The WISHED Randomized Controlled Trial: Impact of an Interactive Health Communication Application on Home Dialysis Use in People With Chronic Kidney Disease

Amber O Molnar, Andrea Harvey, Michael Walsh, Arsh K Jain, Eric Bosch, K Scott Brimble, Amber O Molnar, Andrea Harvey, Michael Walsh, Arsh K Jain, Eric Bosch, K Scott Brimble

Abstract

Background: While home dialysis therapies are more cost effective and may offer improved health-related quality of life, uptake compared to in-center hemodialysis remains low.

Objective: To test whether a web-based interactive health communication application (IHCA) compared to usual care would increase home dialysis use.

Design: Randomized control trial.

Setting: Patients were recruited from 3 multidisciplinary kidney clinics across Ontario, Canada (Hamilton, Kingston, London).

Patients: We included adults with advanced chronic kidney disease (CKD) followed in multidisciplinary kidney clinics. Patients who had not completed dialysis modality education, who did not have access to a home computer or the internet, who had significant hearing or vision impairment, who could not read/write/speak English, who had a medical contraindication for home dialysis, or who had selected conservative kidney care were excluded.

Measurements: The primary outcome was any use of home dialysis (peritoneal dialysis or home hemodialysis) within 90 days of dialysis initiation. Secondary outcomes were social support, decision conflict and dialysis knowledge measured at baseline, 6 months and 1 year.

Methods: Eligible patients were randomized to either usual care or the IHCA in addition to usual care in a 1:1 ratio. As part of usual care, all patients received education about dialysis modalities and kidney transplantation delivered by clinic nurses according to local practices. Randomization was performed using a computer-generated sequence in randomly permuted block sizes, stratified by site, and allocation occurred using sequentially numbered sealed, opaque envelopes. Participants, care providers, and outcome assessors were not blinded to the intervention. All analyses were performed blinded using an intention to treat approach. We estimated the effect of the ICHA on the odds of the primary outcome using unadjusted logistic regression models. Linear mixed models for repeated measures over time were used to analyze the impact of the IHCA on the secondary outcomes of interest.

Results: We randomized 140 (usual care, n = 71; IHCA, n = 69) out of a planned 264 patients (mean [SD] age 61 [14.5] years, 65% men). Among patients randomized to the IHCA group that completed 6-month and 1-year follow-up visits, 56.8% and 71.4%, respectively, had not accessed the IHCA website within the past month. There were 23 (32.4%) and 26 (37.7%) patients in the usual care and IHCA groups who received a home dialysis therapy within 90 days of dialysis initiation (odds ratio, OR = 1.3, 95% CI = [0.6-2.5], P = .5). Among the 78 patients who initiated dialysis (n = 38 usual care, n = 40 IHCA), 60.5% and 65% in the usual care and IHCA groups received a home therapy within 90 days of dialysis initiation (OR = 1.2, 95% CI = [0.5-3.0], P = .7). Secondary outcomes did not differ by intervention group over time.

Limitations: The trial was underpowered due to poor recruitment and use of the IHCA was low.

Conclusions: We did not find evidence of a difference in home dialysis uptake with IHCA use, but our analyses were notably underpowered. The incorporation of greater patient engagement, qualitative research and design research, and pilot implementation may help future evaluations of strategies to improve home dialysis uptake.

Trial registration: ClinicalTrials.gov #NCT01403454, registration date: Jul 21, 2011.

Keywords: chronic kidney disease; dialysis; education; home dialysis; trial.

Conflict of interest statement

Declaration of Conflicting Interests: The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

© The Author(s) 2021.

Figures

Figure 1.
Figure 1.
Patient flow diagram. Note. IHCA = interactive health communication application. *Screening data only available up to the point that 94 (67.1%) participants were enrolled.

