Effects of Different Models of Dialysis Care on Patient-Important Outcomes: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Mobile health management among end stage renal disease patients: a scoping review

Aims

The health management of end-stage renal disease patients is a complicated process, and mobile health management technology provides a new choice for the health management of end-stage renal disease patients. The scope of clinical studies on mobile health management for patients with end-stage renal disease was reviewed, and found that about mobile health management problems existing in the literature were identified to provide ideas for subsequent mobile health management research.

Methods

The databases Web of Science, PubMed, The Cochrane Library, Embase, CNKI, Wan Fang Data, BMJ, and VIP were systematically searched for studies on Mobile health management among end-stage renal disease in adult and adolescent patients or children undergoing kidney replacement therapy. The search covered the period from the inception of the databases to June 20, 2023. Two independent reviewers conducted the literature screening process. Following eligibility screening, a total of 38 papers were included for data extraction and descriptive analysis.

Results

A total of 38 studies from 14 countries were finally included. The majority of which were interventional trials. The platforms used in these studies included remote monitoring systems, apps, websites, mobile phones or tablets, and social platforms. These platforms provided patients with a wide range of services, including disease management, behavioral intervention, social support, and follow-up care. Most studies focused on patient clinical indicators, patient experience, quality of life, and healthcare costs.

Conclusion

Our findings that mobile health management has been widely used in disease management of end-stage renal disease patients, with rich management content and many evaluation indicators. Future studies should strengthen the evaluation of patients' mental health, quality of life, and healthcare costs. Additionally, developing a clinical decision support system would enable mobile health management to play a more effective role in end-stage renal disease patients.

The diversity of providers' and consumers' views of virtual versus inpatient care provision: a qualitative study

BACKGROUND

A broad-based international shift to virtual care models over recent years has accelerated following COVID-19. Although there are increasing numbers of studies and reviews, less is known about clinicians' and consumers' perspectives concerning virtual modes in contrast to inpatient modes of delivery.

METHODS

We conducted a mixed-methods study in late 2021 examining consumers' and providers' expectations of and perspectives on virtual care in the context of a new facility planned for the north-western suburbs of Sydney, Australia. Data were collected via a series of workshops, and a demographic survey. Recorded qualitative text data were analysed thematically, and surveys were analysed using SPSS v22.

RESULTS

Across 12 workshops, 33 consumers and 49 providers from varied backgrounds, ethnicities, language groups, age ranges and professions participated. Four advantages, strengths or benefits of virtual care reported were: patient factors and wellbeing, accessibility, better care and health outcomes, and additional health system benefits, while four disadvantages, weaknesses or risks of virtual care were: patient factors and wellbeing, accessibility, resources and infrastructure, and quality and safety of care.

CONCLUSIONS

Virtual care was widely supported but the model is not suitable for all patients. Health and digital literacy and appropriate patient selection were key success criteria, as was patient choice. Key concerns included technology failures or limitations and that virtual models may be no more efficient than inpatient care models. Considering consumer and provider views and expectations prior to introducing virtual models of care may facilitate greater acceptance and uptake.

Innovative models of healthcare delivery: an umbrella review of reviews

OBJECTIVE

To undertake a synthesis of evidence-based research for seven innovative models of care to inform the development of new hospitals.

DESIGN

Umbrella review.

SETTING

Interventions delivered inside and outside of acute care settings.

PARTICIPANTS

Children and adults with one or more identified acute or chronic health conditions.

DATA SOURCES

PsycINFO, Ovid MEDLINE and CINAHL.

PRIMARY AND SECONDARY OUTCOME MEASURES

Clinical indicators and mortality, healthcare utilisation, quality of life, self-management and self-care and patient knowledge.

RESULTS

A total of 66 reviews were included, synthesising evidence from 1272 primary studies across the 7 models of care. Virtual care was the most common model studied, addressed by 47 (73%) of the reviews. Common outcomes evaluated across reviews were clinical indicators and mortality, healthcare utilisation, self-care and self-management, patient knowledge, quality of life and cost-effectiveness. The findings indicate that the innovative models of healthcare we identified in this review may be effective in managing patients with a range of acute and chronic conditions. Most of the included reviews reported evidence of comparable or improved care.

