Patients, healthcare providers, and general population preferences for hemodialysis vascular access: a discrete choice experiment

Background

A patient-centered dialysis treatment option requires an understanding of patient preferences for alternative vascular accesses and nephrologists often face difficulties when recommending vascular access to end-stage kidney disease (ESKD) patients. We aimed to quantify the relative importance of various vascular access characteristics to patients, healthcare providers and general population, and how they affect acceptability for patients and healthcare providers.

Methods

In a discrete choice experiment, patients with maintenance hemodialysis (MHD), healthcare providers, and individuals from the general population were invited to respond to a series of hypothetical vascular access scenarios that differed in five attributes: cumulative patency, infection rate, thrombosis rate, cost, and time to maturation. We estimated the respondents' preference heterogeneity and relative importance of the attributes with a mixed logit model (MXL) and predicted the willingness to pay (WTP) of respondents via a multinomial logit model (MNL).

Results

Healthcare providers (n = 316) and the general population (n = 268) exhibited a favorable inclination toward longer cumulative patency, lower access infection rate and lower access thrombosis rate. In contrast, the patients (n = 253) showed a preference for a 3-year cumulative patency, 8% access infection rate, 35% access thrombosis rate and 1.5 access maturity time, with only the 3-year cumulative patency reaching statistical significance. Among the three respondent groups, the general population found cumulative patency less important than healthcare providers and patients did. Patients demonstrated the highest WTP for cumulative patency, indicating a willingness to pay an extra RMB$24,720(US$3,708) for each additional year of patency time.

Conclusion

Patients and healthcare providers had a strong preference for vascular access with superior patency. While the general population preferred vascular access with lower thrombosis rates. These results indicate that most patients prefer autogenous arteriovenous fistula (AVF) as an appropriate choice for vascular access due to its superior patency and lower complications than other vascular access types.

Preferences for Palliative and End-of-Life Care: A Systematic Review of Discrete Choice Experiments

OBJECTIVES

Understanding what matters most to patients and their caregivers is fundamental to delivering high-quality care. This systematic review aimed to characterize and appraise the evidence from discrete choice experiments eliciting preferences for palliative care.

METHODS

A systematic literature search was undertaken for publications up until August 2022. Data were synthesized narratively. Thematic analysis was applied to categorize attributes into groups. Attribute development, frequency, and relative importance were analyzed. Subgroup analyses were conducted to compare outcomes between patient and proxy respondents.

RESULTS

Seventeen studies spanning 11 countries were included; 59% of studies solely considered preferences for patients with cancer. A range of respondent groups were represented including patients (76%) and proxies (caregivers [35%], health providers [12%], and the public [18%]). A total of 117 individual attributes were extracted and thematically grouped into 8 broad categories and 21 subcategories. Clinical outcomes including quality of life, length of life, and pain control were the most frequently reported attributes, whereas attributes relating to psychosocial components were largely absent. Both patients and proxy respondents prioritized pain control over additional survival time. Nevertheless, there were differences between respondent cohorts in the emphasis on other attributes such as access to care, timely information, and low risk of adverse effects (prioritized by patients), as opposed to cost, quality, and delivery of care (prioritized by proxies).

CONCLUSIONS

Our review underscores the vital role of pain control in palliative care; in addition, it shed light on the complexity and relative strength of preferences for various aspects of care from multiple perspectives, which is useful in developing personalized, patient-centered models of care for individuals nearing the end of life.

Towards machine learning for moral choice analysis in health economics: A literature review and research agenda

BACKGROUND

Discrete choice models (DCMs) for moral choice analysis will likely lead to erroneous model outcomes and misguided policy recommendations, as only some characteristics of moral decision-making are considered. Machine learning (ML) is recently gaining interest in the field of discrete choice modelling. This paper explores the potential of combining DCMs and ML to study moral decision-making more accurately and better inform policy decisions in healthcare.

METHODS

An interdisciplinary literature search across four databases - PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, and Arxiv - was conducted to gather papers. Based on the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic and Meta-analyses (PRISMA) guideline, studies were screened for eligibility on inclusion criteria and extracted attributes from eligible papers. Of the 6285 articles, we included 277 studies.

