Older patients' experiences with a shared decision-making process on choosing dialysis or conservative care for advanced chronic kidney disease: a survey study.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT: Background
Many older patients approaching end-stage kidney disease have to decide whether to go for dialysis or non-dialytic conservative care (CC). Shared decision-making is recommended to align the treatment plan with the patient's preferences and values. Little is known about older patients' experiences with shared decision-making on dialysis or CC.Methods
We performed a survey study, in collaboration with the Dutch Kidney Patients Association, in 99 patients aged ≥70 years who had chosen dialysis (n = 75) or CC (n = 24) after a shared decision-making process involving an experienced multidisciplinary team.Results
Patients stated to be overall satisfied with the shared decision-making process (% with score 6-10 on 11-point Likert scale, dialysis versus CC: 93% vs. 91%, P = 0.06), and treatment decision (87% vs. 91%, P = 0.03). However, patients also reported negative experiences, especially those who had chosen dialysis. Such negative experiences were related to the timing, informing, and level of decision-making being shared. More patients who selected dialysis indicated to have felt forced to make a decision, mostly due to the circumstances, such as their deteriorating health or kidney function, or by their nephrologist (31% vs. 5%, P = 0.01). Also, patients who selected dialysis mentioned a perceived lack of choice as most common reason for choosing dialysis, and 55% considered their own opinion as most important rather than their nephrologists' or relatives' opinion compared to 90% of the patients who had chosen CC (P = 0.02). A subset of patients who had chosen dialysis still doubted their treatment decision compared to no patient who had chosen CC (17% vs. 0%, P = 0.03).Conclusions
Older patients reported contrasting experiences with shared decision-making on dialysis or CC. Despite high overall satisfaction, the underlying negative experiences illustrate important but modifiable barriers to an optimal shared decision-making process.
SUBMITTER: Verberne WR
PROVIDER: S-EPMC6635995 | biostudies-literature |
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
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.
| S-EPMC7409698 | biostudies-literature
Project description:The prevalence of kidney failure continues to rise globally. Dialysis is a treatment option for individuals with kidney failure; after the decision to initiate dialysis has been made, it is critical to involve individuals in the decision on which dialysis modality to choose. This review, based on evidence arising from the literature, examines the role of shared decision-making (SDM) in helping those with kidney failure to select a dialysis modality. SDM was found to lead to more people with kidney failure feeling satisfied with their choice of dialysis modality. Individuals with kidney failure must be cognizant that SDM is an active and iterative process, and their participation is essential for success in empowering them to make decisions on dialysis modality. The educational components of SDM must be easy to understand, high quality, unbiased, up to date, and targeted to the linguistic, educational, and cultural needs of the individual. All individuals with kidney failure should be encouraged to participate in SDM and should be involved in the design and implementation of SDM approaches.
| S-EPMC8720663 | biostudies-literature
Project description:The health insurance Marketplaces established by the Affordable Care Act include features designed to simplify the process of choosing a health plan in the individual, or nongroup, insurance market. While most individual health insurance enrollees purchase plans through the federal and state-based Marketplaces, millions also purchase plans directly from an insurance carrier (off Marketplace). This study was a descriptive comparison of the decision-making processes and shopping experiences of consumers in two states who purchased a health insurance plan from the same large insurer in 2017, either through the federal Marketplaces or off Marketplace. In a survey, those who selected plans through the Marketplaces reported less difficulty finding the best or most affordable plan than did those enrolling off Marketplace. Respondents in families with chronic health conditions who enrolled through the Marketplaces reported better overall experiences than those who enrolled off Marketplace. Respondents with low health insurance literacy reported poor experiences in enrolling both through the Marketplaces and off Marketplace. Access to consumer assistance in the individual health insurance market should target off-Marketplace populations as well as all populations with low health insurance literacy.
| S-EPMC7333350 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundDespite widespread use, there are few studies evaluating the consumer Choosing Wisely questions.MethodsWe evaluated the impact of the Choosing Wisely questions on consumers' decision-making outcomes. Adults living in Australia were presented with a hypothetical low-value care scenario. Using a 2×2×2 between-subjects factorial design, they were randomized to either the Choosing Wisely questions ("Questions"), a shared decision-making (SDM) preparation video ("Video"), both interventions, or control (no intervention). Primary outcomes were 1) self-efficacy to ask questions and be involved in decision-making and 2) intention to engage in SDM.ResultsA total of 1,439 participants (45.6% with "inadequate" health literacy) were eligible and included in the analysis. Intention to engage in SDM was higher in people randomized to the Video (mean difference [MD] = 0.24 [scale 0-6], 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.14, 0.35), Questions (MD = 0.12, 95% CI: 0.01, 0.22), and both interventions (MD = 0.33, 95% CI: 0.23-0.44, P < 0.001, d = 0.28) compared with control. Combining interventions had a greater impact than presenting the Questions alone (MD = 0.22, 95% CI: 0.11, 0.32; P < 0.001). Those who received the Video or both interventions reported lower intention to follow the low-value treatment plan without further questioning (all P < 0.05) and more positive attitudes toward SDM (all P < 0.05) compared with control. Intervention acceptability was high in all study arms (>80%), but proactive access was low (1.7%-20.8%). Compared with control, participants who received one or both interventions asked more questions that mapped to the Choosing Wisely questions (all P < .001). There were no main effects of either intervention on self-efficacy or knowledge.ConclusionsThe Choosing Wisely questions and a video to promote SDM may improve intention to engage in SDM and support patients in identifying questions that align with the Choosing Wisely campaign (with some additional benefits of the video intervention).Trial registrationANZCTR376477.HighlightsWe conducted a randomized controlled trial online with adults living in Australia to test the effectiveness of the consumer Choosing Wisely questions and a shared decision-making (SDM) preparation video.Both interventions improved intention to engage in SDM and supported participants to identify questions that align with the Choosing Wisely campaign.There were some additional benefits of the Video intervention in reducing willingness to accept low-value treatment for low-back pain without asking questions; however, neither intervention changed participants' self-efficacy to ask questions and be involved in decision-making nor affected perceptions of preparedness to engage in SDM or knowledge of rights to be involved in health care decision-making.The simple, low-cost nature of the interventions may make them appropriate for implementation within a suite of approaches to address low-value care at a population level.
