1
|
Porteny T, Kennefick K, Lynch M, Velasquez AM, Damron KC, Rosas S, Allen J, Wiener DE, Kalloo S, Rizzolo K, Ladin K. The Need for Culturally Tailored CKD Education in Older Latino Patients and Their Families. Am J Kidney Dis 2024:S0272-6386(24)00905-3. [PMID: 39127400 DOI: 10.1053/j.ajkd.2024.06.015] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 01/08/2024] [Revised: 06/06/2024] [Accepted: 06/13/2024] [Indexed: 08/12/2024]
Abstract
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.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Thalia Porteny
- Department of Health Policy and Management, Mailman School of Public Health, Columbia University, New York, NY.
| | - Kristen Kennefick
- Research on Ethics, Aging, and Community Health (REACH Lab), Tufts University, Medford, MA
| | - Mary Lynch
- Research on Ethics, Aging, and Community Health (REACH Lab), Tufts University, Medford, MA
| | - Angie M Velasquez
- Research on Ethics, Aging, and Community Health (REACH Lab), Tufts University, Medford, MA
| | | | - Sylvia Rosas
- National Kidney Foundation, New York, NY; Joslin Diabetes Center and Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA
| | - Jennifer Allen
- Department of Community Health, Tufts University, Medford, MA
| | - Daniel E Wiener
- William B. Schwartz Division of Nephrology, Tufts Medical Center, Boston, MA
| | - Sean Kalloo
- Columbia University, Irving Medical Center, Division of Nephrology, New York, NY
| | - Katherine Rizzolo
- Boston University Chobanian & Avedisian School of Medicine and Boston Medical Center, Section of Nephrology, Boston, MA
| | - Keren Ladin
- Research on Ethics, Aging, and Community Health (REACH Lab), Tufts University, Medford, MA; Department of Community Health, Tufts University, Medford, MA
| |
Collapse
|
2
|
Smith AR, Mandell RJ, Goodrich NP, Helmuth ME, Wiseman JB, Gifford KA, Fava MA, Ojo AO, Merion RM, Mathur AK. Living Donor Decision-Making and the Complex Interplay of Finances and Other Motivators, Barriers, and Facilitators. Clin Transplant 2024; 38:e15377. [PMID: 38952192 DOI: 10.1111/ctr.15377] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 05/10/2023] [Revised: 05/22/2024] [Accepted: 05/30/2024] [Indexed: 07/03/2024]
Abstract
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.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Abigail R Smith
- Arbor Research Collaborative for Health, Ann Arbor, Michigan, USA
- Northwestern University, Chicago, Illinois, USA
| | | | | | - Margaret E Helmuth
- Arbor Research Collaborative for Health, Ann Arbor, Michigan, USA
- University of Michigan Ann Arbor, Ann Arbor, Michigan, USA
| | | | | | - Melissa A Fava
- Arbor Research Collaborative for Health, Ann Arbor, Michigan, USA
| | | | - Robert M Merion
- Arbor Research Collaborative for Health, Ann Arbor, Michigan, USA
- University of Michigan Ann Arbor, Ann Arbor, Michigan, USA
| | | |
Collapse
|
3
|
Kamil D, Wojcik KM, Smith L, Zhang J, Wilson OWA, Butera G, Jayasekera J. A Scoping Review of Personalized, Interactive, Web-Based Clinical Decision Tools Available for Breast Cancer Prevention and Screening in the United States. MDM Policy Pract 2024; 9:23814683241236511. [PMID: 38500600 PMCID: PMC10946080 DOI: 10.1177/23814683241236511] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 08/29/2023] [Accepted: 02/04/2024] [Indexed: 03/20/2024] Open
Abstract
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.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Dalya Kamil
- Health Equity and Decision Sciences Research Laboratory, Division of Intramural Research, National Institute on Minority Health and Health Disparities, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, MD, USA
| | - Kaitlyn M. Wojcik
