Dataset Information

Understanding the low take-up of home-based dialysis through a shared decision-making lens: a qualitative study.

ABSTRACT:

Objectives

To explore how people with chronic kidney disease who are pre-dialysis, family members and healthcare professionals together navigate common shared decision-making processes and to assess how this impacts future treatment choice.

Design

Coproductive qualitative study, underpinned by the Making Good Decisions in Collaboration shared decision-model. Semistructured interviews with a purposive sample from February 2019 - January 2020. Interview data were analysed using framework analysis. Coproduction of logic models/roadmaps and recommendations.

Setting

Five Welsh kidney services.

Participants

95 participants (37 patients, 19 family members and 39 professionals); 44 people supported coproduction (18 patients, 8 family members and 18 professionals).

Findings

Shared decision-making was too generic and clinically focused and had little impact on people getting onto home dialysis. Preferences of where, when and how to implement shared decision-making varied widely. Apathy experienced by patients, caused by lack of symptoms, denial, social circumstances and health systems issues made future treatment discussions difficult. Families had unmet and unrecognised needs, which significantly influenced patient decisions. Protocols containing treatment hierarchies and standards were understood by professionals but not translated for patients and families. Variation in dialysis treatment was discussed to match individual lifestyles. Patients and professionals were, however, defaulting to the perceived simplest option. It was easy for patients to opt for hospital-based treatments by listing important but easily modifiable factors.

Conclusions

Shared decision-making processes need to be individually tailored with more attention on patients who could choose a home therapy but select a different option. There are critical points in the decision-making process where changes could benefit patients. Patients need to be better educated and their preconceived ideas and misconceptions gently challenged. Healthcare professionals need to update their knowledge in order to provide the best advice and guidance. There needs to be more awareness of the costs and benefits of the various treatment options when making decisions.

SUBMITTER: Noyes J

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8634024 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundPatients with end-stage kidney disease (ESKD) may choose to undergo dialysis in-center or at home, but uptake of home dialysis in the US has been minimal despite its benefits over in-center dialysis. Factors that may have led patients to select home dialysis over in-center dialysis are poorly understood in the literature, and interventions to improve selection of home dialysis have focused on patient knowledge and shared decision-making processes between patients and providers. The purpose of this study was to explore micro- and macro-level factors surrounding dialysis modality decision-making among patients undergoing in-center and home dialysis, and explore what leads patients to select home dialysis over in-center dialysis.MethodsSemi-structured qualitative interviews were conducted in a dialysis clinic at a large Midwestern research hospital, from September 2019 to December 2020. Participants were 18 years or older, undergoing dialysis for ESKD, and had the cognitive ability to provide consent. Surveys assessing demographic and clinical information were administered to participants following their interviews.ResultsForty patients completed interviews and surveys (20 [50%] in-center dialysis, 17 [43%] female, mean [SD] age, 59 [15.99] years). Qualitative findings suggested that healthcare access and engagement before entering nephrology care, after entering nephrology care, and following dialysis initiation influenced patients' awareness regarding their kidney disease status, progression toward ESKD, and dialysis options. Potential modifiers of these outcomes include race, ethnicity, and language barriers. Most participants adopted a passive-approach during decision-making. Finally, fatigue, concerns regarding one's dialyzing schedule, and problems with fistula/catheter access sites contributed to overall satisfaction with one's dialysis modality.ConclusionsFindings point to broader factors affecting dialysis selection, including healthcare access and racial/ethnic inequities. Providing dialysis information before entering nephrology and after dialysis initiation may improve patient agency in decision-making. Additional resources should be prioritized for patients of underrepresented backgrounds. Dialysis decision-making may be appropriately modeled under the social-ecological framework to inform future interventions.

