4.7 Article

Associations among perceived and objective disease knowledge and satisfaction with physician communication in patients with chronic kidney disease

Journal

KIDNEY INTERNATIONAL
Volume 80, Issue 12, Pages 1344-1351

Publisher

ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1038/ki.2011.240

Keywords

health literacy; kidney disease; objective knowledge; patient knowledge; perceived knowledge

Funding

  1. NIH, National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases [T32 DK007569, K23 DK080952-02S1, K24 DK062849]
  2. American Kidney Fund, Clinical Scientist in Nephrology Fellowship

Ask authors/readers for more resources

It is likely that patients with chronic kidney disease (CKD) have a limited understanding of their illness. Here we studied the relationships between objective and perceived knowledge in CKD using the Kidney Disease Knowledge Survey and the Perceived Kidney Disease Knowledge Survey. We quantified perceived and objective knowledge in 399 patients at all stages of non-dialysis-dependent CKD. Demographically, the patient median age was 58 years, 47% were women, 77% had stages 3-5 CKD, and 83% were Caucasians. The overall median score of the perceived knowledge survey was 2.56 (range: 1-4), and this new measure exhibited excellent reliability and construct validity. In unadjusted analysis, perceived knowledge was associated with patient characteristics defined a priori, including objective knowledge and patient satisfaction with physician communication. In adjusted analysis, older age, male gender, and limited health literacy were associated with lower perceived knowledge. Additional analysis revealed that perceived knowledge was associated with significantly higher odds (2.13), and objective knowledge with lower odds (0.91), of patient satisfaction with physician communication. Thus, our results present a mechanism to evaluate distinct forms of patient kidney knowledge and identify specific opportunities for education tailored to patients with CKD.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available