The views of patients and carers in treatment decision making for chronic kidney disease: systematic review and thematic synthesis of qualitative studies

R L Morton, A Tong, K Howard, P Snelling, A C Webster, R L Morton, A Tong, K Howard, P Snelling, A C Webster

Abstract

Objective: To synthesise the views of patients and carers in decision making regarding treatment for chronic kidney disease, and to determine which factors influence those decisions.

Design: Systematic review of qualitative studies of decision making and choice for dialysis, transplantation, or palliative care, and thematic synthesis of qualitative studies.

Data sources: Medline, PsycINFO, CINAHL, Embase, social work abstracts, and digital theses (database inception to week 3 October 2008) to identify literature using qualitative methods (focus groups, interviews, or case studies). Review methods Thematic synthesis involved line by line coding of the findings of the primary studies and development of descriptive and analytical themes.

Results: 18 studies that reported the experiences of 375 patients and 87 carers were included. 14 studies focused on preferences for dialysis modality, three on transplantation, and one on palliative management. Four major themes were identified as being central to treatment choices: confronting mortality (choosing life or death, being a burden, living in limbo), lack of choice (medical decision, lack of information, constraints on resources), gaining knowledge of options (peer influence, timing of information), and weighing alternatives (maintaining lifestyle, family influences, maintaining the status quo).

Conclusions: The experiences of other patients greatly influenced the decision making of patients and carers. The problematic timing of information about treatment options and synchronous creation of vascular access seemed to predetermine haemodialysis and inhibit choice of other treatments, including palliative care. A preference to maintain the status quo may explain why patients often remain on their initial therapy.

Conflict of interest statement

Competing interests: None declared.

Figures

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/instance/4787666/bin/morr652560.f1_default.jpg
Fig 1 Results of search strategy and identification of publications included in review
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/instance/4787666/bin/morr652560.f2_default.jpg
Fig 2 Components of each theme identified as influencing treatment decisions

