MétaCan
Menu
Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W3192756703 · doi:10.1016/j.xkme.2021.05.011

Preferences for and Experiences of Shared and Informed Decision Making Among Patients Choosing Kidney Replacement Therapies in Nephrology Care

2021· article· en· W3192756703 sur OpenAlexfundno aff
Tyler M. Barrett, Jamie A. Green, Raquel C. Greer, Patti L. Ephraim, Sarah B. Peskoe, Jane Pendergast, Tara S. Strigo, Evan Norfolk, Ion D. Bucaloiu, Clarissa J. Diamantidis, Felicia Hill‐Briggs, Teri Browne, George L. Jackson, L. Ebony Boulware, Clare Il’Giovine, Jon Billet, Jason Browne, Charlotte Collins, Daniel E. Davis, Sherri Fulmer, Jamie Green, Michelle Richner, Cory Siegrist, Wendy Smeal, Rebecca Stametz, Mary Solomon, Christina Yule, Navdeep Tangri, Brian Bankes, Shakur Bolden, Patricia Danielson, Katina Lang‐Lindsey, Suzanne Ruff, Lana Schmidt, Amy Swoboda, Peter Woods, Diana Clynes, Stephanie Stewart, Dori Schatell, Kristi Klicko, Brandi Vinson, Jennifer St. Clair Russell, Kelli K. Collins, Jennifer A. Martin, Dale Singer, Diane Littlewood

Notice bibliographique

RevueKidney Medicine · 2021
Typearticle
Langueen
DomaineHealth Professions
ThématiquePatient-Provider Communication in Healthcare
Établissements canadiensnon disponible
Organismes subventionnairesAmerican Association of Kidney PatientsUniversity of ManitobaUniversity of South CarolinaJohns Hopkins UniversityPatient-Centered Outcomes Research InstituteNational Kidney Foundation
Mots-clésNephrologyMedicineKidney diseaseDialysisRenal functionRenal replacement therapyInternal medicineLogistic regressionKidney transplantationFamily medicineIntensive care medicineKidney

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

Rationale & ObjectiveChronic kidney disease (CKD) can progress rapidly, and patients are often unprepared to make kidney failure treatment decisions. We aimed to better understand patients’ preferences for and experiences of shared and informed decision making (SDM) regarding kidney replacement therapy before kidney failure.Study DesignCross-sectional study.Setting & ParticipantsAdults receiving nephrology care at CKD clinics in rural Pennsylvania.PredictorsEstimated glomerular filtration rate, 2-year risk for kidney failure, duration and frequency of nephrology care, and preference for SDM.OutcomesOccurrence and extent of kidney replacement therapy discussions and participants’ satisfaction with those discussions.Analytic ApproachMultivariable logistic regression to quantify associations between participants’ characteristics and whether they had discussions.ResultsThe 447 study participants had a median age of 72 (IQR, 64-80) years and mean estimated glomerular filtration rate of 33 (SD, 12) mL/min/1.73 m2. Most (96%) were White, high school educated (67%), and retired (65%). Most (72%) participants preferred a shared approach to kidney treatment decision making, and only 35% discussed dialysis or transplantation with their kidney teams. Participants who had discussions (n = 158) were often completely satisfied (63%) but infrequently discussed potential treatment-related impacts on their lives. In multivariable analyses, those with a high risk for kidney failure within 2 years (OR, 3.24 [95% CI, 1.72-6.11]; P < 0.01), longer-term nephrology care (OR, 1.12 [95% CI, 1.05-1.20] per 1 additional year; P < 0.01), and more nephrology visits in the prior 2 years (OR, 1.34 [95% CI, 1.20-1.51] per 1 additional visit; P < 0.01) had higher odds of having discussed dialysis or transplantation.LimitationsSingle health system study.ConclusionsMost patients preferred sharing CKD treatment decisions with their providers, but treatment discussions were infrequent and often did not address key treatment impacts. Longitudinal nephrology care and frequent visits may help ensure that patients have optimal SDM experiences. Chronic kidney disease (CKD) can progress rapidly, and patients are often unprepared to make kidney failure treatment decisions. We aimed to better understand patients’ preferences for and experiences of shared and informed decision making (SDM) regarding kidney replacement therapy before kidney failure. Cross-sectional study. Adults receiving nephrology care at CKD clinics in rural Pennsylvania. Estimated glomerular filtration rate, 2-year risk for kidney failure, duration and frequency of nephrology care, and preference for SDM. Occurrence and extent of kidney replacement therapy discussions and participants’ satisfaction with those discussions. Multivariable logistic regression to quantify associations between participants’ characteristics and whether they had discussions. The 447 study participants had a median age of 72 (IQR, 64-80) years and mean estimated glomerular filtration rate of 33 (SD, 12) mL/min/1.73 m2. Most (96%) were White, high school educated (67%), and retired (65%). Most (72%) participants preferred a shared approach to kidney treatment decision making, and only 35% discussed dialysis or transplantation with their kidney teams. Participants who had discussions (n = 158) were often completely satisfied (63%) but infrequently discussed potential treatment-related impacts on their lives. In multivariable analyses, those with a high risk for kidney failure within 2 years (OR, 3.24 [95% CI, 1.72-6.11]; P < 0.01), longer-term nephrology care (OR, 1.12 [95% CI, 1.05-1.20] per 1 additional year; P < 0.01), and more nephrology visits in the prior 2 years (OR, 1.34 [95% CI, 1.20-1.51] per 1 additional visit; P < 0.01) had higher odds of having discussed dialysis or transplantation. Single health system study. Most patients preferred sharing CKD treatment decisions with their providers, but treatment discussions were infrequent and often did not address key treatment impacts. Longitudinal nephrology care and frequent visits may help ensure that patients have optimal SDM experiences.

Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.

Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier

Prédiction machine sur la base complète

Imitation des enseignants

Ni prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.

score de la tête « metaresearch » (Codex)0,007
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,018
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cStatut de validation: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Catégories candidatesaucune
Catégories consensuellesaucune
DomaineSignal candidat: aucune · Signal consensuel: aucune
Devis d'étudeSignal candidat: Qualitatif · Signal consensuel: aucune
GenreSignal candidat: Empirique · Signal consensuel: Empirique
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,007
Score d'incertitude au seuil0,036

Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0070,018
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0000,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0000,001
Bibliométrie0,0000,000
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0020,002
Communication savante0,0030,002
Science ouverte0,0010,002
Intégrité de la recherche0,0010,002
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,0030,000

Scores machine (provisoires)

Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.

Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.

Tête enseignante Opus0,109
Tête enseignante GPT0,424
Écart entre enseignants0,314 · la distance entre les deux têtes enseignantes sur ce seul travail
Statut de validationscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découle

Classification

machine, non validée

Prédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.

Les modèles n’ont appliqué aucune catégorie : rien dans la taxonomie ne correspondait à ce travail.
Devis d'étudeQualitatif
Domainenon disponible
GenreEmpirique

Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».

En bref

Citations32
Publié2021
Routes d'admission1
Résumé présentoui

Explorer davantage

Même revueKidney MedicineMême sujetPatient-Provider Communication in HealthcareTravaux en français237 207