RESULTS

DCMs have shortcomings in studying moral decision-making. Whilst the DCMs' mathematical elegance and behavioural appeal hold clear interpretations, the models do not account for the 'moral' cost and benefit in an individual's utility calculation. The literature showed that ML obtains higher predictive power, model flexibility, and ability to handle large and unstructured datasets. Combining the strengths of ML methods with DCMs has the potential for studying moral decision-making.

CONCLUSIONS

By providing a research agenda, this paper highlights that ML has clear potential to i) find and deepen the utility specification of DCMs, and ii) enrich the insights extracted from DCMs by considering the intrapersonal determinants of moral decision-making.

Israeli Medical Experts’ Knowledge, Attitudes, and Preferences in Allocating Donor Organs for Transplantation

Medical advancement has increased the confidence in successful organ transplants in end-stage patients. As the waitlist of organ demand is multiplying, the organ allocation process is becoming more crucial. In this situation, a transparent and efficient organ allocation policy is required. This study evaluates the preferences of medical experts to substantial factors for allocating organs in different hypothetical scenarios. Twenty-five medical professionals with a significant role in organ allocation were interviewed individually. The interview questionnaire comprised demographic information, organ donation status, important organ allocation factors, public preference knowledge, and experts’ preferences in different hypothetical scenarios. Most medical experts rated the waiting time and prognosis as the most important, while the next of kin donor status and care and contribution to the well-being of others were the least important factors for organ allocation. In expert opinion, medical experts significantly considered public preferences for organ allocation in making their decisions. Altogether, experts prioritized waiting time over successful transplant, age, and donor status in the hypothetical scenarios. In parallel, less chance of finding another organ, donor status, and successful transplant were prioritized over age. Medical experts are the key stakeholders; therefore, their opinions are substantial in formulating an organ allocation policy.

Discrete Choice Experiments to Elicit Patient Preferences for Decision Making in Transplantation

Providing care for transplant recipients is challenging given the need to maintain optimal graft function and survival while managing the debilitating side effects and complications associated with immunosuppression including infection, cancer, new-onset diabetes mellitus, and cardiovascular disease. Given the complexity of treatment options and the uncertainty about long-term benefits and harms of treatment, understanding patient preferences and values are key to ensuring that clinical decisions take into consideration patient priorities to support shared decision making and self-management. Choice experiments are increasingly used to quantify patient and community preferences, including in the field of transplantation. Discrete choice experiments (DCEs) are a well-established, validated methodology used to elicit preferences for decision making in health and other settings. In transplantation, for example, DCEs have been used to elicit patient preferences for outcomes following kidney transplantation, to identify community preferences factors for organ allocation and in establishing core outcomes. This article provides an overview of the concepts and methods used in the design of DCEs and how patients' preferences can be applied in shared decision making in transplantation.

Measuring trade-offs in nephrology: a systematic review of discrete choice experiments and conjoint analysis studies

Background

Discrete choice experiment (DCE), conjoint analysis or adaptive conjoint analysis methods are increasingly applied to obtain patient, clinician or community preferences in nephrology. This study systematically reviews the above-mentioned published choice studies providing an overview of the issues addressed, methods and findings.

Methods

Choice studies relating to nephrology were identified using electronic databases, including Medline, Embase, PsychINFO and Econlit from 1990 to 2015. For inclusion in the review, studies had to primarily relate to kidney disease and include results from statistical (econometric) analyses of respondents' choice or preference. Studies meeting the inclusion criteria were assessed against a range of systematic review criteria, and methods and results summarized.

Results

We identified 14 eligible studies from Europe, Australasia, North America and Asia, reporting preferences for treatment or screening, patient experiences, quality of life (QOL), health outcomes and priority-setting frameworks. Specific contexts included medical interventions in kidney transplantation and renal cell carcinoma, health policies for organ donation and allocation, dialysis modalities and end-of-life care, using a variety of statistical models. The characteristics of 'time' (i.e. transplant waiting time, dialysis hours, transport time) and QOL (pre- and post-transplant, or pre- and post-dialysis) consistently influenced patient and clinician preferences across the choice studies.

