Patient and Clinician Perceptions of Informed Consent and Decision Making About Accepting KDPI > 85 Kidneys.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT: Background
Although the impact of the kidney donor profile index (KDPI) on kidney discard is well researched, less is known about how patients make decisions about whether to give consent for KDPI > 85 kidney offers.Methods
We conducted in-depth, semistructured interviews with 16 transplant recipients, 15 transplant candidates, and 23 clinicians (transplant surgeons, nephrologists, and nurse coordinators) to assess and compare perceptions of transplant education, informed consent for KDPI > 85 kidneys' and the decision-making process for accepting kidney offers. Thematic analysis was used to analyze qualitative data.Results
Four themes emerged: (1) patients reported uncertainty about the meaning of KDPI or could not recall information about KDPI; (2) patients reported uncertainty about their KDPI > 85 consent status and a limited role in KDPI > 85 consent decision making; (3) patients' reported willingness to consider KDPI > 85 kidneys depended on their age, health status, and experiences with dialysis, and thus it changed over time; (4) patients' underestimated the survival benefit of transplantation compared with dialysis, which could affect their KDPI > 85 consent decision making.Conclusions
To better support patients' informed decision making about accepting KDPI > 85 kidneys, centers must ensure that all patients receive education about the trade-offs between accepting a KDPI > 85 kidney and remaining on dialysis. Additionally, education about KDPI and discussions about informed consent for KDPI > 85 kidneys must be repeated at multiple time points while patients are on the waiting list.
SUBMITTER: Schantz K
PROVIDER: S-EPMC8683202 | biostudies-literature |
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Similar Datasets
Project description:OBJECTIVES:This study investigated how the essential elements of informed consent are realised during the consent process and examined the challenges in obtaining genuine informed consent in Korea. METHODS:Through purposive sampling, we recruited 21 subjects from those participating in anticancer drug research since 2013. We undertook 1:1 in-depth interviews and analysed the data by framework analysis. RESULTS:Themes raised throughout the interviews were categorised into 'disclosure' and 'understanding' of clinical information and 'decision'. Provider-centred information, both verbal and written, was delivered to each participant. There were few tools that the research staff might evaluate study participants' level of understanding of the provided information during the clinical trial. Although participants did not understand basic clinical trial concepts as much as desired, they may not seek to solve difficulties through communication with trial researchers. Doubts were raised about whether participants had sufficient capacity and free will to provide informed consent. CONCLUSION:There is a concern that informed consent can fall short of genuine in Korea. To ensure informed consent meets the international standard, greater efforts should be made to establish an explicit standard operational protocol for obtaining informed consent.
| S-EPMC6532870 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BACKGROUND:Although phase I clinical trials are the gateway to progress in cancer therapies, this setting poses ethical challenges to ensure that patients provide consent free from misunderstandings of therapeutic intent or unrealistic expectations of benefit. The design of phase I oncology trials has evolved rapidly over time and today includes more targeted agents and combinations of experimental drugs with standard drugs, which may further complicate how patients understand phase I research participation. METHODS:We conducted semistructured interviews regarding motivations, decision making, and understanding of trial purpose nested within a phase I clinical trial of a novel PI3kinase inhibitor combined with a standard oral chemotherapy in 18 participants. RESULTS:Fewer than half of patients correctly identified the safety and dosing objectives. The inclusion of a targeted agent was attractive to participants and was perceived as an indicator of less toxic or more efficacious therapy, with less appreciation for added risks. The significance of a cellular drug target, without a known predictive biomarker of response, was unclear to patients. The inclusion of a standard drug in the regimen attracted patients with more treatment options than traditional first-in-human participants. Patients frequently expressed a realistic understanding of prognosis and uncertainty of benefit, but simultaneous hopes for extraordinary outcomes. CONCLUSION:Novel phase I oncology trial designs may attract patients with less constrained treatment options, but the inclusion of targeted drugs and combinations including standard chemotherapies is likely to complicate understanding of safety and dosing objectives and likelihood of personal benefit for purposes of informed consent.
| S-EPMC5640413 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Informed consent process is the cornerstone of ethics in clinical research. Obtaining informed consent from patients participating in clinical research is an important legal and ethical imperative for clinical trial researchers. Although informed consent is an important process in clinical research, its effectiveness and validity are always a concern. Issues related to understanding, comprehension, competence, and voluntariness of clinical trial participants may adversely affect the informed consent process. Communication of highly technical, complex, and specialized clinical trial information to participants with limited literacy, diverse sociocultural background, diminished autonomy, and debilitating diseases is a difficult task for clinical researchers. It is therefore essential to investigate and adopt innovative communication strategies to enhance understanding of clinical trial information among participants. This review article visits the challenges that affect the informed consent process and explores various innovative strategies to enhance the consent process.
