Dataset Information

Multidimensional analysis of factors responsible for the low prevalence of ambulatory peritoneal dialysis in Germany (MAU-PD): a cross-sectional Mixed-Methods Study Protocol.

ABSTRACT:

Introduction

Patients with end-stage kidney failure can be treated either by transplant or by dialysis, which can be administered as haemodialysis (HD) or peritoneal dialysis (PD). Although they are equivalent therapeutic options in terms of mortality, the percentage of patients in Germany treated with PD is currently very low (?6%) compared with other countries. The aim of our study is to analyse the factors behind this percentage and their relevance to the choice of dialysis treatment in Germany. This includes analyses of regional disparities in the provision of care for dialysis patients as well as the evaluations of costs and the influence of reimbursement structures. This approach should provide further insights to explain the variation in the usage of PD and HD and will help to define starting points for future interventions.

Methods and analysis

A mixed-methods approach will be applied to several data sources, including administrative data (ambulatory physicians' claim data, statutory health insurance claim data), quality assurance data from one of the largest German dialysis providers Kuratorium für Dialyse (KfH) and qualitative and quantitative survey data (patients, nephrologists and dialysis nurses). Qualitative data will be analysed content-analytically. Based on the quantitative data, multivariable analyses will be performed and, where possible, hierarchical models will be tested. This multidimensional approach will enable us to account for the different factors influencing the penetration of PD in Germany.

Ethics and dissemination

Ethics approval (17-299) has been obtained from the Ethics Committee of the Medical Faculty of the University of Cologne on 25 April 2018. National and international dissemination will be accomplished by informing healthcare practitioners, patients and professional organisations and other stakeholders via conferences, scientific and non-scientific publications and seminars.

Trial registration number

DRKS00012555; Pre-Results.

SUBMITTER: Scholten N

PROVIDER: S-EPMC6500214 | biostudies-literature | 2019 Apr

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Multidimensional analysis of factors responsible for the low prevalence of ambulatory peritoneal dialysis in Germany (MAU-PD): a cross-sectional Mixed-Methods Study Protocol.

Scholten Nadine N Ohnhaeuser Tim T Schellartz Isabell I von Gersdorff Gero G Hellmich Martin M Karbach Ute U Pfaff Holger H Samel Christina C Stock Stephanie S Rascher Katherine K Mettang Thomas T

BMJ open 20190420 4

<h4>Introduction</h4>Patients with end-stage kidney failure can be treated either by transplant or by dialysis, which can be administered as haemodialysis (HD) or peritoneal dialysis (PD). Although they are equivalent therapeutic options in terms of mortality, the percentage of patients in Germany treated with PD is currently very low (∼6%) compared with other countries. The aim of our study is to analyse the factors behind this percentage and their relevance to the choice of dialysis treatment ...[more]

PMID: 31005921

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundIn 2009 health insurers AOK and Bosch BKK introduced the "FacharztProgramm Kardiologie" - a program for coordinated ambulatory cardiology care in the German state of Baden-Württemberg. It aims for efficient, medical guideline-oriented cardiology care to reduce avoidable hospitalizations as well as costs of care. A high number of cardiologists participate and the program has served as blueprint for programs in other medical fields. With many prerequisites and conditions involved, its implementation cannot be expected to be self-directed. Still, only little data on the actual implementation exists. We aimed to determine to what extent medical specialists and cooperating general practitioners implemented the program, which components they adapted, and which contextual factors they deemed relevant.MethodsWe collected data from primary care practices of medical specialists and general practitioners within Baden-Württemberg. Qualitative data was obtained through structured telephone interviews with participating and non-participating medical specialists as well as general practitioners cooperating with the program and general practitioners not cooperating. Interviews were analyzed through content-structuring qualitative content analyses via MAXQDA. Quantitative data was obtained using anonymous written questionnaires completed by participating and non-participating medical specialists as well as general practitioners cooperating with the program. Analyses were performed using SPSS Statistics, mainly with regard to differences within and between groups of physicians.ResultsMost components of the program regarding medical care were well implemented. However, access to medical care was not completely as intended due to high numbers of patients participating in the program and prioritization by physicians. Procedures for communication and cooperation between medical specialists and general practitioners were only partially adhered to and standardized communication was not implemented. A range of regional and practice-related contextual factors influenced implementation and outcomes.ConclusionsImplementation of this program was mixed. Contextual factors posed individual challenges to participating physicians which can't be captured by an encompassing program. Both control mechanisms and tailoring of the program to medical care seem needed.Trial registrationThough not a clinical study, we deemed registration appropriate to ensure transparency. The study has been registered as a non-interventional observation study at the German Clinical Trials Register under ID: DRKS00013070.