References

    1. Beaudry A, Ferguson TW, Rigatto C, Tangri N, Dumanski S, Komenda P. Cost of dialysis therapy by modality in Manitoba. Clin J Am Soc Nephrol. 2018;13:1197-1203.
    1. Berger A, Edelsberg J, Inglese GW, Bhattacharyya SK, Oster G. Cost comparison of peritoneal dialysis versus hemodialysis in end-stage renal disease. Am J Manag Care. 2009;15(8):509-518.
    1. Boateng EA, East L. The impact of dialysis modality on quality of life: a systematic review. J Ren Care. 2011;37:190-200.
    1. Cameron JI, Whiteside C, Katz J, Devins GM. Differences in quality of life across renal replacement therapies: a meta-analytic comparison. Am J Kidney Dis. 2000;35(4):629-637.
    1. Walker RC, Hanson CS, Palmer SC, et al.. Patient and caregiver perspectives on home hemodialysis: a systematic review. Am J Kidney Dis. 2015;65(3):451-463.
    1. Chan CT, Blankestijn PJ, Dember LM, et al.. Dialysis initiation, modality choice, access, and prescription: conclusions from a Kidney Disease: Improving Global Outcomes (KDIGO) Controversies Conference. Kidney Int. 2019;96(1):37-47.
    1. Zhang AH, Bargman JM, Lok CE, et al.. Dialysis modality choices among chronic kidney disease patients: identifying the gaps to support patients on home-based therapies. Int Urol Nephrol. 2010;42(3):759-764.
    1. CADTH Optimal Use Reports. Dialysis Modalities for the Treatment of End-Stage Kidney Disease: Recommendations. Ottawa, ON, Canada: Canadian Agency for Drugs and Technologies in Health
    1. Cafazzo JA, Leonard K, Easty AC, Rossos PG, Chan CT. Patient-perceived barriers to the adoption of nocturnal home hemodialysis. Clin J Am Soc Nephrol. 2009;4(4):784-789.
    1. Levin A, Steven S, Selina A, Flora A, Sarah G, Braden M. Canadian chronic kidney disease clinics: a national survey of structure, function and models of care. Can J Kidney Health Dis. 2014;1:29.
    1. Goovaerts T, Jadoul M, Goffin E. Influence of a pre-dialysis education programme (PDEP) on the mode of renal replacement therapy. Nephrol Dial Transplant. 2005;20:1842-1847.
    1. Gómez CG, Valido P, Celadilla O, Bernaldo De, Quirós A.G., Mojón M. Validity of a standard information protocol provided to end-stage renal disease patients and its effect on treatment selection. Perit Dial Int. 1999;19(5):471-477.
    1. Manns BJ, Taub K, Vanderstraeten C, et al.. The impact of education on chronic kidney disease patients’ plans to initiate dialysis with self-care dialysis: a randomized trial. Kidney Int. 2005;68:1777-1783.
    1. Hanko J, Romann A, Taylor P, et al.. Optimizing AVF creation prior to dialysis start: the role of predialysis renal replacement therapy choices. Nephrol Dial Transplant. 2012;27:4205–4210.
    1. Keating PT, Walsh M, Ribic CM, Brimble KS. The impact of patient preference on dialysis modality and hemodialysis vascular access. BMC Nephrol. 2014;15:38.
    1. Murray E, Burns J, See TS, Lai R, Nazareth I. Interactive Health Communication Applications for people with chronic disease. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2005;4:CD004274.
    1. Harvey A, Walsh M, Jain AK, et al.. The WISHED trial: implementation of an interactive health communication application for patients with chronic kidney disease. Can J Kidney Health Dis. 2016;3:29.
    1. Schulz KF, Altman DG, Moher D. CONSORT 2010 statement: updated guidelines for reporting parallel group randomised trials. BMJ. 2010;340:C332.
    1. Rockwood K, Song X, MacKnight C, et al.. A global clinical measure of fitness and frailty in elderly people. CMAJ. 2005;173:489-495.
    1. Nasreddine ZS, Phillips NA, Bédirian V, et al.. The Montreal Cognitive Assessment, MoCA: a brief screening tool for mild cognitive impairment. J Am Geriatr Soc. 2005;53(4):695-699.
    1. Arozullah AM, Yarnold PR, Bennett CL, et al.. Development and validation of a short-form, rapid estimate of adult literacy in medicine. Med Care. 2007;45:1026-1033.
