4.5 Article

Comparison of patient and provider goals, expectations, and experiences following kidney transplantation

Journal

PATIENT EDUCATION AND COUNSELING
Volume 102, Issue 5, Pages 990-997

Publisher

ELSEVIER IRELAND LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.pec.2018.12.010

Keywords

Outpatient care; Patient education; Quality of care/care delivery; Quality of life (QOL); Kidney transplant recipient

Funding

  1. MCubed, a University of Michigan seed-funding program

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Objective: This study examined whether kidney transplant recipients' post-transplant goals and expectations align with those as perceived by their healthcare providers. Methods: Post-transplant goals and expectations across four domains were assessed via a descriptive survey of healthcare providers (N=72) and kidney transplant recipients (N=476) at the University of Michigan from March 23 - October 1, 2015. Demographic and transplant-related data were collected via a retrospective review of medical records, and survey responses were compared using Chi-square tests, Wilcoxon two-sample tests, and logistic regression. Results: Patients expressed higher quality of life (mean Neuro-QOL T-score 60.2 vs. 52.7), were less likely to report that they were currently experiencing complications (11% vs. 24%), and anticipated their transplants to last longer (median 25 vs. 15 years) and to live longer (median 80 vs. 71 years) than providers expected for their typical patient. However, provider perceptions of patients' future ability to feel well, perform daily activities and work were significantly higher than those expressed by patients (all p<0.05). Conclusion: Kidney transplant patient and provider expectations differ in significant ways. Practice implications: Identified areas of discordance may provide opportunities for patients and providers to better evaluate treatment option tradeoffs in post-transplant clinical interactions. (C) 2018 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.5
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available