| S-EPMC10422858 | biostudies-literature
Project description:OBJECTIVES:This review summarises the information available for clinicians counselling older patients with kidney failure about treatment options, focusing on prognosis, quality of life, the lived experiences of treatment and the information needs of older adults. DESIGN:We followed the Joanna Briggs Institute Methodology for Scoping Reviews. The final report conforms to the PRISMA-ScR guidelines. DATA SOURCES:PubMed, PsycINFO, CINAHL, Embase, Scopus, Web of Science, TRIP and online repositories (for dissertations, guidelines and recommendations from national renal associations). ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA FOR INCLUSION:Articles in English studying older adults with advanced kidney disease (estimated glomerular filtration rate <30?mL/min/1.73?m2); published between January 2000 and August 2018. Articles not addressing older patients separately or those comparing between dialysis modalities were excluded. DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS:Two independent reviewers screened articles for inclusion and grouped them by topic as per the objectives above. Quantitative data were presented as tables and charts; qualitative themes were identified and described. RESULTS:248 articles were included after screening 15?445 initial results. We summarised prognostic scores and compared dialysis and non-dialytic care. We highlighted potentially modifiable factors affecting quality of life. From reports of the lived experiences, we documented the effects of symptoms, of ageing, the feelings of disempowerment and the need for adaptation. Exploration of information needs suggested that patients want to participate in decision-making and need information, in simple terms, about survival and non-survival outcomes. CONCLUSION:When discussing treatment options, validated prognostic scores are useful. Older patients with multiple comorbidities do not do well with dialysis. The modifiable factors contributing to the low quality of life in this cohort deserve attention. Older patients suffer a high symptom burden and functional deterioration; they have to cope with significant life changes and feelings of disempowerment. They desire greater involvement and more information about illness, symptoms and what to expect with treatment.
| S-EPMC6887047 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundShared decision making (SDM) is a patient-centered nursing concept that emphasizes the autonomy of patients. SDM is a co-operative process that involves information exchange and communication between medical staff and patients for making treatment decisions. In this study, we explored the experiences of clinical nursing staff participating in SDM.MethodsThis study adopted a qualitative research design. Semistructured interviews were conducted with 21 nurses at a medical center in northern Taiwan. All interview recordings were transcribed verbatim. Content analysis was performed to analyze the data.ResultsThe findings yielded the following three themes covering seven categories: knowledge regarding SDM, trigger discussion and coordination, and respect of sociocultural factors.ConclusionsThe results of this study describe the experiences of clinical nursing staff participating in SDM and can be used as a reference for nursing education and nursing administrative supervisors wishing to plan and enhance professional nursing SDM in nursing education.
| S-EPMC8167946 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BACKGROUND:Shared decision-making (SDM) can advance patient satisfaction, understanding, goal fulfilment, and patient-reported outcomes. We lack clarity on whether this physician-focused literature applies to community rehabilitation, and on the integration of SDM policies in healthcare settings. We aimed to understand patient and provider perceptions of shared decision-making (SDM) in community rehabilitation, particularly the barriers and facilitators to SDM. METHODS:We used a focused ethnography involving 14 community rehabilitation sites across Alberta, including rural, regional-urban and metropolitan-urban sites. We conducted semi-structured interviews that asked participants about their positive and negative communication experiences (n = 23 patients; n = 26 providers). RESULTS:We found SDM experiences fluctuated between extremes: Getting Patient Buy-In and Aligning Expectations. The former is provider-driven, prescriptive and less flexible; the latter is collaborative, inquisitive and empowering. In Aligning Expectations, patients and providers express humility and openness, communicate in the language of ask and listen, and view education as empowering. Patients and providers described barriers and facilitators to SDM in community rehabilitation. Facilitators included geography influencing context and connections; consistent, patient-specific messaging; patient lifestyle, capacity and perceived outlook; provider confidence, experience and perceived independence; provider training; and perceptions of more time (and control over time) for appointments. SDM barriers included lack of privacy; waitlists and financial barriers to access; provider approach; how choices are framed; and, patient's perceived assertiveness, lack of capacity, and level of deference. CONCLUSIONS:We have found both excellent experiences and areas for improvement for applying SDM in community rehabilitation. We proffer recommendations to advance high-quality SDM in community rehabilitation based on promoting facilitators and overcoming barriers. This research will support the spread, scale and evaluation of a new Model of Care in rehabilitation by the provincial health system, which aimed to promote patient-centred care.
