Decision aids to increase living donor kidney transplantation

The Need for Culturally Tailored CKD Education in Older Latino Patients and Their Families

Older Latino adults (65+) comprise the fastest growing minoritized group among the older population in the US and experience a disproportionate burden of kidney failure as well as disparities in kidney care compared to non-Hispanic White individuals. Despite significant need and barriers uniquely faced by this population, few educational resources or decision aids are available to meet the language and cultural needs of Latino patients. Decision aids are designed to improve knowledge and empower individuals to engage in shared decision-making and have been shown to improve decisional quality and goal-concordant care among older patients with CKD. In this commentary, we examine the barriers faced by older Latino people with CKD who must make dialysis initiation decisions. We conclude that there is a need for culturally concordant decision aids tailored for older Latino patients with CKD to overcome barriers in access to care and improve patient-centered care for older Latino CKD patients.

Living Donor Decision-Making and the Complex Interplay of Finances and Other Motivators, Barriers, and Facilitators

INTRODUCTION

The decision to become a living donor requires consideration of a complex, interactive array of factors that could be targeted for clinical, policy, and educational interventions. Our objective was to assess how financial barriers interact with motivators, other barriers, and facilitators during this process.

METHODS

Data were obtained from a public survey assessing motivators, barriers, and facilitators of living donation. We used multivariable logistic regression and consensus k-means clustering to assess interactions between financial concerns and other considerations in the decision-making process.

RESULTS

Among 1592 respondents, the average age was 43; 74% were female and 14% and 6% identified as Hispanic and Black, respectively. Among employed respondents (72%), 40% indicated that they would not be able to donate without lost wage reimbursement. Stronger agreement with worries about expenses and dependent care challenges was associated with not being able to donate without lost wage reimbursement (OR = 1.2, 95% CI = 1.0-1.3; OR = 1.2, 95% CI = 1.1-1.3, respectively). Four respondent clusters were identified. Cluster 1 had strong motivators and facilitators with minimal barriers. Cluster 2 had barriers related to health concerns, nervousness, and dependent care. Clusters 3 and 4 had financial barriers. Cluster 3 also had anxiety related to surgery and dependent care.

CONCLUSIONS

Financial barriers interact primarily with health and dependent care concerns when considering living organ donation. Targeted interventions to reduce financial barriers and improve provider communication regarding donation-related risks are needed.

A Scoping Review of Personalized, Interactive, Web-Based Clinical Decision Tools Available for Breast Cancer Prevention and Screening in the United States

Introduction. Personalized web-based clinical decision tools for breast cancer prevention and screening could address knowledge gaps, enhance patient autonomy in shared decision-making, and promote equitable care. The purpose of this review was to present evidence on the availability, usability, feasibility, acceptability, quality, and uptake of breast cancer prevention and screening tools to support their integration into clinical care. Methods. We used the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for Scoping Reviews Checklist to conduct this review. We searched 6 databases to identify literature on the development, validation, usability, feasibility, acceptability testing, and uptake of the tools into practice settings. Quality assessment for each tool was conducted using the International Patient Decision Aid Standard instrument, with quality scores ranging from 0 to 63 (lowest-highest). Results. We identified 10 tools for breast cancer prevention and 9 tools for screening. The tools included individual (e.g., age), clinical (e.g., genomic risk factors), and health behavior (e.g., alcohol use) characteristics. Fourteen tools included race/ethnicity, but no tool incorporated contextual factors (e.g., insurance, access) associated with breast cancer. All tools were internally or externally validated. Six tools had undergone usability testing in samples including White (median, 71%; range, 9%-96%), insured (99%; 97%-100%) women, with college education or higher (60%; 27%-100%). All of the tools were developed and tested in academic settings. Seven (37%) tools showed potential evidence of uptake in clinical practice. The tools had an average quality assessment score of 21 (range, 9-39). Conclusions. There is limited evidence on testing and uptake of breast cancer prevention and screening tools in diverse clinical settings. The development, testing, and integration of tools in academic and nonacademic settings could potentially improve uptake and equitable access to these tools.

