Dataset Information

Voicing Individual Concerns for Engagement in Hemodialysis (VOICE-HD): A Mixed Method, Randomized Pilot Trial of Digital Health in Dialysis Care Delivery.

ABSTRACT:

Background

People receiving in-center hemodialysis (HD) have prioritized the need for more individualized health information and better communication with nephrologists. The most common setting for patient-nephrologist interactions is during the HD treatment, which is a time pressured setting that lacks privacy.

Objective

To facilitate effective communication in the hemodialysis (HD) unit, we evaluated the usability of a web application (web app) from both the patient and physician perspective. The main aim of the web app was to support patients in prioritizing their dialysis concerns outside of the clinical HD encounter.

Design

Mixed method, parallel arm, multi-site, pilot randomized controlled trial.

Setting

Two outpatient Canadian HD centers.

Participants

Adult patients receiving in-center HD and their attending nephrologists.

Methods

Patients were randomized to either a web application or an active control (paper form) for logging concerns to be addressed at weekly encounters with the nephrologist over 8 weeks. Topics included: HD treatment, symptoms, modality, and medications. The primary outcome was usability, defined as effectiveness (engagement with the tool, frequency of submitted concerns, whether the concern was satisfactorily addressed) and satisfaction with the tool using a priori thresholds and explored in interviews with patients and nephrologists.

Results

77 patients (30 women, median age 61, interquartile range [53,67], median 2 years [1,4] on dialysis) and 19 nephrologists (4 women, median age 46 [36,65]) were enrolled. Patient use of a digital device at baseline was low (20%). Engagement with the tool was 70% (web app) and 100% (paper) with a lower proportion of patients in the web app group submitting at least one concern over 8 weeks compared to the paper form group: 56.7% vs 87.9%. Weekly concerns were satisfactorily addressed in both groups and ≥70% of patients would continue to use the tools. For patients, both tools promoted preparation and participation in the encounter; however, only the web app facilitated greater privacy in relaying concerns. For most nephrologists, the tools were disruptive to their workflow and were perceived as unnecessary given existing processes and familiarity with patients. For future versions of the app, patients suggested more features to facilitate self-management and nephrologists suggested integration with health databases and multidisciplinary teams.

Limitations

Tertiary setting may limit generalizability.

Conclusions

Both tools promoted fundamental components of self-management; however, patients in the paper form group submitted concerns more often and this tool was easier to remember to use. Although modifications would likely enhance web app usability, successful future adoption is limited by physician acceptance.Trial registration ClinicalTrials.gov NCT03605875.

SUBMITTER: Thompson S

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8323421 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundWork stress places a heavy economic and disease burden on society. Recent technological advances include digital health interventions for helping employees prevent and manage their stress at work effectively. Although such digital solutions come with an array of ethical risks, especially if they involve biomedical big data, the incorporation of employees' values in their design and deployment has been widely overlooked.ObjectiveTo bridge this gap, we used the value sensitive design (VSD) framework to identify relevant values concerning a digital stress management intervention (dSMI) at the workplace, assess how users comprehend these values, and derive specific requirements for an ethics-informed design of dSMIs. VSD is a theoretically grounded framework that front-loads ethics by accounting for values throughout the design process of a technology.MethodsWe conducted a literature search to identify relevant values of dSMIs at the workplace. To understand how potential users comprehend these values and derive design requirements, we conducted a web-based study that contained closed and open questions with employees of a Swiss company, allowing both quantitative and qualitative analyses.ResultsThe values health and well-being, privacy, autonomy, accountability, and identity were identified through our literature search. Statistical analysis of 170 responses from the web-based study revealed that the intention to use and perceived usefulness of a dSMI were moderate to high. Employees' moderate to high health and well-being concerns included worries that a dSMI would not be effective or would even amplify their stress levels. Privacy concerns were also rated on the higher end of the score range, whereas concerns regarding autonomy, accountability, and identity were rated lower. Moreover, a personalized dSMI with a monitoring system involving a machine learning-based analysis of data led to significantly higher privacy (P=.009) and accountability concerns (P=.04) than a dSMI without a monitoring system. In addition, integrability, user-friendliness, and digital independence emerged as novel values from the qualitative analysis of 85 text responses.ConclusionsAlthough most surveyed employees were willing to use a dSMI at the workplace, there were considerable health and well-being concerns with regard to effectiveness and problem perpetuation. For a minority of employees who value digital independence, a nondigital offer might be more suitable. In terms of the type of dSMI, privacy and accountability concerns must be particularly well addressed if a machine learning-based monitoring component is included. To help mitigate these concerns, we propose specific requirements to support the VSD of a dSMI at the workplace. The results of this work and our research protocol will inform future research on VSD-based interventions and further advance the integration of ethics in digital health.