References

    1. Hornberger JC, Habraken H, Bloch DA. Minimum data needed on patient preferences for accurate efficient medical decision making. Med Care 1995;33:297-310.
    1. Greenfield S, Kaplan S, Ware JE. Expanding patient involvement in care: effect on patient outcomes. Ann Intern Med 1985;102:520-8.
    1. Roter DL, Hall JA. Studies of doctor-patient interaction. Annu Rev Public Health 1989;10:163-80.
    1. Ansell D, Feehally J, Feest TG, Tomson C, Williams AJ, Warwick G. New adult patients starting renal replacement therapy in the UK in 2006. In: UK Renal Registry, ed. UK Renal Association, 2007:17-47.
    1. Mehrotra R, Marsh D, Vonesh E, Peters V, Nissenson A. Patient education and access of ESRD patients to renal replacement therapies beyond in-center hemodialysis. Kidney Int 2005;68:378-90.
    1. US Renal Data System. The USRDS Dialysis Morbidity and Mortality Study: wave 2 In: National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases, ed. USRDS 1997 annual data report. National Institutes of Health, 1997:49-68.
    1. Nissenson AR, Prichard SS, Cheng IKP, Gokal R, Kubota M, Maiorca R, et al. Non-medical factors that impact on ESRD modality selection. Kidney Int 1993;43(suppl 40):120-7S.
    1. Heaf J. Underutilization of peritoneal dialysis. JAMA 2004;291:740-2.
    1. Ozminkowski R, White A, Hassol A, Murphy M. What if socioeconomics made no difference? Access to cadaver kidney transplant as an example. Med Care 1998;36:1398-406.
    1. Boulware LE, Meoni LA, Fink NE, Parekh RS, Kao L, Klag MJ, et al. Preferences, knowledge, communication and patient-physician discussion of living kidney transplantation in African American families. Am J Transplant 2005;5:1503-12.
    1. Higgins RS, Fishman JA. Disparities in solid organ transplantation for ethnic minorities: facts and solutions. Am J Transplant 2006;6:2556–62..
    1. Campbell R, Pound P, Pope C, Britten N, Pill R, Morgan M, et al. Evaluating meta-ethnography: a synthesis of qualitative research on lay experiences of diabetes and diabetes care. Soc Sci Med 2003;56:671-84.
    1. Noblit GW, Hare RD. Meta-ethnography: synthesizing qualitative studies. Sage, 1988.
    1. Sandelowski M, Trimble F, Woodward EK, Barroso J. From synthesis to script: transforming qualitative research findings for use in practice. Qual Health Res 2006;16:1350-70.
    1. Zimmer L. Qualitative meta-synthesis: a question of dialoguing with texts. J Adv Nurs 2006;53:311-8.
    1. Levey AS, Atkins R, Coresh J, Cohen EP, Collins AJ, Eckardt K-U, et al. Chronic kidney disease as a global public health problem: approaches and initiatives—a position statement from Kidney Disease Improving Global Outcomes. Kidney Int 2007;72:247-59.
    1. Tong A, Sainsbury P, Craig JC. Consolidated criteria for reporting qualitative research (COREQ): a 32-item checklist for interviews and focus groups. Int J Qual Health Care 2007;18:349-57.
    1. Thomas J, Harden A. Methods for the thematic synthesis of qualitative research in systematic reviews. BMC Med Res Methodol 2008;8:45 .
    1. Lucas PJ, Baird J, Arai L, Law C, Roberts HM. Worked examples of alternative methods for the synthesis of qualitative and quantitative research in systematic reviews. BMC Med Res Methodol 2007;7:4 .
    1. Bass EB, Jenckes MW, Fink NE, Cagney KA, Wu AW, Sadler JH, et al. Use of focus groups to identify concerns about dialysis. Med Decis Making 1999;19:287-95.
    1. Ashby M, op’t Hoog C, Kellehear A, Kerr PG, Brooks D, Nicholls K, et al. Renal dialysis abatement: lessons from a social study. Palliat Med 2005;19:389-96.
    1. Breckenridge DM. Patients’ perceptions of why, how, and by whom dialysis treatment modality was chosen. ANNA J 1997;24:313-9, 20.
    1. Courts NF. Psychosocial adjustment of patients on home hemodialysis and their dialysis partners. Clin Nurs Res 2000;9:177-90.
    1. Harwood L, Locking-Cusolito H, Spittal J, Wilson B, White S. Preparing for hemodialysis: patient stressors and responses. ANNA J 2005;32:295-302.
    1. Kelly-Powell ML. Personalizing choices: patients’ experiences with making treatment decisions. Res Nurs Health 1997;20:219-27.
    1. Landreneau KJ, Ward-Smith P. Perceptions of adult patients on hemodialysis concerning choice among renal replacement therapies. ANNA J 2007;34:513-9, 25.
    1. Landreneau KJ, Ward-Smith P. Patients’ perceptions concerning choice among renal replacement therapies: a pilot study. ANNA J 2006;33:397-402.
    1. Lin C-C, Lee B-O, Hicks FD. The phenomenology of deciding about hemodialysis among Taiwanese. West J Nurs Res 2005;27:915-29.
    1. Trisolini M, Roussel A, Zerhusen E, Schatell D, Harris S, Bandel K, et al. Activating chronic kidney disease patients and family members through the internet to promote integration of care. Int J Integr Care 2004;4:1-13.
    1. Whittaker AA, Albee BJ. Factors influencing patient selection of dialysis treatment modality. ANNA J 1996;23:369-75.
    1. Wuerth DB, Finkelstein SH, Schwetz O, Carey H, Kliger AS, Finkelstein FO. Patients’ descriptions of specific factors leading to modality selection of chronic peritoneal dialysis or hemodialysis. Perit Dial Int 2002;22:184-90.
    1. Leung SSH, Shiu ATY. Experience of Hong Kong patients awaiting kidney transplantation in mainland China. J Nurs Healthcare Chronic Illnesses 2007;16(suppl 11c):341-9. .
    1. Waterman AD, Stanley SL, Covelli T, Hazel E, Hong BA, Brennan DC. Living donation decision making: recipients’ concerns and educational needs. Prog Transplant 2006;16:17-23.
    1. Fetherstonhaugh D. Hobson’s choice: dialysis or the coffin. A study of dialysis decision making amongst older people. PhD thesis, University of Melbourne, 2007.
    1. Chen M-C. The experiences of ESRD patients’ decision-making process and adaptation to a dialysis treatment modality in Taiwan. Catholic University of America, 2007.
    1. Feild ML. Patient decision-making regarding life-sustaining treatment for end-stage renal disease. Boston College, 1996.
    1. Lee A, Gudex C, Povlsen JV, Bonnevie B, Nielsen CP. Patients’ views regarding choice of dialysis modality. Nephrol Dial Transplant 2008;23:3953-9.
    1. Gordon EJ, Sehgal AR. Patient-nephrologist discussion about kidney transplantation as a treatment option. Adv Ren Replace Ther 2000;7:177-83.
    1. Taal M, Thomson C. Clinical practice guidelines module 1—CKD. In: UK Renal Association, ed. 2007. .
    1. National Kidney Foundation. Kidney Disease Outcomes Quality Initiative (K-DOQI): clinical practice guidelines for hemodialysis adequacy. National Kidney Foundation, 2006.
    1. Samuelson W, Zeckhauser R. Status quo bias in decision making. J Risk Uncertain 1988;1:7-59.
    1. Salkeld G, Ryan M, Short L. The veil of experience: do consumers prefer what they know best? Health Econ 2000;9:267-70.
    1. Harden A, Garcia J, Oliver S, Rees R, Shepherd J, Brunton G, et al. Applying systematic review methods to studies of people’s views: an example from public health. J Epidemiol Community 2004;58:794-800.
    1. Huberman AM, Miles MB. Handbook of qualitative research. Sage, 1994.
    1. Murtagh FEM. Understanding and improving quality of care for people with conservatively managed stage 5 chronic kidney disease—the course of symptoms and other concerns over time. Department of Palliative Care, Policy, and Rehabilitation, King’s College London, 2008.
    1. Cochrane Qualitative Research Methods Group. The Cochrane Collaboration. 2009. .
    1. National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence. Methods for the development of NICE public health guidance. 2009. .

Source: PubMed

Sponsorer og samarbeidspartnere

Medisinsk tilstand

Legemiddelintervensjoner

3
Abonnere