Highlights

There were 19 personalized, interactive, Web-based decision tools for breast cancer prevention and screening.Breast cancer outcomes were personalized based on individual clinical characteristics (e.g., age, medical history), genomic risk factors (e.g., BRCA1/2), race and ethnicity, and health behaviors (e.g., smoking). The tools did not include contextual factors (e.g., insurance status, access to screening facilities) that could potentially contribute to breast cancer outcomes.Validation, usability, acceptability, and feasibility testing were conducted mostly among White and/or insured patients with some college education (or higher) in academic settings. There was limited evidence on testing and uptake of the tools in nonacademic clinical settings.

Decision aids to assist patients and professionals in choosing the right treatment for kidney failure

Background

Kidney services vary in the way they involve people with kidney failure (PwKF) in treatment decisions as management needs change. We discuss how decision-science applications support proactively PwKF to make informed decisions between treatment options with kidney professionals.

Methods

A conceptual review of findings about decision making and use of decision aids in kidney services, synthesized with reference to: the Making Informed Decisions-Individually and Together (MIND-IT) multiple stakeholder decision makers framework; and the Medical Research Council-Complex Intervention Development and Evaluation research framework.

Results

This schema represents the different types of decision aids that support PwKF and professional reasoning as they manage kidney disease individually and together; adjustments at micro, meso and macro levels supports integration in practice.

Conclusion

Innovating services to meet clinical guidelines on enhancing shared decision making processes means enabling all stakeholders to use decision aids to meet their goals within kidney pathways at individual, service and organizational levels.

Patient information about living donor kidney transplantation across UK renal units: A critical review

BACKGROUND

Patient information about living donor kidney transplantation is used to supplement conversations between health professionals, people with advanced kidney disease and potential kidney donors. It is not known if the information is designed to support decision-making about renal replacement options and if it helps people discuss living kidney donation with family and friends.

OBJECTIVE

Critical review of resources used in outpatient kidney consultations to support patients' decision-making about living kidney donor transplantation.

DESIGN

Mixed methods including an audit questionnaire and critical analysis of patient information leaflets.

PARTICIPANTS AND MEASUREMENTS

All kidney transplant centres and renal units in United Kingdom received a questionnaire to elicit by whom, how, and when information about living kidney donation is delivered. Copies of leaflets were requested. A coding frame was utilised to produce a quality score for each leaflet.

RESULTS

Thirty-nine (54%) units participated. Patients discussed living donor kidney transplantation with nephrologists (100%), living donor nurse (94%), transplant co-ordinator (94%), and predialysis nurse (86%). Twenty-three leaflets were provided and reviewed, mean quality scores for inclusion of information known to support shared decision-making was m = 2.82 out of 10 (range = 0-6, SD = 1.53). Readability scores indicated they were 'fairly difficult to read' (M = 56.3, range = 0-100, SD = 9.4). Few included cultural and faith information. Two leaflets were designed to facilitate conversations with others about donation.

CONCLUSIONS

Leaflets are unlikely to adequately support decision-making between options and discussions about donation. Services writing and updating patient leaflets may benefit from our six principles to guide their development.

The real unmet need: A multifactorial approach for identifying sensitized kidney candidates with low access to transplant

BACKGROUND

At the start of 2020, the kidney waiting list consisted of 2526 candidates with a calculated panel reactive antibody (CPRA) of 99.9% or greater, a cohort demonstrated in published research to have meaningfully lower than average access to transplantation even under the revised kidney allocation system (KAS).

METHODS

This was a retrospective analysis of US kidney registrations using data from the OPTN [Reference (https://optn.transplant.hrsa.gov/data/about-data/)]. The period-prevalent study cohort consisted of US kidney-alone registrations who waited at least 1 day between April 1, 2016, when HLA DQ-Alpha and DP-Beta unacceptable antigen data became available in OPTN data collection, to December 31, 2019. Poisson rate regression was used to model deceased donor kidney transplant rates per active year waiting and using an offset term to account for differential at-risk periods. Median time to transplant was estimated for each IRR group using the Kaplan-Meier method. Sensitivity analyses were included to address geographic variation in supply-to-demand ratios and differences in dialysis time or waiting time.