Project description:Background and objectivesThe objective of this study was to evaluate the association between neighborhood socioeconomic status and barriers to peritoneal dialysis eligibility and choice.Design, setting, participants, & measurementsThis study was a mixed methods parallel design study using quantitative and qualitative data from a prospective clinical database of ESRD patients. The eligibility and choice cohorts were assembled from consecutive incident chronic dialysis patients entering one of five renal programs in the province of Ontario, Canada, between January 1, 2004 and December 31, 2010. Socioeconomic status was measured as median household income and percentage of residents with at least a high school education using Statistics Canada dissemination area-level data. Multivariable models described the relationship between socioeconomic status and likelihood of peritoneal dialysis eligibility and choice. Barriers to peritoneal dialysis eligibility and choice were classified into qualitative categories using the thematic constant comparative approach.ResultsThe peritoneal dialysis eligibility and choice cohorts had 1314 and 857 patients, respectively; 65% of patients were deemed eligible for peritoneal dialysis, and 46% of eligible patients chose peritoneal dialysis. Socioeconomic status was not a significant predictor of peritoneal dialysis eligibility or choice in this study. Qualitative analyses identified 16 barriers to peritoneal dialysis choice. Patients in lower- versus higher-income Statistics Canada dissemination areas cited built environment or space barriers to peritoneal dialysis (4.6% versus 2.7%) and family or social support barriers (8.3% versus 3.5%) more frequently.ConclusionsPeritoneal dialysis eligibility and choice were not associated with socioeconomic status. However, socioeconomic status may influence specific barriers to peritoneal dialysis choice. Additional studies to determine the effect of targeting interventions to specific barriers to peritoneal dialysis choice in low socioeconomic status patients on peritoneal dialysis use are needed.

Project description:IntroductionThe impact of peritoneal dialysis modality on patient survival and peritonitis rates is not fully understood, and no large-scale randomized clinical trial (RCT) is available. In the absence of a RCT, the use of an advanced matching procedure to reduce selection bias in large cohort studies may be the best approach. The aim of this study is to compare automated peritoneal dialysis (APD) and continuous ambulatory peritoneal dialysis (CAPD) according to peritonitis risk, technique failure and patient survival in a large nation-wide PD cohort.MethodsThis is a prospective cohort study that included all incident PD patients with at least 90 days of PD recruited in the BRAZPD study. All patients who were treated exclusively with either APD or CAPD were matched for 15 different covariates using a propensity score calculated with the nearest neighbor method. Clinical outcomes analyzed were overall mortality, technique failure and time to first peritonitis. For all analysis we also adjusted the curves for the presence of competing risks with the Fine and Gray analysis.ResultsAfter the matching procedure, 2,890 patients were included in the analysis (1,445 in each group). Baseline characteristics were similar for all covariates including: age, diabetes, BMI, Center-experience, coronary artery disease, cancer, literacy, hypertension, race, previous HD, gender, pre-dialysis care, family income, peripheral artery disease and year of starting PD. Mortality rate was higher in CAPD patients (SHR1.44 CI95%1.21-1.71) compared to APD, but no difference was observed for technique failure (SHR0.83 CI95%0.69-1.02) nor for time till the first peritonitis episode (SHR0.96 CI95%0.93-1.11).ConclusionIn the first large PD cohort study with groups balanced for several covariates using propensity score matching, PD modality was not associated with differences in neither time to first peritonitis nor in technique failure. Nevertheless, patient survival was significantly better in APD patients.

Dataset Information

Multidimensional analysis of factors responsible for the low prevalence of ambulatory peritoneal dialysis in Germany (MAU-PD): a cross-sectional Mixed-Methods Study Protocol.

Introduction

Methods and analysis

Ethics and dissemination

Trial registration number

Publications

Multidimensional analysis of factors responsible for the low prevalence of ambulatory peritoneal dialysis in Germany (MAU-PD): a cross-sectional Mixed-Methods Study Protocol.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets