Advance Care Planning and Palliative Care Consultation in Kidney Transplantation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
RATIONALE & OBJECTIVE: Because of the high risk of waitlist mortality and posttransplant complications, kidney transplant (KT) patients may benefit from advance care planning (ACP) and palliative care consultation (PCC). We quantified the prevalence and racial disparities in ACP and PCC among KT candidates and recipients. STUDY DESIGN: Prospective cohort study. SETTING & PARTICIPANTS: 2,575 adult KT candidates and 1,233 adult recipients (2008-2020). EXPOSURE: Race and ethnicity. OUTCOMES: All reports of ACP and PCC were abstracted from chart review. ACP was defined as patient self-report of an advance directive, presence of an advance directive in the medical record, or a documented goals-of-care conversation with a provider. PCC was defined as an ordered referral or a documented palliative care note in the medical record. ANALYTICAL APPROACH: Racial/ethnic disparities in ACP/PCC were estimated using adjusted logistic regression. RESULTS: 21.4% of KT candidates and 34.9% of recipients engaged in ACP. There were racial/ethnic disparities in ACP among KT candidates (White, 24.4%; Black, 19.1%; Hispanic, 15%; other race and ethnicity, 21.1%; P=0.008) and recipients (White, 39.5%; Black, 31.2%; Hispanic, 26.3%; other race and ethnicity, 26.6%; P=0.007). After adjustment, Black KT recipients had a 29% lower likelihood of engaging in ACP (OR, 0.71; 95% CI, 0.55-0.91) than White KT recipients. Among older (aged≥65 years) recipients, those who were Black had a lower likelihood of engaging in ACP, but there was no racial disparity among younger recipients (P=0.020 for interaction). 4.2% of KT candidates and 5.1% of KT recipients engaged in PCC; there were no racial disparities in PCC among KT candidates (White, 5.3%; Black, 3.6%; Hispanic, 2.5%; other race and ethnicity, 2.1%; P=0.13) or recipients (White, 5.5%; Black, 5.6%; Hispanic, 0.0%; other race and ethnicity, 1.3%; P = 0.21). LIMITATIONS: Generalizability may be limited to academic transplant centers. CONCLUSIONS: ACP is not common among KT patients, and minoritized transplant patients are least likely to engage in ACP; PCC is less common. Future efforts should aim to integrate ACP and PCC into the KT process. PLAIN-LANGUAGE SUMMARY: Kidney transplant (KT) candidates and recipients are at elevated risk of morbidity and mortality. They may benefit from completing a document or conversation with their palliative care provider that outlines their future health care wishes, known as advance care planning (ACP), which is a component of palliative care consultation (PCC). We wanted to determine how many KT candidates and recipients have engaged in ACP or PCC and identify potential racial disparities. We found that 21.4% of candidates and 34.9% of recipients engaged in ACP. After adjustment, Black recipients had a 29% lower likelihood of engaging in ACP. We found that 4.2% of KT candidates and 5.1% of KT recipients engaged in PCC, with no racial disparities found in PCC.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".