RESULTS

In this study, we found 1597 additional sensitized (CPRA 50-<99.9%) candidates with meaningfully lower than average access to transplant when simultaneously taking into account CPRA and other factors. In combination with CPRA, candidate blood type, Estimated Post-Transplant Survival Score (EPTS), and presence of other antibody specificities beyond those in the current, 5-locus CPRA were found to influence the likelihood of transplant.

CONCLUSION

In total, this suggests approximately 4100 sensitized candidates are on the waiting list who represent a community of disadvantaged patients who may benefit from progressive therapies and interventions to facilitate incompatible transplantation. Though associated with higher risks, such interventions may nevertheless be more attractive than remaining on dialysis with the associated accumulation of mortality risk over time.

A Patient-Centered Website (Within Reach) to Foster Informed Decision-making About Upper Extremity Vascularized Composite Allotransplantation: Development and Usability Study

BACKGROUND

Upper extremity (UE) vascularized composite allotransplantation (VCA; hand transplantation) is a reconstructive treatment option for patients with UE loss. Approximately 37 UE VCAs have been performed in the United States to date; thus, little is known about long-term psychosocial outcomes and whether the benefits outweigh the risks. To make an informed treatment decision, patients must understand the procedure, risks, and potential benefits of UE VCA. However, few educational resources are publicly available providing unbiased, comprehensive information about UE VCA.

OBJECTIVE

This paper described the development of a neutral, and accessible, educational website supporting informed decision-making about UE VCA as a treatment option for individuals with UE amputations.

METHODS

Website content development was informed by 9 focus groups conducted with individuals with UE amputations at 3 study sites. After initial website development, we conducted usability testing to identify ways to improve navigability, design, content, comprehension, and cultural sensitivity. Participants were administered the After-Scenario Questionnaire to assess user performance after completing navigational tasks, System Usability Scale to measure the perceived usability of the website, and Net Promoter Score to measure user satisfaction. Quantitative data were analyzed using descriptive statistics. Qualitative data were analyzed using rapid thematic analysis.

RESULTS

A total of 44 individuals with UE amputations participated in focus groups (n=37, 84%) and usability testing (n=14, 32%). Most participants in the focus groups and usability testing were male (24/37, 65% and 11/14, 79%, respectively) and White (27/37, 73% and 9/14, 64%, respectively), had unilateral limb loss (22/37, 59% and 12/14, 86%, respectively), and had mean ages of 48 (SD 9.2) and 50 (SD 12.0) years, respectively. Focus group results are organized into accessibility, website design, website development, website tone and values, sitemap, terminology, images and videos, and tables and graphics. Usability testing revealed that participants had a positive impression of the website. The mean After-Scenario Questionnaire score of 1.3 to 2.3 across task scenarios indicated high satisfaction with website usability, the mean System Usability Scale score of 88.9 indicated user satisfaction with website usability, and the mean Net Promoter Score of 9.6 indicated that users were enthusiastic and would likely refer individuals to the website.

CONCLUSIONS

The findings suggest that our educational website, Within Reach, provides neutral, patient-centered information and may be a useful resource about UE VCA for individuals with UE amputations, their families, and health care professionals. Health care professionals may inform UE VCA candidates about Within Reach to supplement current VCA education processes. Within Reach serves as a resource about treatment options for patients preparing for scheduled or recovering from traumatic UE amputations. Future research should assess whether Within Reach improves knowledge about UE VCA and enhances informed decision-making about UE VCA as a treatment option.