CONCLUSIONS

A consideration of local infrastructure and individual patient characteristics, such as health literacy, may be critical in determining the suitability of models of care for patients and their implementation in local health systems.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

10.17605/OSF.IO/PS6ZU.

Patient-relevant outcomes: what are we talking about? A scoping review to improve conceptual clarity

Background

With respect to patient-centered care, measuring care effects based on patient-relevant outcomes is becoming increasingly important. There is some uncertainty about what outcomes are particularly relevant to patients and who determines their relevance. To determine this, we conducted a scoping review of the international literature with the aim to improve the conceptual clarity regarding (1) the terminology used for supposedly patient-relevant outcomes, (2) the variety of outcomes considered patient-relevant, and (3) justifications for the choice of these specific outcomes.

Methods

We conducted a systematic search in Embase, PubMed (including Medline), Cochrane Central, Scopus, and Google Scholar with a special focus on article titles. Search terms included patient-relevant, patient-important, patient-preferred, and outcome(s), endpoint(s), parameter(s), indicator(s). We limited the search period from January 2000 to July 2019. Full-text articles reporting outcomes that were described as patient-relevant met the inclusion criteria. Two researchers independently analyzed all eligible articles applying quantitative and structuring content analysis.

Results

We identified 155 articles, 44 of which met the inclusion criteria. A content analysis revealed 35 different terms used with regard to patient-relevant outcomes. However, authors predominantly referred to patient-important outcomes (23 articles, 52.3%) and patient-relevant outcomes (17 articles, 38.6%). A structuring content analysis of all extracted outcomes revealed a total of 281 codes, pooled in 32 inductive categories. Among these, the following categories dominated: symptoms, adverse events/complications, survival/mortality, pain. In just 16 of the articles (36.4%), authors provided justifications for the choice of the outcome being based either on patient and/or expert opinions. In another 13 articles (29.5%), no justification was provided.

Conclusion

This scoping review on patient-relevant outcomes was driven by the questions (1) what outcomes are particularly relevant to patients, and (2) who determines their relevance. We found a wide range of supposedly patient-relevant outcomes, with only one third of articles involving patients in the justification of the outcome selection. In view of this conceptual uncertainty it appears difficult to determine or even to compare a particular patient benefit of interventions. A set of generic outcomes relevant to patients would be helpful to contribute to a consistent understanding of patient relevance.

Trends in Peritoneal Dialysis Use in the United States after Medicare Payment Reform

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES

Peritoneal dialysis (PD) for ESKD is associated with similar mortality, higher quality of life, and lower costs compared with hemodialysis (HD), but has historically been underused. We assessed the effect of the 2011 Medicare prospective payment system (PPS) for dialysis on PD initiation, modality switches, and stable PD use.

DESIGN, SETTING, PARTICIPANTS, & MEASUREMENTS

Using US Renal Data System and Medicare data, we identified all United States patients with ESKD initiating dialysis before (2006-2010) and after (2011-2013) PPS implementation, and observed their modality for up to 2 years after dialysis initiation. Using logistic regression models, we examined the associations between PPS and early PD experience (any PD 1-90 days after initiation), late PD use (any PD 91-730 days after initiation), and modality switches (PD-to-HD or HD-to-PD 91-730 days after initiation). We adjusted for patient, dialysis facility, and regional characteristics.

RESULTS

Overall, 619,126 patients with incident ESKD received dialysis at Medicare-certified facilities, 2006-2013. Observed early PD experience increased from 9.4% before PPS to 12.6% after PPS. Observed late PD use increased from 12.1% to 16.1%. In adjusted analyses, PPS was associated with increased early PD experience (odds ratio [OR], 1.51; 95% confidence interval [95% CI], 1.47 to 1.55; P<0.001) and late PD use (OR, 1.47; 95% CI, 1.45 to 1.50; P<0.001). In subgroup analyses, late PD use increased in part due to an increase in HD-to-PD switches among those without early PD experience (OR, 1.59; 95% CI, 1.52 to 1.66; P<0.001) and a decrease in PD-to-HD switches among those with early PD experience (OR, 0.92; 95% CI, 0.87 to 0.98; P=0.004).

CONCLUSIONS

More patients started, stayed on, and switched to PD after dialysis payment reform. This occurred without a substantial increase in transfers to HD.