- Health Equity and Decision Sciences Research Laboratory, Division of Intramural Research, National Institute on Minority Health and Health Disparities, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, MD, USA
| | - Laney Smith
- Frederick P. Whiddon College of Medicine, Mobile, AL, USA
| | | | - Oliver W. A. Wilson
- Health Equity and Decision Sciences Research Laboratory, Division of Intramural Research, National Institute on Minority Health and Health Disparities, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, MD, USA
| | - Gisela Butera
- Office of Research Services, National Institutes of Health Library, Bethesda, MD, USA
| | - Jinani Jayasekera
- Health Equity and Decision Sciences Research Laboratory, Division of Intramural Research, National Institute on Minority Health and Health Disparities, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, MD, USA
| |
Collapse
|
4
|
Bekker HL, Winterbottom AE, Gavaruzzi T, Finderup J, Mooney A. Decision aids to assist patients and professionals in choosing the right treatment for kidney failure. Clin Kidney J 2023; 16:i20-i38. [PMID: 37711634 PMCID: PMC10497379 DOI: 10.1093/ckj/sfad172] [Citation(s) in RCA: 1] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 01/19/2023] [Indexed: 09/16/2023] Open
Abstract
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.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Hilary L Bekker
- Leeds Unit of Complex Intervention Development (LUCID), Leeds Institute of Health Sciences, School of Medicine, University of Leeds, Leeds, UK
- Department of Public Health, Aarhus University, Denmark
- ResCenPI – Research Centre for Patient Involvement, Aarhus University, Aarhus and the Central Denmark Region, Denmark
| | - Anna E Winterbottom
- Leeds Unit of Complex Intervention Development (LUCID), Leeds Institute of Health Sciences, School of Medicine, University of Leeds, Leeds, UK
- Renal Unit, St James's University Hospital, Leeds Teaching Hospital Trust, Leeds, UK
| | - Teresa Gavaruzzi
- Department of Medical and Surgical Sciences (DIMEC), University of Bologna, Bologna, Italy
| | - Jeanette Finderup
- ResCenPI – Research Centre for Patient Involvement, Aarhus University, Aarhus and the Central Denmark Region, Denmark
- Department of Renal Medicine, Aarhus University Hospital, Aarhus, Denmark
- Department of Clinical Medicine, Aarhus University, Aarhus, Denmark
| | - Andrew Mooney
- Leeds Unit of Complex Intervention Development (LUCID), Leeds Institute of Health Sciences, School of Medicine, University of Leeds, Leeds, UK
- Renal Unit, St James's University Hospital, Leeds Teaching Hospital Trust, Leeds, UK
| |
Collapse
|
5
|
Winterbottom A, Stoves J, Ahmed S, Ahmed A, Daga S. Patient information about living donor kidney transplantation across UK renal units: A critical review. J Ren Care 2023; 49:45-55. [PMID: 34791808 DOI: 10.1111/jorc.12404] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 04/12/2021] [Revised: 10/20/2021] [Accepted: 10/31/2021] [Indexed: 11/28/2022]
Abstract
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.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Anna Winterbottom
- Adult Renal Services, Lincoln Wing, St James University Hospital, Leeds, UK
| | - John Stoves
- Bradford Renal Unit, Horton Wing, St Luke's Hospital, Bradford, UK
| | - Shenaz Ahmed
- Division of Psychological and Social Medicine, Leeds Institute of Health Sciences, University of Leeds, Leeds, UK
| | - Ahmed Ahmed
- Adult Renal Services, Lincoln Wing, St James University Hospital, Leeds, UK
| | - Sunil Daga
- Adult Renal Services, Lincoln Wing, St James University Hospital, Leeds, UK
| |
Collapse
|
6
|
Maldonado AQ, Bradbrook K, Sjöholm K, Kjellman C, Lee J, Stewart D. The real unmet need: A multifactorial approach for identifying sensitized kidney candidates with low access to transplant. Clin Transplant 2023; 37:e14946. [PMID: 36841966 DOI: 10.1111/ctr.14946] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 07/29/2022] [Revised: 01/30/2023] [Accepted: 02/08/2023] [Indexed: 02/27/2023]
Abstract
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.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
| | | | | | | | | | - Darren Stewart
- United Network for Organ Sharing, Richmond, Virginia, USA.,NYU Langone Transplant Institute, New York, USA
| |
Collapse
|
7
|
Mavragani A, Gacki-Smith J, Kuramitsu B, Downey M, Nordstrom MJ, Luken M, Riggleman T, Fichter S, Altema W, Brucker JB, Cooney CM, Dumanian G, Jensen S, Levan M, Tintle SM, Brandacher G, Gordon EJ. A Patient-Centered Website (Within Reach) to Foster Informed Decision-making About Upper Extremity Vascularized Composite Allotransplantation: Development and Usability Study. JMIR Form Res 2023; 7:e44144. [PMID: 36749618 PMCID: PMC9944141 DOI: 10.2196/44144] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 11/09/2022] [Revised: 12/15/2022] [Accepted: 12/19/2022] [Indexed: 12/23/2022] Open
Abstract
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.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
| | - Jessica Gacki-Smith
- Center for Health Services and Outcomes Research, Northwestern University Feinberg School of Medicine, Chicago, IL, United States
| | - Brianna Kuramitsu
- Center for Health Services and Outcomes Research, Northwestern University Feinberg School of Medicine, Chicago, IL, United States
| | - Max Downey
- Center for Surgical and Transplant Applied Research (C-STAR), NYU Langone Transplant Institute, New York University Grossman School of Medicine Department of Surgery, New York, NY, United States
| | - Michelle J Nordstrom
- Uniformed Services University of the Health Sciences, Center for Rehabilitation Sciences Research, Walter Reed National Military Medical Center, Bethesda, MD, United States
| | - Michelle Luken
- Uniformed Services University of the Health Sciences, Center for Rehabilitation Sciences Research, Walter Reed National Military Medical Center, Bethesda, MD, United States.,Henry M Jackson Foundation, Bethesda, MD, United States
| | - Tiffany Riggleman
- Uniformed Services University of the Health Sciences, Center for Rehabilitation Sciences Research, Walter Reed National Military Medical Center, Bethesda, MD, United States.,Henry M Jackson Foundation, Bethesda, MD, United States
| | - Shannon Fichter
- Uniformed Services University of the Health Sciences, Center for Rehabilitation Sciences Research, Walter Reed National Military Medical Center, Bethesda, MD, United States.,Henry M Jackson Foundation, Bethesda, MD, United States
| | - Withney Altema
- Uniformed Services University of the Health Sciences, Center for Rehabilitation Sciences Research, Walter Reed National Military Medical Center, Bethesda, MD, United States.,Henry M Jackson Foundation, Bethesda, MD, United States
| | - James B Brucker
- Department of Medical Social Sciences and Department of Surgery, Northwestern University Feinberg School of Medicine, Chicago, IL, United States
| | - Carisa M Cooney
- Department of Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, MD, United States
| | - Gregory Dumanian
- Department of Medical Social Sciences and Department of Surgery, Northwestern University Feinberg School of Medicine, Chicago, IL, United States
| | - Sally Jensen
- Department of Medical Social Sciences and Department of Surgery, Northwestern University Feinberg School of Medicine, Chicago, IL, United States
| | - Macey Levan
- Center for Surgical and Transplant Applied Research (C-STAR), NYU Langone Transplant Institute, New York University Grossman School of Medicine Department of Surgery, New York, NY, United States
| | - Scott M Tintle
- Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Walter Reed National Military Medical Center, Bethesda, MD, United States
| | - Gerald Brandacher
- Department of Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, MD, United States
| | - Elisa J Gordon
- Department of Surgery, Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, TN, United States.,Center for Biomedical Ethics and Society, Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, TN, United States
| |
Collapse
|
8
|
Frutos MÁ, Crespo M, Valentín MDLO, Alonso-Melgar Á, Alonso J, Fernández C, García-Erauzkin G, González E, González-Rinne AM, Guirado L, Gutiérrez-Dalmau A, Huguet J, Moral JLLD, Musquera M, Paredes D, Redondo D, Revuelta I, Hofstadt CJVD, Alcaraz A, Alonso-Hernández Á, Alonso M, Bernabeu P, Bernal G, Breda A, Cabello M, Caro-Oleas JL, Cid J, Diekmann F, Espinosa L, Facundo C, García M, Gil-Vernet S, Lozano M, Mahillo B, Martínez MJ, Miranda B, Oppenheimer F, Palou E, Pérez-Saez MJ, Peri L, Rodríguez O, Santiago C, Tabernero G, Hernández D, Domínguez-Gil B, Pascual J. Recommendations for living donor kidney transplantation. Nefrologia 2022; 42 Suppl 2:5-132. [PMID: 36503720 DOI: 10.1016/j.nefroe.2022.07.001] [Citation(s) in RCA: 2] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 10/18/2021] [Accepted: 10/26/2021] [Indexed: 06/17/2023] Open
Abstract
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.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
| | - Marta Crespo
- Nephrology Department, Hospital del Mar, Barcelona, Spain
| | | | | | - Juana Alonso
- Nephrology Department, Hospital Regional Universitario de Málaga, Spain
| | | | | | - Esther González
- Nephrology Department, Hospital Universitario 12 Octubre, Spain
| | | | - Lluis Guirado
- Nephrology Department, Fundacio Puigvert, Barcelona, Spain
| | | | - Jorge Huguet
- RT Surgical Team, Fundació Puigvert, Barcelona, Spain
| | | | - Mireia Musquera
- Urology Department, Hospital Clinic Universitari, Barcelona, Spain
| | - David Paredes
- Donation and Transplantation Coordination Department, Hospital Clinic Universitari, Barcelona, Spain
| | | | - Ignacio Revuelta
- Nephrology and RT Department, Hospital Clinic Universitari, Barcelona, Spain
| | | | - Antonio Alcaraz
- Urology Department, Hospital Clinic Universitari, Barcelona, Spain
| | | | - Manuel Alonso
- Regional Transplantation Coordination, Seville, Spain
| | | | - Gabriel Bernal
- Nephrology Department, Hospital Universitario Virgen del Rocío, Seville, Spain
| | - Alberto Breda
- RT Surgical Team, Fundació Puigvert, Barcelona, Spain
| | - Mercedes Cabello
- Nephrology Department, Hospital Regional Universitario de Málaga, Spain
| | | | - Joan Cid
- Apheresis and Cell Therapy Unit, Haemotherapy and Haemostasis Department, Hospital Clinic Universitari, Barcelona, Spain
| | - Fritz Diekmann
- Nephrology and RT Department, Hospital Clinic Universitari, Barcelona, Spain
| | - Laura Espinosa
- Paediatric Nephrology Department, Hospital La Paz, Madrid, Spain
| | - Carme Facundo
- Nephrology Department, Fundacio Puigvert, Barcelona, Spain
| | | | | | - Miquel Lozano
- Apheresis and Cell Therapy Unit, Haemotherapy and Haemostasis Department, Hospital Clinic Universitari, Barcelona, Spain
| | | | | | | | | | - Eduard Palou
- Immunology Department, Hospital Clinic i Universitari, Barcelona, Spain
| | | | - Lluis Peri
- Urology Department, Hospital Clinic Universitari, Barcelona, Spain
| | | | | | | | - Domingo Hernández
- Nephrology Department, Hospital Regional Universitario de Málaga, Spain
| | | | - Julio Pascual
- Nephrology Department, Hospital del Mar, Barcelona, Spain.
| |
Collapse
|
9
|
Recomendaciones para el trasplante renal de donante vivo. Nefrologia 2022. [DOI: 10.1016/j.nefro.2021.10.002] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/19/2022] Open
|
10
|
D'Cunha H, Partin M, Kurschner S, Chu S, Bruin M, McKinney W, Hart A. Journey to Transplant: Developing a social support network counselling intervention to improve kidney transplantation. Health Expect 2021; 25:648-658. [PMID: 34951091 PMCID: PMC8957747 DOI: 10.1111/hex.13412] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 04/21/2021] [Revised: 11/10/2021] [Accepted: 11/16/2021] [Indexed: 11/28/2022] Open
Abstract
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.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Hannah D'Cunha
- Chronic Disease Research Group, Hennepin Healthcare Research Institute, Minneapolis, Minnesota, USA.,Des Moines University College of Osteopathic Medicine, Des Moines, Iowa, USA
| | - Melissa Partin
- Chronic Disease Research Group, Hennepin Healthcare Research Institute, Minneapolis, Minnesota, USA.,Department of Medicine, Medical School, University of Minnesota (UMN), Minneapolis, Minnesota, USA
| | - Sophie Kurschner
- Chronic Disease Research Group, Hennepin Healthcare Research Institute, Minneapolis, Minnesota, USA
| | - Sauman Chu
- College of Design, University of Minnesota (UMN), Minneapolis, Minnesota, USA
| | - Marilyn Bruin
- College of Design, University of Minnesota (UMN), Minneapolis, Minnesota, USA
| | - Warren McKinney
- Chronic Disease Research Group, Hennepin Healthcare Research Institute, Minneapolis, Minnesota, USA.,Department of Medicine, Medical School, University of Minnesota (UMN), Minneapolis, Minnesota, USA
| | - Allyson Hart
- Chronic Disease Research Group, Hennepin Healthcare Research Institute, Minneapolis, Minnesota, USA.,Department of Medicine, Medical School, University of Minnesota (UMN), Minneapolis, Minnesota, USA.,Division of Nephrology, Department of Medicine, Hennepin Healthcare, Minneapolis, Minnesota, USA
| |
Collapse
|
11
|
Efficacy of Educational Interventions in Improving Measures of Living-donor Kidney Transplantation Activity: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis. Transplantation 2020; 103:2566-2575. [PMID: 30946222 DOI: 10.1097/tp.0000000000002715] [Citation(s) in RCA: 6] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.5] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 12/24/2022]
Abstract
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.
Collapse
|
12
|
Patzer RE, Pastan SO. Policies to promote timely referral for kidney transplantation. Semin Dial 2020; 33:58-67. [PMID: 31957930 DOI: 10.1111/sdi.12860] [Citation(s) in RCA: 11] [Impact Index Per Article: 2.8] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 12/02/2019] [Accepted: 12/14/2019] [Indexed: 02/06/2023]
Abstract
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.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Rachel E Patzer
- Department of Medicine, Health Services Research Center, Emory University School of Medicine, Atlanta, GA, USA.,Department of Surgery, Health Services Research Center, Emory University School of Medicine, Atlanta, GA, USA.,Emory Transplant Center, Atlanta, GA, USA.,Department of Epidemiology, Rollins School of Public Health, Atlanta, GA, USA
| | - Stephen O Pastan
- Department of Medicine, Health Services Research Center, Emory University School of Medicine, Atlanta, GA, USA.,Department of Surgery, Health Services Research Center, Emory University School of Medicine, Atlanta, GA, USA.,Emory Transplant Center, Atlanta, GA, USA.,Renal Division, Department of Medicine, Emory University School of Medicine, Atlanta, GA, USA
| |
Collapse
|
13
|
Senghor AS. Reasons for dialysis patients choosing or refusing kidney transplantation as renal replacement therapy: A qualitative study. Nephrol Ther 2019; 15:511-516. [PMID: 31668488 DOI: 10.1016/j.nephro.2019.07.327] [Citation(s) in RCA: 2] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.4] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 05/17/2019] [Revised: 07/11/2019] [Accepted: 07/17/2019] [Indexed: 10/25/2022]
Abstract
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.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Abdou Simon Senghor
- Maison de la Recherche, université Toulouse Jean-Jaurès, 5, allée Antonio Machado, 31058 Toulouse cedex 9, France.
| |
Collapse
|
14
|
Gander JC, Zhang X, Ross K, Wilk AS, McPherson L, Browne T, Pastan SO, Walker E, Wang Z, Patzer RE. Association Between Dialysis Facility Ownership and Access to Kidney Transplantation. JAMA 2019; 322:957-973. [PMID: 31503308 PMCID: PMC6737748 DOI: 10.1001/jama.2019.12803] [Citation(s) in RCA: 51] [Impact Index Per Article: 10.2] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 08/28/2018] [Accepted: 08/06/2019] [Indexed: 12/16/2022]
Abstract
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.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
| | - Xingyu Zhang
- Applied Biostatistics Laboratory, School of Nursing, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor
| | - Katherine Ross
- Division of Transplantation, Department of Surgery, Emory University School of Medicine, Atlanta, Georgia
- Department of Epidemiology, Rollins School of Public Health, Emory University, Atlanta, Georgia
| | - Adam S. Wilk
- Department of Health Policy and Management, Rollins School of Public Health, Emory University, Atlanta, Georgia
| | - Laura McPherson
- Division of Transplantation, Department of Surgery, Emory University School of Medicine, Atlanta, Georgia
| | - Teri Browne
- College of Social Work, University of South Carolina, Columbia
| | - Stephen O. Pastan
- Renal Division, Department of Medicine, Emory University School of Medicine, Atlanta, Georgia
| | - Elizabeth Walker
- Division of Transplantation, Department of Surgery, Emory University School of Medicine, Atlanta, Georgia
| | - Zhensheng Wang
- Division of Transplantation, Department of Surgery, Emory University School of Medicine, Atlanta, Georgia
- Health Services Research Center, Emory University School of Medicine, Atlanta, Georgia
| | - Rachel E. Patzer
- Division of Transplantation, Department of Surgery, Emory University School of Medicine, Atlanta, Georgia
- Department of Epidemiology, Rollins School of Public Health, Emory University, Atlanta, Georgia
- Health Services Research Center, Emory University School of Medicine, Atlanta, Georgia
| |
Collapse
|
15
|
Hart A, Bruin M, Chu S, Matas A, Partin MR, Israni AK. Decision support needs of kidney transplant candidates regarding the deceased donor waiting list: A qualitative study and conceptual framework. Clin Transplant 2019; 33:e13530. [PMID: 30865323 DOI: 10.1111/ctr.13530] [Citation(s) in RCA: 22] [Impact Index Per Article: 4.4] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 04/23/2018] [Revised: 02/22/2019] [Accepted: 03/06/2019] [Indexed: 01/08/2023]
Abstract
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.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Allyson Hart
- Department of Medicine, Hennepin Healthcare, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, Minnesota
| | - Marilyn Bruin
- Department of Design, Housing, and Apparel, College of Design, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, Minnesota
| | - Sauman Chu
- Department of Design, Housing, and Apparel, College of Design, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, Minnesota
| | - Arthur Matas
- Department of Surgery, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, Minnesota
| | - Melissa R Partin
- Center for Chronic Disease Outcomes Research, Minneapolis VA Medical Center, Department of Medicine, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, Minnesota
| | - Ajay K Israni
- Department of Medicine, Hennepin Healthcare, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, Minnesota
| |
Collapse
|
16
|
Patzer RE, McPherson L, Basu M, Mohan S, Wolf M, Chiles M, Russell A, Gander JC, Friedewald JJ, Ladner D, Larsen CP, Pearson T, Pastan S. Effect of the iChoose Kidney decision aid in improving knowledge about treatment options among transplant candidates: A randomized controlled trial. Am J Transplant 2018; 18:1954-1965. [PMID: 29446209 PMCID: PMC6510396 DOI: 10.1111/ajt.14693] [Citation(s) in RCA: 47] [Impact Index Per Article: 7.8] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 09/10/2017] [Revised: 01/05/2018] [Accepted: 02/04/2018] [Indexed: 01/25/2023]
Abstract
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).
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Rachel E. Patzer
- Division of Transplantation, Department of Surgery, Emory University School of Medicine, Atlanta, GA, USA
| | - Laura McPherson
- Division of Transplantation, Department of Surgery, Emory University School of Medicine, Atlanta, GA, USA
| | - Mohua Basu
- Division of Transplantation, Department of Surgery, Emory University School of Medicine, Atlanta, GA, USA
| | - Sumit Mohan
- Division of Nephrology, Department of Medicine, Columbia University Medical Center, New York, NY, USA
| | - Michael Wolf
- Northwestern University Comprehensive Transplant Center, Chicago, IL, USA
| | - Mariana Chiles
- Division of Nephrology, Department of Medicine, Columbia University Medical Center, New York, NY, USA
| | - Allison Russell
- Northwestern University Comprehensive Transplant Center, Chicago, IL, USA
| | - Jennifer C. Gander
- Division of Transplantation, Department of Surgery, Emory University School of Medicine, Atlanta, GA, USA
| | - John J. Friedewald
- Northwestern University Comprehensive Transplant Center, Chicago, IL, USA
| | - Daniela Ladner
- Northwestern University Comprehensive Transplant Center, Chicago, IL, USA
| | - Christian P. Larsen
- Division of Transplantation, Department of Surgery, Emory University School of Medicine, Atlanta, GA, USA
| | - Thomas Pearson
- Division of Transplantation, Department of Surgery, Emory University School of Medicine, Atlanta, GA, USA
| | - Stephen Pastan
- Renal Division, Department of Medicine, Emory University School of Medicine, Atlanta, GA, USA
| |
Collapse
|
17
|
Gander JC, Basu M, McPherson L, Garber MD, Pastan SO, Manatunga A, Arriola KJ, Patzer RE. iChoose Kidney for Treatment Options: Updated Models for Shared Decision Aid. Transplantation 2018; 102:e370-e371. [PMID: 29979349 DOI: 10.1097/tp.0000000000002301] [Citation(s) in RCA: 2] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/25/2022]
Affiliation(s)
- Jennifer C Gander
- Center for Research and Evaluation, Kaiser Permanente Georgia, Atlanta, GA
| | - Mohua Basu
- Division of Transplantation, Department of Surgery, Emory University School of Medicine, Atlanta, GA
| | - Laura McPherson
- Division of Transplantation, Department of Surgery, Emory University School of Medicine, Atlanta, GA
| | - Michael D Garber
- Department of Epidemiology, Rollins School of Public Health, Emory University, Atlanta, GA
| | - Stephen O Pastan
- Renal Division, Department of Medicine, Emory University School of Medicine, Atlanta, GA
| | - Amita Manatunga
- Department of Biostatistics, Rollins School of Public Health, Emory University, Atlanta, GA
| | - Kimberly Jacob Arriola
- Department of Behavioral Sciences and Health Education, Rollins School of Public Health, Emory University, Atlanta, GA
| | - Rachel E Patzer
- Division of Transplantation, Department of Surgery, Emory University School of Medicine, Atlanta, GA.,Department of Epidemiology, Rollins School of Public Health, Emory University, Atlanta, GA
| |
Collapse
|