Conclusions

DCE are increasingly used to obtain information about key preferences in kidney transplantation and dialysis. These study methods provide quantitative information about respondents' trade-offs between conflicting clinical and policy objectives, and can establish how preferences vary among stakeholder groups.

Advance care plan barriers in older patients with end-stage renal disease: a qualitative nephrologist interview study

OBJECTIVES

Older patients with end-stage renal disease are willing participants in advance care planning but just over 10% are engaged in this process. Nephrologists fear such conversations may upset patients and so tend to avoid these discussions. This approach denies patients the opportunity to discuss their end-of-life care preferences. Many patients endure medically intensive end-of-life scenarios as a result. This study aims to explore the rationale underpinning nephrologists' clinical decision-making in the management of older patients with end-stage renal disease and to make recommendations that inform policymakers and enhance advance care planning for this patient group.

METHODS

A qualitative interview study of 20 nephrologists was undertaken. Nephrologists were asked about their management of end-stage renal disease in older patients, conservative management, dialysis withdrawal and end-of-life care. Eligible participants were nephrologists working in Ireland. Five nephrologists participated in a recorded focus group and 15 nephrologists participated in individual digitally recorded telephone interviews. Semistructured interviews were conducted; thematic analysis was used to distil the results.

RESULTS

Three key themes emerged: barriers to advance care planning; barriers to shared decision-making; and avoidance of end-of-life care discussion.

CONCLUSIONS

Advance care planning is not an integral part of the routine care of older patients with end-stage renal disease. Absence of formal training of nephrologists in how to communicate with patients contributes to poor advance care planning. Nephrologists lack clinical experience of conservatively managing end-stage renal disease and end-of-life care in older patients. Key policy recommendations include formal communication skills training for nephrologists and development of the conservative management service.

Mortality in Incident Maintenance Dialysis Patients Versus Incident Solid Organ Cancer Patients: A Population-Based Cohort

RATIONALE & OBJECTIVE

The mortality rate is high among dialysis patients, but how this compares with other diseases such as cancer is poorly understood. We compared the survival of maintenance dialysis patients with that for patients with common cancers to enhance the understanding of the burden of end-stage kidney disease.

STUDY DESIGN

Population-based cohort study.

SETTING & PARTICIPANTS

33,500 incident maintenance dialysis patients in Ontario, Canada, and 532,452 incident patients with cancer (women: breast, colorectal, lung, or pancreas; men: prostate, colorectal, lung, or pancreas) from 1997 to 2015 using administrative health care databases.

EXPOSURE

Incident kidney failure treated with maintenance dialysis versus incident diagnoses of cancer.

OUTCOME

All-cause mortality.

ANALYTICAL APPROACH

Kaplan-Meier product limit estimator was used to describe the survival of subgroups of study participants. Extended Cox regression with a Heaviside function was used to compare survival between patients with incident kidney failure treated with maintenance dialysis and individual diagnoses of various incident cancers.

RESULTS

In men, dialysis had worse unadjusted 5-year survival (50.8%; 95% CI, 50.1%-51.6%) compared with prostate (83.3%; 95% CI, 83.1%-83.5%) and colorectal (56.1%; 95% CI, 55.7%-56.5%) cancer, but better survival than lung (14.0%; 95% CI, 13.7%-14.3%) and pancreas (9.1%; 95% CI, 8.5%-9.7%) cancer. In women, dialysis had worse unadjusted 5-year survival (49.8%; 95% CI, 48.9%-50.7%) compared with breast (82.1%; 95% CI, 81.9%-82.4%) and colorectal (56.8%; 95% CI, 56.3%-57.2%) cancer, but better survival than lung (19.7%; 95% CI, 19.4%-20.1%) and pancreas (9.4%; 95% CI, 8.9%-10.0%) cancer. After adjusting for clinical characteristics, similar results were found except when examining men and women with lung and pancreas cancer, for which dialysis patients had a higher rate of death 4 or more years after diagnosis. Women and men 70 years and older with incident kidney failure treated with maintenance dialysis had unadjusted 10-year survival probabilities that were comparable to pancreas and lung cancer.

