4.6 Article

Use of a Decision Aid for Patients Considering Peritoneal Dialysis and In-Center Hemodialysis: A Randomized Controlled Trial

期刊

AMERICAN JOURNAL OF KIDNEY DISEASES
卷 74, 期 3, 页码 351-360

出版社

W B SAUNDERS CO-ELSEVIER INC
DOI: 10.1053/j.ajkd.2019.01.030

关键词

-

资金

  1. Amgen
  2. Association of German Nephrology Centres (Verband Deutsche Nierenzentren e.V.)
  3. AstraZeneca
  4. European Renal Association-European Dialysis and Transplant Association
  5. German Society of Nephrology
  6. Hexal AG
  7. Janssen
  8. Japanese Society for Peritoneal Dialysis
  9. Keryx
  10. Proteon
  11. Relypsa
  12. Roche
  13. Societa Italiana di Nefrologia
  14. Spanish Society of Nephrology
  15. Vifor Fresenius Medical Care Renal Pharma
  16. Australia: National Health & Medical Research Council
  17. Canada: Canadian Institutes of Health Research
  18. France: Agence Nationale de la Recherche
  19. Thailand: Thailand Research Foundation
  20. Thailand: Chulalongkorn University Matching Fund
  21. Thailand: King Chulalongkorn Memorial Hospital Matching Fund
  22. Thailand: National Research Council of Thailand
  23. United Kingdom: National Institute for Health Research via the Comprehensive Clinical Research Network
  24. United States: National Institutes of Health
  25. United States: PCORI
  26. Canada: Ontario Renal Network
  27. Kyowa Hakko Kirin
  28. Baxter Healthcare

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Rationale & Objective: Annually, about 100,000 US patients face the difficult choice between the most common dialysis types, in-center hemodialysis and peritoneal dialysis. This study evaluated the value of a new decision aid to assist in the choice of dialysis modality. Study Design: A parallel-group randomized controlled trial to test the efficacy of the decision aid on decision-making outcomes. Setting & Participants: English-speaking US adults with advanced chronic kidney disease and internet access enrolled in 2015. Intervention: Participants randomly assigned to the decision aid intervention received information about chronic kidney disease, peritoneal dialysis, and hemodialysis and a value clarification exercise through the study website using their own electronic devices. Participants in the control arm were only required to complete the control questionnaire. Questionnaire responses were used to assess differences across arms in decision-making outcomes. Outcomes: Treatment preference, decisional conflict, decision self-efficacy, knowledge, and preparation for decision making. Results: Of 234 consented participants, 94 (40.2%) were lost to follow-up before starting the study. Among the 140 (70 in each arm) who started the study, 7 were subsequently lost to follow-up. Decision aid users had lower decisional conflict scores (42.5 vs 29.1; P < 0.001) and higher average knowledge scores (90.3 vs 76.5; P < 0.001). Both arms had high decisional self-efficacy scores independent of decision aid use. Uncertainty about choice of dialysis treatment declined from 46% to 16% after using the decision aid. Almost all (>90%) users of the decision aid reported that it helped in decision making. Limitations: Limited generalizability from the study of self-selected study participants who had to have internet access, speak English, and have computer literacy. High postrandomization loss to follow-up. Evaluation of only short-term outcomes. Conclusions: The decision aid improves decision-making outcomes immediately after use. Implementation of the decision aid in clinical practice may allow further assessment of its effects on patient engagement and empowerment in choosing a dialysis modality.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据