Project description:BackgroundShared decision-making (SDM) is widely recommended and required by the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid for patients considering lung cancer screening (LCS).ObjectiveWe examined clinicians' communication practices and perceived barriers of SDM for LCS at three medical centers with established screening programs.DesignMulticenter qualitative study of clinicians participating in LCS.ApproachWe performed semi-structured interviews, which were transcribed and analyzed using directed content analysis, guided by a theoretical model of patient-clinician communication.ParticipantsWe interviewed 24 clinicians including LCS coordinators (2), pulmonologists (3), and primary care providers (17), 4 of whom worked for the LCS program, a thoracic surgeon, and a radiologist.ResultsAll clinicians agreed with the goal of SDM, to ensure the screening decision was congruent with the patient's values. The depth and type of information presented by each clinician role varied considerably. LCS coordinators presented detailed information including numeric estimates of benefit and harm. Most PCPs explained the process more generally, focusing on logistics and the high rate of nodule detection. No clinician explicitly elicited values or communication preferences. Many PCPs tailored the conversation based on their implicit understanding of patients' values and preferences, gained from past experiences. PCPs reported that time, lack of detailed personal knowledge of LCS, and patient preferences were barriers to SDM. Many clinicians perceived that a significant proportion of patients were not interested in specific percentages and preferred to receive a clinician recommendation.ConclusionsOur results suggest that clinicians support the goal of SDM for LCS decisions but PCPs may not perform some of its elements. The lack of completion of some elements, such as PCPs' lack of in-depth information exchange, may reflect perceived patient preferences for communication. As LCS is implemented, further research is needed to support a personalized, patient-centered approach to produce better outcomes.

Project description:ObjectivesThis study uses the diffusion of innovations (DOI) theory to comprehensively understand the adoption of shared decision-making (SDM) in clinical practice, specifically focusing on the 'knowledge' and 'persuasion' stages within DOI. We aim to understand the challenges and dynamics associated with SDM adoption, offering insights for more patient-centred decision-making in healthcare.DesignThis qualitative study employs a modified framework analysis approach, integrating ethnographic and interview data from prior research, along with additional interviews. The framework used is based on the DOI theory.Study setting and participantsThis study was conducted in the obstetrics and gynaecology department of a tertiary teaching hospital in the Eastern region of the Netherlands. It included interviews with 20 participants, including gynaecologists, obstetrics registrars and junior doctors currently practising in the department. Additionally, data from prior research conducted within the same department were incorporated, ensuring the maintenance of contextual consistency.ResultsFindings reveal a complex interplay between SDM's benefits and challenges. Clinicians value SDM for upholding patient autonomy and enhancing medical practice, viewing it as valuable for medical decision-making. Decision aids are seen as advantageous in supporting treatment decisions. Challenges include compatibility issues between patient and clinician preferences, perceptions of SDM as time-consuming and difficult and limitations imposed by the rapid pace of healthcare and its swift decisions. Additionally, perceived complexity varies by situation, influenced by colleagues' attitudes, with limited trialability and sparsely observed instances of SDM.ConclusionsClinicians' decision to adopt or reject SDM is multifaceted, shaped by beliefs, cognitive processes and contextual challenges. Cognitive dissonance is critical as clinicians reconcile their existing practices with the adoption of SDM. Practical strategies such as practice assessments, open discussions about SDM's utility and reflective practice through professional development initiatives empower clinicians to make the best informed decision to adopt or reject SDM.

Project description:INTRODUCTION:Surgical treatments are being offered to more patients than ever before, and increasingly to high-risk patients (typically multimorbid and over 75). Shared decision making is seen as essential practice. However, little is currently known about what 'good' shared decision making involves nor how it applies in the context of surgery for high-risk patients. This new study aims to identify how high-risk patients, their families and clinical teams negotiate decision making for major surgery. METHODS AND ANALYSIS:Focusing on major joint replacement, colorectal and cardiac surgery, we use qualitative methods to explore how patients, their families and clinicians negotiate decision making (including interactional, communicative and informational aspects and the extent to which these are perceived as shared) and reflect back on the decisions they made. Phase 1 involves video recording 15 decision making encounters about major surgery between patients, their carers/families and clinicians; followed by up to 90 interviews (with the same patient, carer and clinician participants) immediately after a decision has been made and again 3-6 months later. Phase 2 involves focus groups with a wider group of (up to 90) patients and (up to 30) clinicians to test out emerging findings and inform development of shared decision making scenarios (3-5 summary descriptions of how decisions are made). ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION:The study forms the first part in a 6-year programme of research, Optimising Shared decision-makIng for high-RIsk major Surgery (OSIRIS). Ethical challenges around involving patients at a challenging time in their lives will be overseen by the programme steering committee, which includes strong patient representation and a lay chair. In addition to academic outputs, we will produce a typology of decision making scenarios for major surgery to feed back to patients, professionals and service providers and inform subsequent work in the OSIRIS programme.

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.