Recommendations for living donor kidney transplantation

This Guide for Living Donor Kidney Transplantation (LDKT) has been prepared with the sponsorship of the Spanish Society of Nephrology (SEN), the Spanish Transplant Society (SET), and the Spanish National Transplant Organization (ONT). It updates evidence to offer the best chronic renal failure treatment when a potential living donor is available. The core aim of this Guide is to supply clinicians who evaluate living donors and transplant recipients with the best decision-making tools, to optimise their outcomes. Moreover, the role of living donors in the current KT context should recover the level of importance it had until recently. To this end the new forms of incompatible HLA and/or ABO donation, as well as the paired donation which is possible in several hospitals with experience in LDKT, offer additional ways to treat renal patients with an incompatible donor. Good results in terms of patient and graft survival have expanded the range of circumstances under which living renal donors are accepted. Older donors are now accepted, as are others with factors that affect the decision, such as a borderline clinical history or alterations, which when evaluated may lead to an additional number of transplantations. This Guide does not forget that LDKT may lead to risk for the donor. Pre-donation evaluation has to centre on the problems which may arise over the short or long-term, and these have to be described to the potential donor so that they are able take them into account. Experience over recent years has led to progress in risk analysis, to protect donors' health. This aspect always has to be taken into account by LDKT programmes when evaluating potential donors. Finally, this Guide has been designed to aid decision-making, with recommendations and suggestions when uncertainties arise in pre-donation studies. Its overarching aim is to ensure that informed consent is based on high quality studies and information supplied to donors and recipients, offering the strongest possible guarantees.

Journey to Transplant: Developing a social support network counselling intervention to improve kidney transplantation

Context

Kidney transplant is superior to dialysis for the treatment of end‐stage kidney disease, but accessing transplant requires high patient engagement to overcome barriers. We sought to develop an educational counselling intervention for patients along with their social support networks to help patients access the waiting list.

Methods

Utilizing an Intervention Mapping approach, we established a conceptual framework to develop a behavioural intervention that can be reproduced across kidney transplant centres. The approach includes needs assessment, identifying behavioural determinants and process objectives and integrating targeted behavioural change theory.

Results

The Intervention Mapping process resulted in the development of a group counselling session, titled Journey to Transplant (JtT). This intervention was designed for kidney transplant candidates along with members of their social support networks and guided by a transplant healthcare professional. The session begins with standardized educational information to improve knowledge and normalize emotional barriers to transplant. This education is followed by a tailored counselling intervention, including the presentation of the individual patient's calculated likely outcomes on the kidney transplant waiting list. Finally, JtT incorporates patient and support network goal setting to address the specific barriers for that patient in accessing kidney transplantation.

Conclusion

A systematic Intervention Mapping approach to develop the JtT intervention helps ensure the intervention is efficacious, acceptable and feasible for transplant centres to implement. JtT engages the patient's social support network, targeting known barriers to transplant and utilizing established behaviour change theory to motivate concrete actions to improve the likelihood of kidney transplantation.

Patient or Public Contribution

This study includes a patient and family advisory committee comprised of kidney transplant candidates and their family members to guide the final language and content of the intervention guide, and the conduct of the implementation and pilot testing of the intervention. However, patients and family members were not involved in the intervention mapping development process itself described in this manuscript, which was informed by focus group data from patient and family study participants.

Efficacy of Educational Interventions in Improving Measures of Living-donor Kidney Transplantation Activity: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

To address patient-level barriers to living-donor kidney transplantation (LDKT), centers have implemented educational interventions. Recently, some have highlighted several gaps in knowledge and lack of evidence of efficacy of these interventions. No review has synthesized the available data.

METHODS

We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of studies conducted to increase measures of LDKT. Outcomes of interest were LDKT rates, donor evaluation, donor contact/inquiry, total transplantation rates, and change in knowledge scores and pursuit behaviors. A literature search was conducted across 7 databases from inception until 2017. Educational interventions were a decision/teaching aid alone or with personalized sessions. Comparator was another intervention or nonspecific education. Random effects meta-analysis was performed to pool risk ratios (RRs) across studies.

RESULTS

Of the 1813 references, 15 met the inclusion criteria; 9 were randomized control trials. When compared with nonspecific education, interventions increased LDKT rates (RR = 2.54; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.49-4.35), donor evaluation (RR = 3.82; 95% CI, 1.91-7.64), and donor inquiry/contact (RR = 2.41; 95% CI, 1.53-3.80), but not total transplants (RR = 1.24; 95% CI, 0.96-1.61). Significant increased mean knowledge scores postintervention was noted, and most showed favorable trends in pursuit behaviors. Quality across the studies was mixed and sometimes difficult to assess. The biggest limitations were small sample size, selection bias, and short follow-ups.

