dialysis service models are more expensive than urban models, the comparative cost differences are significantly reduced when all health service costs are included. The delivery of equitable and accessible dialysis service models requires a holistic approach that incorporates the needs of the patient; hence dialysis cost studies must consider the full range of cost impacts beyond the dialysis treatments alone.

Project description:RATIONALE & OBJECTIVE:Atrial fibrillation (AF) is common in patients with kidney failure treated by maintenance dialysis. Whether the incidence of AF differs between patients receiving hemodialysis and peritoneal dialysis is uncertain. STUDY DESIGN:Retrospective cohort study. SETTING & PARTICIPANTS:Using the US Renal Data System, we identified older patients (?67 years) with Medicare Parts A and B who initiated dialysis therapy (1996-2011) without a diagnosis of AF during the prior 2 years. EXPOSURE:Dialysis modality at incident end-stage renal disease (ESRD) and maintained for at least 90 days. OUTCOME:Patients were followed up for 36 months or less for a new diagnosis of AF. ANALYTICAL APPROACH:Time-to-event analysis using multivariable Cox proportional hazards regression to estimate cause-specific HRs while censoring at modality switch, kidney transplantation, or death. RESULTS:Overall, 271,722 older patients were eligible; 17,487 (6.9%) were treated with peritoneal dialysis, and 254,235 (93.1%), with hemodialysis, at the onset of ESRD. During 406,225 person-years of follow-up, 69,705 patients had AF newly diagnosed. Because the proportionality assumption was violated, we introduced an interaction term between time (first 90 days vs thereafter) and modality. The AF incidence during the first 90 days was 187/1,000 person-years on peritoneal dialysis therapy and 372/1,000 person-years on hemodialysis therapy. Patients on peritoneal dialysis therapy had an adjusted 39% (95% CI, 34%-43%) lower incidence of AF than those on hemodialysis therapy. From day 91 onward, AF incidence was ?140/1,000 person-years with no major difference between modalities. LIMITATIONS:Residual confounding from unobserved differences between exposure groups; ascertainment of AF from billing claims; study of first modality may not generalize to patients switching modalities; uncertain generalizability to younger patients. CONCLUSIONS:Although patients initiating dialysis therapy using peritoneal dialysis had a lower AF incidence during the first 90 days of ESRD, there was no major difference in AF incidence thereafter. The value of interventions to reduce the early excess AF risk in patients receiving hemodialysis may warrant further study.

Dataset Information

The economic considerations of patients and caregivers in choice of dialysis modality.

Publications

The economic considerations of patients and caregivers in choice of dialysis modality.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets