4.5 Article

Use of a Supportive Kidney Care Video Decision Aid in Older Patients: A Randomized Controlled Trial

期刊

AMERICAN JOURNAL OF NEPHROLOGY
卷 51, 期 9, 页码 736-744

出版社

KARGER
DOI: 10.1159/000509711

关键词

Chronic kidney disease; Dialysis decision-making; Supportive kidney care; Palliative nephrology

资金

  1. NIH [K23DK114526]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background:There are few studies of patient-facing decision aids that include supportive kidney care as an option. We tested the efficacy of a video decision aid on knowledge of supportive kidney care among older patients with advanced CKD.Methods:Participants (age >= 65 years with advanced CKD) were randomized to receive verbal or video education. Primary outcome was knowledge of supportive kidney care (score range 0-3). Secondary outcomes included preference for supportive kidney care, and satisfaction and acceptability of the video.Results:Among all participants (n= 100), knowledge of supportive kidney care increased significantly after receiving education (p< 0.01); however, there was no difference between study arms (p= 0.68). There was no difference in preference for supportive kidney care between study arms (p= 0.49). In adjusted analyses, total health literacy score (aOR 1.08 [95% CI: 1.003-1.165]) and nephrologists' answer of No to the Surprise Question (aOR 4.87 [95% CI: 1.22-19.43]) were associated with preference for supportive kidney care. Most felt comfortable watching the video (96%), felt the content was helpful (96%), and would recommend the video to others (96%).Conclusions:Among older patients with advanced CKD, we did not detect a significant difference between an educational verbal script and a video decision aid in improving knowledge of supportive kidney care or preferences. However, patients who received video education reported high satisfaction and acceptability ratings. Future research will determine the effectiveness of a supportive kidney care video decision aid on real-world patient outcomes.

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

4.5
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