CONCLUSIONS

Educational interventions improve measures of LDKT activity; however, current literature is heterogeneous and at risk of selection bias. Prospective studies with diverse patient populations, longer follow-ups, and robust outcomes are needed to inform clinical practice.

Policies to promote timely referral for kidney transplantation

There are numerous patient, provider, and health system barriers to accessing kidney transplantation. Patient barriers such as sociocultural and clinical characteristics and provider factors such as provider knowledge and awareness of transplantation play important roles in facilitating transplant. Health system factors like misaligned incentives and quality metrics for dialysis facilities and transplant centers also influence transplant access. While numerous studies have documented the impact of these barriers on wait-listing and transplant, few studies have examined referral from a dialysis facility to a transplant center and start of the transplant evaluation process. While the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) require that dialysis facilities educate patients about transplant, there are no guidelines for the content and objectives for this education. In addition, policies to require timely referral for transplantation have been considered by CMS but are difficult to implement without national data on referral. Federal policies should be amended to mandate transplant center submission of referral data-while decreasing the unfunded mandate to collect other unusable data currently collected as part of regulatory monitoring of transplant centers-to promote timely access to transplant, increased transplant rates, and to better understand the multilevel barriers and facilitators to transplant referral.

Reasons for dialysis patients choosing or refusing kidney transplantation as renal replacement therapy: A qualitative study

This paper aims to identify the reasons for choosing or refusing kidney transplantation as renal replacement therapy among patients with Chronic Kidney Disease (CKD). Data were collected through interviews with CKD patients treated by dialysis. Health professionals were also interviewed. A thematic analysis was used to analyze the data. Results show that various reasons account for CKD patients' refusal to have a kidney transplant: the perception of kidney transplantation as a renal replacement therapy without positive outcome, refusal to have an allograft. There are also situations such as the lack of organ, the age factor, the contraindications to kidney transplantation that not allow some CKD patients to have a kidney transplant. Among the patients who choose kidney transplantation, some insist on the high level of health literacy, others see kidney transplantation as a cure or a normal process. Ultimately, this paper shows that the choice of kidney transplantation depends on patients' perceptions of its outcomes. Some circumstances, such as the lack of an available organ or specific medical criteria, reduce CKD patients' participation in the decision-making process.

Association Between Dialysis Facility Ownership and Access to Kidney Transplantation

Importance

For-profit (vs nonprofit) dialysis facilities have historically had lower kidney transplantation rates, but it is unknown if the pattern holds for living donor and deceased donor kidney transplantation, varies by facility ownership, or has persisted over time in a nationally representative population.

Objective

To determine the association between dialysis facility ownership and placement on the deceased donor kidney transplantation waiting list, receipt of a living donor kidney transplant, or receipt of a deceased donor kidney transplant.

Design, Setting, and Participants

Retrospective cohort study that included 1 478 564 patients treated at 6511 US dialysis facilities. Adult patients with incident end-stage kidney disease from the US Renal Data System (2000-2016) were linked with facility ownership (Dialysis Facility Compare) and characteristics (Dialysis Facility Report).

Exposures

The primary exposure was dialysis facility ownership, which was categorized as nonprofit small chains, nonprofit independent facilities, for-profit large chains (>1000 facilities), for-profit small chains (<1000 facilities), and for-profit independent facilities.

Main Outcomes and Measures

Access to kidney transplantation was defined as time from initiation of dialysis to placement on the deceased donor kidney transplantation waiting list, receipt of a living donor kidney transplant, or receipt of a deceased donor kidney transplant. Cumulative incidence differences and multivariable Cox models assessed the association between dialysis facility ownership and each outcome.