LIMITATIONS

Cancer stage could be obtained for only a subpopulation.

CONCLUSIONS

Survival in incident dialysis patients was lower than in patients with several different solid-organ cancers. These results highlight the need to develop interventions to improve survival on dialysis therapy and can be used to aid advance care planning for elderly patients beginning treatment with maintenance dialysis.

Application of discrete choice experiments to enhance stakeholder engagement as a strategy for advancing implementation: a systematic review

Background

One of the key strategies to successful implementation of effective health-related interventions is targeting improvements in stakeholder engagement. The discrete choice experiment (DCE) is a stated preference technique for eliciting individual preferences over hypothetical alternative scenarios that is increasingly being used in health-related applications. DCEs are a dynamic approach to systematically measure health preferences which can be applied in enhancing stakeholder engagement. However, a knowledge gap exists in characterizing the extent to which DCEs are used in implementation science.

Methods

We conducted a systematic literature search (up to December 2016) of the English literature to identify and describe the use of DCEs in engaging stakeholders as an implementation strategy. We searched the following electronic databases: MEDLINE, Econlit, PsychINFO, and the CINAHL using mesh terms. Studies were categorized according to application type, stakeholder(s), healthcare setting, and implementation outcome.

Results

Seventy-five publications were selected for analysis in this systematic review. Studies were categorized by application type: (1) characterizing demand for therapies and treatment technologies (n = 32), (2) comparing implementation strategies (n = 22), (3) incentivizing workforce participation (n = 11), and (4) prioritizing interventions (n = 10). Stakeholders included providers (n = 27), patients (n = 25), caregivers (n = 5), and administrators (n = 2). The remaining studies (n = 16) engaged multiple stakeholders (i.e., combination of patients, caregivers, providers, and/or administrators). The following implementation outcomes were discussed: acceptability (n = 75), appropriateness (n = 34), adoption (n = 19), feasibility (n = 16), and fidelity (n = 3).

Conclusions

The number of DCE studies engaging stakeholders as an implementation strategy has been increasing over the past decade. As DCEs are more widely used as a healthcare assessment tool, there is a wide range of applications for them in stakeholder engagement. The DCE approach could serve as a tool for engaging stakeholders in implementation science.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (10.1186/s13012-017-0675-8) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Renal transplant patients' preference for the supply and delivery of immunosuppressants in Wales: a discrete choice experiment

BACKGROUND

Prescribing policy recommendations aimed at moving immunosuppressant prescribing for renal transplant patients from primary to secondary care may result in benefits of increased safety and reduced cost. However, there is little evidence of patients' preferences for receiving their immunosuppressant therapy from hospitals compared to community dispensing. The aim of this study was to elicit patient preferences for different service configurations focusing in particular on home delivery versus collection of medication from hospital.

METHODS

A discrete choice experiment was administered to 265 renal transplant patients in North Wales. Respondents were presented 18 pairwise choices, labelled as either home delivery or hospital collection, and described by the attributes: frequency of supply, waiting time (for delivery or collection) and method of ordering (provider contact, patient contact via phone, patient contact electronically). Data were analysed using a random-effects logit model and marginal rates of substitution calculated based on the waiting time attribute.

RESULTS

A response rate of 63% was achieved, with 5332 usable observations from 150 respondents. Method of delivery (β coefficient 1.21; 95% confidence interval 1.05 to 1.38), frequency of supply (0.05; 0.03 to 0.08) waiting time (-0.00, -0.00 to -0.00), provider contact (desirable) (0.20; 0.12 to 0.27), patient contact by telephone (desirable) (0.09; 0.01 to 0.17) and patient contact electronically (undesirable) (-0.292; -0.37 to -0.21) were statistically significant (p < 0.05). Results indicate that patients are willing to increase waiting time by nearly 10 h to have a home delivery service.

CONCLUSION

Patients indicate a clear preference for a home delivery service. They prefer providers to make contact when new immunosuppressant supplies are required and show preference against ordering medication electronically. A policy for secondary care prescribing and hospital collection of medicines does not align with this preference.

Do patients and health care providers have discordant preferences about which aspects of treatments matter most? Evidence from a systematic review of discrete choice experiments

OBJECTIVES

To review studies eliciting patient and healthcare provider preferences for healthcare interventions using discrete choice experiments (DCEs) to (1) review the methodology to evaluate similarities, differences, rigour of designs and whether comparisons are made at the aggregate level or account for individual heterogeneity; and (2) quantify the extent to which they demonstrate concordance of patient and healthcare provider preferences.

METHODS

A systematic review searching Medline, EMBASE, Econlit, PsycINFO and Web of Science for DCEs using patient and healthcare providers.

INCLUSION CRITERIA

peer-reviewed; complete empiric text in English from 1995 to 31July 2015; discussing a healthcare-related topic; DCE methodology; comparing patients and healthcare providers.

DESIGN

Systematic review.

RESULTS

We identified 38 papers exploring 16 interventions in 26 diseases/indications. Methods to analyse results, determine concordance between patient and physician values, and explore heterogeneity varied considerably between studies. The majority of studies we reviewed found more evidence of mixed concordance and discordance (n=28) or discordance of patient and healthcare provider preferences (n=12) than of concordant preferences (n=4). A synthesis of concordance suggested that healthcare providers rank structure and outcome attributes more highly than patients, while patients rank process attributes more highly than healthcare providers.

CONCLUSIONS

Discordant patient and healthcare provider preferences for different attributes of healthcare interventions are common. Concordance varies according to whether attributes are processes, structures or outcomes, and therefore determining preference concordance should consider all aspects jointly and not a binary outcome. DCE studies provide excellent opportunities to assess value concordance between patients and providers, but assessment of concordance was limited by a lack of consistency in the approaches used and consideration of heterogeneity of preferences. Future DCEs assessing concordance should fully report the framing of the questions and investigate the heterogeneity of preferences within groups and how these compare.

End-of-life care decisions for haemodialysis patients - 'We only tend to have that discussion with them when they start deteriorating'

BACKGROUND

Haemodialysis patients receive very little involvement in their end-of-life care decisions. Issues relating to death and dying are commonly avoided until late in their illness. This study aimed to explore the experiences and perceptions of doctors and nurses in nephrology for involving haemodialysis patients in end-of-life care decisions.

METHODS

A semi-structured qualitative interview study with 15 doctors and five nurses and thematic analysis of their accounts was conducted. The setting was a large teaching hospital in Wales, UK.

RESULTS

Prognosis is not routinely discussed with patients, in part due to a difficulty in estimation and the belief that patients do not want or need this information. Advance care planning is rarely carried out, and end-of-life care discussions are seldom initiated prior to patient deterioration. There is variability in end-of-life practices amongst nephrologists; some patients are felt to be withdrawn from dialysis too late. Furthermore, the possibility and implications of withdrawal are not commonly discussed with well patients. Critical barriers hindering better end-of-life care involvement for these patients are outlined.

CONCLUSIONS

The study provides insights into the complexity of end-of-life conversations and the barriers to achieving better end-of-life communication practices. The results identify opportunities for improving the lives and deaths of haemodialysis patients.

Valuing Meta-Health Effects for Use in Economic Evaluations to Inform Reimbursement Decisions: A Review of the Evidence

OBJECTIVE

This review explores the evidence from the literature regarding how meta-health effects (effects other than health resulting from the consumption of health care) are valued for use in economic evaluations.

METHODS

A systematic review of the published literature (the EMBASE, MEDLINE, PsycINFO, CINAHL, EconLit and SocINDEX databases were searched for publications in March 2016, plus manual searching) investigated the associations between study methods and the resulting values for meta-health effects estimated for use in economic evaluations. The review considered which meta-health effects were being valued and how this differed by evaluation approach, intervention investigated, source of funds and year of publication. Detailed reasons for differences observed between values for comparable meta-health effects were explored, accounting for the method of valuation.