| S-EPMC7168887 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectivesThis study aimed to examine how patients perceive shared decision-making regarding CT scan referral and use of the five Choosing Wisely questions with their general practitioner (GP).DesignThis is a qualitative exploratory study using semistructured interviews.SettingThis study was conducted in a large metropolitan public healthcare organisation in urban Australia.ParticipantsFollowing purposive sampling, 20 patients and 2 carers participated. Patient participants aged 18 years or older were eligible if they were attending the healthcare organisation for a CT scan and referred by their GP. Carers/family were eligible to participate when they were in the role of an unpaid carer and were aged 18 years or older. Participants were required to speak English sufficiently to provide informed consent. Participants with cognitive impairment were excluded.FindingsEighteen interviews were conducted with the patient only. Two interviews were conducted with the patient and the patient's carer. Fourteen participants were female. Five themes resulted from the thematic analysis: (1) needing to know, (2) questioning doctors is not necessary, (3) discussing scans is not required, (4) uncertainty about questioning and (5) valuing the Choosing Wisely questions. Participants reported that they presented to their GP with a health problem that they needed to understand and address. Participants accepted their GPs decision to prescribe a CT scan to identify the nature of their problem. They reported ambivalence about engaging in shared decision-making with their doctor, although many participants reported valuing the Choosing Wisely questions.ConclusionsShared decision-making is an important principle underpinning Choosing Wisely. Practice implementation requires understanding patients' motivations to engage in shared decision-making with a focus on attitudes, beliefs, knowledge and emotions. Systems-level support and education for healthcare practitioners in effective communication is important. However, this needs to emphasise communication with patients who have varying degrees of motivation to engage in shared decision-making and Choosing Wisely.
| S-EPMC6720255 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Objectives To revise an existing three-talk model for learning how to achieve shared decision making, and to consult with relevant stakeholders to update and obtain wider engagement.Design Multistage consultation process.Setting Key informant group, communities of interest, and survey of clinical specialties.Participants 19 key informants, 153 member responses from multiple communities of interest, and 316 responses to an online survey from medically qualified clinicians from six specialties.Results After extended consultation over three iterations, we revised the three-talk model by making changes to one talk category, adding the need to elicit patient goals, providing a clear set of tasks for each talk category, and adding suggested scripts to illustrate each step. A new three-talk model of shared decision making is proposed, based on "team talk," "option talk," and "decision talk," to depict a process of collaboration and deliberation. Team talk places emphasis on the need to provide support to patients when they are made aware of choices, and to elicit their goals as a means of guiding decision making processes. Option talk refers to the task of comparing alternatives, using risk communication principles. Decision talk refers to the task of arriving at decisions that reflect the informed preferences of patients, guided by the experience and expertise of health professionals.Conclusions The revised three-talk model of shared decision making depicts conversational steps, initiated by providing support when introducing options, followed by strategies to compare and discuss trade-offs, before deliberation based on informed preferences.
| S-EPMC5683042 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Background: Lack of awareness about the life-limiting nature of renal failure is a significant barrier to palliative care for older adults with end-stage renal disease. Objective: To train nephrologists to use the best case/worst case (BC/WC) communication tool to improve shared decision making about dialysis initiation for older patients with limited life expectancy. Design: This is a pre-/postinterventional pilot study. Setting/Subjects: There were 16 nephrologists and 30 patients of age 70 years and older with estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) <20 mL/min per 1.73 m2 in outpatient nephrology clinics, in Madison, WI. Measurements: Performance of tool elements, content of communication about dialysis, shared decision making, acceptability of the intervention, decisions to pursue dialysis, and palliative care referrals were measured. Results: Fifteen of 16 nephrologists achieved competence performing the BC/WC tool with standardized patients, executing at least 14 of 19 items. Nine nephrologists met with 30 patients who consented to audio record their clinic visit. Before training, clinic visits focused on laboratory results and preparation for dialysis. After training, nephrologists noted that declining kidney function was "bad news," presented dialysis and "no dialysis" as treatment options, and elicited patient preferences. Observer-measured shared decision-making (OPTION 5) scores improved from a median of 20/100 (interquartile range [IQR] 15-35) before training to 58/100 (IQR 55-65). Patients whose nephrologist used the BC/WC tool were less likely to make a decision to initiate dialysis and were more likely to be referred to palliative care. Conclusions: Nephrologists can learn to use the BC/WC tool with older patients to improve shared decision making about dialysis, which may increase access to palliative care.
| S-EPMC7232635 | biostudies-literature