    1. O’Connor AM. Validation of a decisional conflict scale. Med Decis Making. 1995;15:25-30.
    1. Broadhead WE, Gehlbach SH, de Gruy FV, Kaplan BM. The Duke-UNC Functional Social Support Questionnaire. Measurement of social support in family medicine patients. Med Care. 1988;26:709-723.
    1. Jassal SV, Krishna G, Mallick NP, Mendelssohn DC. Attitudes of British Isles nephrologists towards dialysis modality selection: a questionnaire study. Nephrol Dial Transplant. 2002;17(3):474-477.
    1. Jung B, Blake PG, Mehta RL, Mendelssohn DC. Attitudes of Canadian nephrologists toward dialysis modality selection. Perit Dial Int. 1999;19(3):263-268.
    1. Mendelssohn DC, Mullaney SR, Jung B, Blake PG, Mehta RL. What do American nephologists think about dialysis modality selection. Am J Kidney Dis. 2001;37(1):22-29.
    1. Baigent C, Herrington WG, Coresh J, et al.. Challenges in conducting clinical trials in nephrology: conclusions from a Kidney Disease-Improving Global Outcomes (KDIGO) Controversies Conference. Kidney Int. 2017;92(2):297-305.
    1. Cukor D, Cohen LM, Cope EL, et al.. Patient and other stakeholder engagement in patient-centered outcomes research institute funded studies of patients with kidney diseases. Clin J Am Soc Nephrol. 2016;11:1703-1712.
    1. Natale P, Gutman T, Howell M, et al.. Recruitment and retention in clinical trials in chronic kidney disease: report from national workshops with patients, caregivers and health professionals. Nephrol Dial Transplant. 2020;35:755-764.
    1. Thabane L, Ma J, Chu R, et al.. A tutorial on pilot studies: the what, why and how. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2010;10:1.
    1. Fischer SH, David D, Crotty BH, Dierks M, Safran C. Acceptance and use of health information technology by community-dwelling elders. Int J Med Inform. 2014;83(9):624-635.
    1. Diamantidis CJ, Fink W, Yang S, et al.. Directed use of the internet for health information by patients with chronic kidney disease: prospective cohort study. J Med Internet Res. 2013;15:E251.
    1. Goldstein K, Briggs M, Oleynik V, et al.. Using digital media to promote kidney disease education. Adv Chronic Kidney Dis. 2013;20(4):364-369.
    1. McGillicuddy JW, Gregoski MJ, Weiland AK, et al.. Mobile health medication adherence and blood pressure control in renal transplant recipients: a proof-of-concept randomized controlled trial. JMIR Res Protoc. 2013;2:E32.
    1. McGillicuddy JW, Weiland AK, Frenzel RM, et al.. Patient attitudes toward mobile phone-based health monitoring: questionnaire study among kidney transplant recipients. J Med Internet Res. 201315:E6.
    1. Glasgow RE, Boles SM, McKay HG, Feil EG, Barrera M., Jr. The D-Net diabetes self-management program: long-term implementation, outcomes, and generalization results. Prev Med. 2003;36(4):410-419.
    1. Knoll GA. Is kidney transplantation for everyone? The example of the older dialysis patient. Clin J Am Soc Nephrol. 2009;4:2040-2044.
    1. Schehl B, Leukel J, Susumaran V. Understanding differentiated internet use in older adults: a, study of informational social instrumental online activities. Comput Hum Behav. 2019;97:222-230.
    1. Canadian Institute for Health Information. Annual Statistics on Organ Replacement in Canada: Dialysis, Transplantation and Donation, 2009 to 2018. Ottawa, Ontario: Canadian Institute for Health Information; 2019.
    1. Chanouzas D, Ng KP, Fallouh B, Baharani J. What influences patient choice of treatment modality at the pre-dialysis stage? Nephrol Dial Transplant. 2012;27:1542-1547.
    1. Lee A, Gudex C, Povlsen JV, Bonnevie B, Nielsen CP. Patients’ views regarding choice of dialysis modality. Nephrol Dial Transplant. 2008;23:3953-3959.
    1. Winterbottom A, Bekker HL, Conner M, Mooney A. Choosing dialysis modality: decision making in a chronic illness context. Health Expect. 2014;17(5):710-723.

Source: PubMed

Sponsors and Collaborators

Medical Conditions

Drug Interventions

3
Subscribe