Project description:BACKGROUND:Vascular calcification is seen in most patients on dialysis and is strongly associated with cardiovascular mortality. Vascular calcification is promoted by phosphate, which generally reaches higher levels in hemodialysis than in peritoneal dialysis. However, whether vascular calcification develops less in peritoneal dialysis than in hemodialysis is currently unknown. Therefore, we compared coronary artery calcification (CAC), its progression, and calcification biomarkers between patients on hemodialysis and peritoneal dialysis. METHODS:We measured CAC in 134 patients who had been treated exclusively with hemodialysis (n = 94) or peritoneal dialysis (n = 40) and were transplantation candidates. In 57 of them (34 on hemodialysis and 23 on peritoneal dialysis), we also measured CAC progression annually up to 3 years and the inactive species of desphospho-uncarboxylated matrix Gla protein (dp-ucMGP), fetuin-A, osteoprotegerin. We compared CAC cross-sectionally with Tobit regression. CAC progression was compared in 2 ways: with linear mixed models as the difference in square root transformed volume score per year (?CAC SQRV) and with Tobit mixed models. We adjusted for potential confounders. RESULTS:In the cross-sectional cohort, CAC volume scores were 92 mm3 in hemodialysis and 492 mm3 in peritoneal dialysis (adjusted difference 436 mm3; 95% CI -47 to 919; p = 0.08). In the longitudinal cohort, peritoneal dialysis was associated with significantly more CAC progression defined as ?CAC SQRV (adjusted difference 1.20; 95% CI 0.09 to 2.31; p = 0.03), but not with Tobit mixed models (adjusted difference in CAC score increase per year 106 mm3; 95% CI -140 to 352; p = 0.40). Peritoneal dialysis was associated with higher osteoprotegerin (adjusted p = 0.02) but not with dp-ucMGP or fetuin-A. CONCLUSIONS:Peritoneal dialysis is not associated with less CAC or CAC progression than hemodialysis, and perhaps with even more progression. This indicates that vascular calcification does not develop less in peritoneal dialysis than in hemodialysis.

Project description:BackgroundEngagement with digital health interventions (DHIs) may be regarded as a prerequisite for the intervention to achieve positive health or behavior change outcomes. One method employed to promote engagement is the use of prompts such as emails and text messages. However, little is known about the characteristics of prompts that promote engagement. This study explored the association between the content and delivery mode of prompts and the users' engagement with HeLP-Diabetes (Healthy Living for People with type 2 Diabetes), a DHI that aimed to promote self-management in adults with type 2 diabetes.ObjectiveThe objective of this study was to identify the characteristics of prompts, specifically the content and delivery mode, which were associated with increased engagement.MethodsThis was a mixed-methods study. Email and text message prompts were sent to the registered users of HeLP-Diabetes. Use of the intervention was recorded and examined to identify which email and text message prompts were associated with subsequent visits to the DHI. Characteristics of prompts that were identified as particularly effective or ineffective were explored through think-aloud interviews with the participants.ResultsOf a total of 39 email prompts, 49% (19/39) prompts showed a significant association with subsequent visits to the DHI. However, none of the text message prompts were associated with subsequent visits to the DHI. Furthermore, think-aloud interviews were carried out with 6 experienced participants with type 2 diabetes. The findings suggest that these participants preferred email prompts that were clear, relatively short, and empowering; used nondirective advice; included health professional references; were visually appealing; and contained news and updates.ConclusionsThe findings of this study contribute to the existing evidence supporting the role of email prompts in promoting and maintaining engagement with DHIs. This study described the content of prompts that may be engaging. However, the results should be interpreted with caution, as prompts may be context-specific interventions and the results may not be generalizable across other DHIs or other types of interventions targeting self-management of type 2 diabetes.

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.