Results

Among 1 478 564 patients, the median age was 66 years (interquartile range, 55-76 years), with 55.3% male, and 28.1% non-Hispanic black patients. Eighty-seven percent of patients received care at a for-profit dialysis facility. A total of 109 030 patients (7.4%) received care at 435 nonprofit small chain facilities; 78 287 (5.3%) at 324 nonprofit independent facilities; 483 988 (32.7%) at 2239 facilities of large for-profit chain 1; 482 689 (32.6%) at 2082 facilities of large for-profit chain 2; 225 890 (15.3%) at 997 for-profit small chain facilities; and 98 680 (6.7%) at 434 for-profit independent facilities. During the study period, 121 680 patients (8.2%) were placed on the deceased donor waiting list, 23 762 (1.6%) received a living donor kidney transplant, and 49 290 (3.3%) received a deceased donor kidney transplant. For-profit facilities had lower 5-year cumulative incidence differences for each outcome vs nonprofit facilities (deceased donor waiting list: -13.2% [95% CI, -13.4% to -13.0%]; receipt of a living donor kidney transplant: -2.3% [95% CI, -2.4% to -2.3%]; and receipt of a deceased donor kidney transplant: -4.3% [95% CI, -4.4% to -4.2%]). Adjusted Cox analyses showed lower relative rates for each outcome among patients treated at all for-profit vs all nonprofit dialysis facilities: deceased donor waiting list (hazard ratio [HR], 0.36 [95% CI, 0.35 to 0.36]); receipt of a living donor kidney transplant (HR, 0.52 [95% CI, 0.51 to 0.54]); and receipt of a deceased donor kidney transplant (HR, 0.44 [95% CI, 0.44 to 0.45]).

Conclusions and Relevance

Among US patients with end-stage kidney disease, receiving dialysis at for-profit facilities compared with nonprofit facilities was associated with a lower likelihood of accessing kidney transplantation. Further research is needed to understand the mechanisms behind this association.

Decision support needs of kidney transplant candidates regarding the deceased donor waiting list: A qualitative study and conceptual framework

BACKGROUND

Kidney transplant candidates face complex decisions about transplant options such as living donation or acceptance of lower quality kidneys. We sought to characterize knowledge and decision support needs regarding kidney transplant outcomes and options.

METHODS

We conducted 10 interviews and four focus groups of 28 adult kidney transplant candidates from two centers in Minnesota. Transcripts were analyzed thematically using a grounded theory approach.

RESULTS

We identified four themes: First, candidates have a limited understanding of treatment options and demonstrate confusion or a lack of awareness about waiting list outcomes and prognosis. Second, candidates desired frank discussions about likely outcomes and individualized prognosis. Third, emotional barriers impact how patients make informed decisions. Finally, participants relied on the support of family and friends to help process information, and many favored the medical community engaging their family and friends in their medical decisions. These findings were incorporated into a conceptual model to support kidney transplant candidates in medical decision making.

CONCLUSIONS

Transplant candidates had limited understanding about treatment options and outcomes on the kidney transplant waiting list. Individualized risk information and cognitive approaches that recognize how patients process information and balance competing risks may improve informed decision making.

Effect of the iChoose Kidney decision aid in improving knowledge about treatment options among transplant candidates: A randomized controlled trial

We previously developed a mobile- and web-based decision aid (iChoose Kidney) that displays individualized risk estimates of survival and mortality, for the treatment modalities of dialysis versus kidney transplantation. We examined the effect of iChoose Kidney on change in transplant knowledge and access to transplant in a randomized controlled trial among patients presenting for evaluation in three transplant centers. A total of 470 patients were randomized to standard transplantation education (control) or standard education plus iChoose Kidney (intervention). Change in transplant knowledge (primary outcome) among intervention versus control patients was assessed using nine items in pre- and postevaluation surveys. Access to transplant (secondary outcome) was defined as a composite of waitlisting, living donor inquiries, or transplantation. Among 443 patients (n = 226 intervention; n = 216 control), the mean knowledge scores were 5.1 ± 2.1 pre- and 5.8 ± 1.9 postevaluation. Change in knowledge was greater among intervention (1.1 ± 2.0) versus control (0.4 ± 1.8) patients (P < .0001). Access to transplantation was similar among intervention (n = 168; 74.3%) versus control patients (n = 153; 70.5%; P = .37). The iChoose Kidney decision aid improved patient knowledge at evaluation, but did not impact transplant access. Future studies should examine whether combining iChoose Kidney with other interventions can increase transplantation. (Clinicaltrials.gov NCT02235571).