| S-EPMC5543760 | biostudies-other
Project description:BACKGROUND:Underutilization of marginal-quality kidneys for transplantation produced ideas of expediting kidney placement for populations with decreased opportunities of receiving transplants. Such policies can be less efficacious for specific individuals and should be scrutinized until the decision-making for accepting marginal-quality organs, which has relied on experiential judgment, is better understood at the individual level. There exist rigorous tools promoting personalized decisions with useful and objective information. METHODS:This article introduces a decision-tree methodology that analyzes a patient's dilemma: to accept a kidney offer now or reject it. The methodology calculates the survival benefit of accepting a kidney given a certain quality now and the survival benefit of rejecting it. Survival benefit calculation accounts for patients' and donors' characteristics and transplant centers' and organ procurement organizations' performances and incorporates patients' perceived transplant and dialysis utilities. Valuations of rejecting an offer are contingent on future opportunities and subject to uncertainty in the timing of successive kidney offers and their quality and donor characteristics. RESULTS:The decision tree was applied to a realistic patient profile as a demonstration. The tool was tested on 1000 deceased-donor kidney offers in 2016. Evaluating up to 1 year of future offers, the tool attains 61% accuracy, with transplant utility of 1.0 and dialysis utility of 0.5. The accuracy reveals potential bias in kidney offer acceptance/rejection at transplant centers. CONCLUSIONS:The decision-tree tool presented could aid personalized transplant decision-making in the future by providing patients with calculated, individualized survival benefits between accepting and rejecting a kidney offer.
| S-EPMC6488358 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Abstract The depths of the impact of COVID‐19 on nearly every aspect of our personal and professional lives was becoming painfully clear in May and June of 2020. While institutions of higher education had implemented crisis/emergency plans in the immediate onset of the pandemic, and largely extended those efforts into summer terms, the fall 2020 term loomed large. Institutional researchers were asked for myriad kinds of data and reports, ostensibly to inform executive leaders’ decision‐making regarding how to operate for the fall term. On its face, this fits with the current conceptualization of IR's work largely as decision support. Despite these requests, however, the question remains as to what was really driving decision‐making about the fall. This research examined a random, representative sample of public statements regarding fall operations, often released in the name of a president or chancellor, to determine what factors these leaders espoused publicly as informing their fall plans.
| S-EPMC8652806 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Kidneys with "high" Kidney Donor Profile Index (KDPI) are often biopsied and pumped, yet frequently discarded.In this multicenter study, we describe the characteristics and outcomes of kidneys with KDPI of 80 or greater that were procured from 338 deceased donors. We excluded donors with anatomical kidney abnormalities.Donors were categorized by the number of kidneys discarded: (1) none (n = 154, 46%), (2) 1 discarded and 1 transplanted (n = 48, 14%), (3) both discarded (n = 136, 40%). Donors in group 3 were older, more often white, and had higher terminal creatinine and KDPI than group 1 (all P < 0.05). Biopsy was performed in 92% of all kidneys, and 47% were pumped. Discard was associated with biopsy findings and first hour renal resistance. Kidney injury biomarker levels (neutrophil gelatinase-associated lipocalin, IL-18, and kidney injury molecule-1 measured from donor urine at procurement and from perfusate soon after pump perfusion) were not different between groups. There was no significant difference in 1-year estimated glomerular filtration rate or graft failure between groups 1 and 2 (41.5 ± 18 vs 41.4 ± 22 mL/min per 1.73 m; P = 0.97 and 9% vs 10%; P = 0.76).Kidneys with KDPI of 80 or greater comprise the most resource consuming fraction of our donor kidney pool and have the highest rates of discard. Our data suggest that some discarded kidneys with KDPI of 80 or greater are viable; however, current tools and urine and perfusate biomarkers to identify these viable kidneys are not satisfactory. We need better methods to assess viability of kidneys with high KDPI.
| S-EPMC5290306 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Background Thorough information of the patient is an integral part of the process of shared decision making. We aimed to investigate if detailed information about medication may induce nocebo (or placebo) effects. Methods We conducted a randomized, single-blind, pilot-study including n =?51 psychiatric in-patients aged between 18 and 80?years with a depressive disorder and accompanying sleeping disorders. In the intervention group we provided thorough information about adverse effects, while the control group received only a simple consent procedure. In both groups, patients received an open-label placebo pill instead of their sleeping medication. Results No statistically significant differences between the intervention group and the control group were found regarding the main outcome parameter (a visual analogue scale indicating impairment by the new pill). Conclusion In this study, we were not able detect an effect of informed consent vs. simple consent on the emergence of placebo or nocebo effects. This finding is contrary to most assumptions and publications about this topic. Trial registration Trial registration number: DRKS00017653, registered August 30th 2018. Retrosprectively registered.
