Shared Decision-Making and Dialysis Choice (SDM-DC)
Shared Decision-Making and Dialysis Choice: A Complex Intervention
Study Overview
Status
Status
Conditions
Conditions
Intervention / Treatment
Intervention / Treatment
Detailed Description
Study Type
Study Type
Enrollment (Actual)
Enrollment
Phase
Phase
- Not Applicable
Participation Criteria
Eligibility Criteria
Eligibility Criteria
Ages Eligible for Study
Accepts Healthy Volunteers
Genders Eligible for Study
Description
Inclusion Criteria:
- Estimated glomerular filtration rate below 20 ml/min
- A clinical judgement made by the contact nurse and the contact physician
Exclusion Criteria:
- Conservative care
- A set date for a transplantation with a living donor
- Not able to participate due to cognitive impairment
Study Plan
How is the study designed?
Design Details
- Primary Purpose: SUPPORTIVE_CARE
- Allocation: NA
- Interventional Model: SINGLE_GROUP
- Masking: NONE
Number of Arms
Arms and Interventions
Participant Group / ArmParticipant Group / Arm |
Intervention / TreatmentIntervention / Treatment |
|---|---|
|
OTHER: SDM-DC
All adult patients with kidney failure referred to a department of renal medicine at one of the four hospitals from the 1st of October 2016 to the 31st of May 2018 were offered the intervention and invited to participate in the study.
The inclusion criterion was an estimated glomerular filtration rate below 20 ml/min and based on a clinical judgement made by the contact doctor and/or the contact nurse about the decline in the Estimated glomerular filtration rate to continue.
Exclusion criteria were patients who had decided on conservative management, patients with a living donor and a set date for transplantation and patients not able to participate in the intervention due to cognitive impairment.
The use of an interpreter was not an exclusion criterion.
|
The SDM-DC intervention is designed for patients with kidney failure who must make a decision regarding type of dialysis: haemodialysis or peritoneal dialysis.
SDM-DC consists of patient and his or her relative(s) being given a patient decision aid called 'Dialysis choice' and booked for meetings with a dialysis coordinator.
There were optional videos describing other patients' experiences making this decision.
The dialysis coordinators were trained in the why, what and how in relation to SDM-DC and to deliver the intervention by tailoring to patients' needs and using three different communication skills: mirroring, active listening and value clarification.
Other Names:
|
What is the study measuring?
Primary Outcome Measures
Primary Outcome Measures
Outcome Measure |
Measure Description |
Time Frame |
|---|---|---|
|
Patients experiences of a shared decision-making process
Time Frame: 14 days after interventions
|
Shared decision-making questionnaire was used to measure patients' perception of shared decision-making in the clinical encounter.
It consists of nine statements to be rated on a six-point scale from 'completely disagree' (0) to 'completely agree' (5) The quality of the decision-making process was calculated as the mean score for each item in the SDM-Q9.
To provide a total score of the SDM-Q9 a sum of all items was calculated and standardized on a scale on 0-100.
|
14 days after interventions
|
|
Knowledge, readiness for decision-making and decision quality
Time Frame: 14 days after interventions
|
Decision Quality Measurement was used to measure the quality of the decision.
The questionnaire consists of six knowledge statements and six readiness statements.
All items on the questionnaire were rated as yes, no or unsure.
It also consists of two open questions.
A total knowledge and readiness score was calculated and standardized out of 100.
Open questions were analysed using descriptive qualitative analysis and reported based on most common to least common comments.
We decided that for a home-based treatment and choosing 'Treatment at home' in the preference question or deciding for a hospital-based treatment and not choosing 'Treatment at home' in the preference question were considered as concordant choices.
Decision quality was defined as a knowledge score >66% on the knowledge score and combined with the concordance score.
|
14 days after interventions
|
Collaborators and Investigators
Sponsor
Sponsor
Collaborators
Collaborators
Investigators
Investigators
- Principal Investigator: Jeanette Finderup, Master, Aarhus University Hospital
Publications and helpful links
Study record dates
Study Major Dates
Study Start (ACTUAL)
Study Start
Primary Completion (ACTUAL)
Primary Completion
Study Completion (ACTUAL)
Study Completion
Study Registration Dates
First Submitted
First Submitted
First Submitted That Met QC Criteria
First Submitted That Met QC Criteria
First Posted (ACTUAL)
First Posted
Study Record Updates
Last Update Posted (ACTUAL)
Last Update Posted
Last Update Submitted That Met QC Criteria
Last Update Submitted That Met QC Criteria
Last Verified
Last Verified
More Information
Terms related to this study
Additional Relevant MeSH Terms
Other Study ID Numbers
Other Study ID Numbers
- 04032019
Plan for Individual participant data (IPD)
Plan to Share Individual Participant Data (IPD)?
IPD Plan Description
Drug and device information, study documents
Studies a U.S. FDA-regulated drug product
Studies a U.S. FDA-regulated device product
This information was retrieved directly from the website clinicaltrials.gov without any changes. If you have any requests to change, remove or update your study details, please contact register@clinicaltrials.gov. As soon as a change is implemented on clinicaltrials.gov, this will be updated automatically on our website as well.