| S-EPMC7557071 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Careful patient-clinician shared decision-making about dialysis initiation has been promoted, but few studies have addressed patient perspectives on the extent of information provided and how decisions to start dialysis are made.Ninety-nine maintenance dialysis patients recruited from 15 outpatient dialysis centers in North Carolina completed semistructured interviews on information provision and communication about the initiation of dialysis. These data were examined with content analysis. In addition, informed decision-making (IDM) scores were created by summing patient responses (yes/no) to 10 questions about the decision-making.The mean IDM score was 4.4 (of 10; SD = 2.0); 67% scored 5 or lower. Age at the time of decision-making (r = -0.27, P = 0.006), years of education (r = 0.24, P = 0.02) and presence of a warning about progressing to end-stage kidney disease (t = 2.9, P = 0.005) were significantly associated with IDM scores. Nearly 70% said that the risks and burdens of dialysis were not mentioned at all, and only one patient recalled that the doctor offered the option of not starting dialysis. While a majority (67%) said that they felt they had no choice about starting dialysis (because the alternative would be death) or about dialysis modality, only 21.2% said that they had felt rushed to make a decision. About one-third of the patients perceived that the decision to start dialysis and modality was already made by the doctor.A majority of patients felt unprepared and ill-informed about the initiation of dialysis. Improving the extent of IDM about dialysis may optimize patient preparation prior to starting treatment and their perceptions about the decision-making process.
| S-EPMC3811056 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundPublic health professionals are increasingly expected to engage in evidence-informed decision making to inform practice and policy decisions. Evidence-informed decision making involves the use of research evidence along with expertise, existing public health resources, knowledge about community health issues, the local context and community, and the political climate. The National Collaborating Centre for Methods and Tools has identified a seven step process for evidence-informed decision making. Tools have been developed to support public health professionals as they work through each of these steps. This paper provides an overview of tools used in three Canadian public health departments involved in a study to develop capacity for evidence-informed decision making.MethodsAs part of a knowledge translation and exchange intervention, a Knowledge Broker worked with public health professionals to identify and apply tools for use with each of the steps of evidence-informed decision making. The Knowledge Broker maintained a reflective journal and interviews were conducted with a purposive sample of decision makers and public health professionals. This paper presents qualitative analysis of the perceived usefulness and usability of the tools.ResultsTools were used in the health departments to assist in: question identification and clarification; searching for the best available research evidence; assessing the research evidence for quality through critical appraisal; deciphering the 'actionable message(s)' from the research evidence; tailoring messages to the local context to ensure their relevance and suitability; deciding whether and planning how to implement research evidence in the local context; and evaluating the effectiveness of implementation efforts. Decision makers provided descriptions of how the tools were used within the health departments and made suggestions for improvement. Overall, the tools were perceived as valuable for advancing and sustaining evidence-informed decision making.ConclusionTools are available to support the process of evidence-informed decision making among public health professionals. The usability and usefulness of these tools for advancing and sustaining evidence-informed decision making are discussed, including recommendations for the tools' application in other public health settings beyond this study. Knowledge and awareness of these tools may assist other health professionals in their efforts to implement evidence-informed practice.
| S-EPMC4223550 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundHealth insurance enrollment is a difficult financial decision with large health impacts. Challenges such as low health insurance literacy and lack of knowledge about choosing a plan further complicate this decision-making process. Therefore, to support consumers in their choice of a health insurance plan, it is essential to understand how individuals go about making this decision.ObjectiveThis study aims to understand the sources of information used by individuals to support their employer-provided health insurance enrollment decisions. It seeks to describe how individual descriptive factors lead to choosing a particular type of information source.MethodsAn introduction was presented on health insurance plan selection and the sources of information used to support these decisions from the 1980s to the present. Subsequently, an electronic survey of 151 full-time faculty and staff members was conducted. The survey consisted of four sections: demographics, sources of information, health insurance literacy, and technology acceptance. Descriptive statistics were used to show the demographic characteristics of the 126 eligible respondents and to study the response behaviors in the remaining survey sections. Proportion data analysis was performed using the Cochran-Armitage trend test to understand the strength of the association between our variables and the types of sources used by the respondents.ResultsIn terms of demographics, most of the respondents were women (103/126, 81.7%), represented a small household (1-2 persons; 87/126, 69%), and used their insurance 3-12 times a year (52/126, 41.3%). They assessed themselves as having moderate to high health insurance literacy and high acceptance of technology. The most selected and top-ranked sources were Official employer or state websites and Official Human Resources Virtual Benefits Counselor Alex. From our data analysis, we found that the use of official primary sources was constant across age groups and health insurance use groups. Meanwhile, the use of friends or family as a primary source slightly decreased as age and use increased.ConclusionsIn this exploratory study, we identified the main sources of health insurance information among full-time employees from a large state university and found that most of the respondents needed 2-3 sources to gather all the information that they desired. We also studied and identified the relationships between individual factors (such as age, gender, and literacy) and 2 dependent variables on the types of primary sources of information. We encountered several limitations, which will be addressed in future studies.
| S-EPMC8391737 | biostudies-literature