RESULTS

The search of the literature revealed 71 studies of interest; 35% involved drug interventions, with convenience, information and process of care the three meta-health effects most often investigated. Key associations with the meta-health effects were the evaluation method, the intervention, and the source of funds. Relative values for meta-health effects ranged from 0.9% to 68% of the overall value reported in a study. For a given meta-health effect, the magnitude of the effect evaluated and how the meta-health effect was described and framed relative to overall health explained the differences in relative values.

CONCLUSIONS

Evidence from the literature shows variability in how meta-health effects are being measured for use in economic evaluations. Understanding the sources of that variability is important if decision makers are to have confidence in how meta-health effects are valued.

Provider Perspectives on Advance Care Planning for Patients with Kidney Disease: Whose Job Is It Anyway?

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES

There is growing interest in efforts to enhance advance care planning for patients with kidney disease. Our goal was to elicit the perspectives on advance care planning of multidisciplinary providers who care for patients with advanced kidney disease.

DESIGN, SETTING, PARTICIPANTS, & MEASUREMENTS

Between April and December of 2014, we conducted semistructured interviews at the Department of Veterans Affairs Puget Sound Health Care System with 26 providers from a range of disciplines and specialties who care for patients with advanced kidney disease. Participants were asked about their perspectives and experiences related to advance care planning in this population. Interviews were audiotaped, transcribed, and analyzed inductively using grounded theory.

RESULTS

The comments of providers interviewed for this study spoke to significant system-level barriers to supporting the process of advance care planning for patients with advanced kidney disease. We identified four overlapping themes: (1) medical care for this population is complex and fragmented across settings and providers and over time; (2) lack of a shared understanding and vision of advance care planning and its relationship with other aspects of care, such as dialysis decision making; (3) unclear locus of responsibility and authority for advance care planning; and (4) lack of active collaboration and communication around advance care planning among different providers caring for the same patients.

CONCLUSIONS

The comments of providers who care for patients with advanced kidney disease spotlight both the need for and the challenges to interdisciplinary collaboration around advance care planning for this population. Systematic efforts at a variety of organizational levels will likely be needed to support teamwork around advance care planning among the different providers who care for patients with advanced kidney disease.

Benefit-risk assessment of HMG-CoA reductase inhibitors (statins): a discrete choice experiment

OBJECTIVES

To conduct the benefit-risk assessment of 3-hydroxy-3-methyl-glutaryl (HMG) coenzyme A reductase inhibitors (statins) using a discrete choice experiment, based on 3 major stakeholders' perspectives including patients, experts and policymakers in Thailand.

DESIGN

A discrete choice experiment questionnaire survey in three stakeholders' perspectives.

SETTING

Public hospitals in Thailand.

PARTICIPANTS

A total of 353 policymakers, experts and patients.

OUTCOMES

Stakeholders' preferences for assessment criteria (stroke reduction, myocardial infarction reduction, myalgia and hepatotoxicity). Statins' ranking and maximum acceptable risk in all perspectives were also calculated.

RESULTS

For any perspective, the most and least important criteria were the risk of hepatotoxicity and the benefit of myocardial infarction reduction, respectively. Patients and experts agreed on the order of importance for myalgia and stroke reduction, but policymakers had different order of importance in these criteria. Overall, results showed that the highest and lowest chances of being chosen were atorvastatin and rosuvastatin, respectively. Only patients' ranking order was different from others. Maximum acceptable risk of hepatotoxicity was lower than that of myalgia, reflecting the greater concern of all perspectives to statin consequence on liver.

CONCLUSIONS

The results of benefit-risk assessment from every perspective were somewhat consistent. This study demonstrated the feasibility of applying a discrete choice experiment in the benefit-risk assessment of drugs and encouraged the engagement of multiple stakeholders in the decision-making process.

Better the donor you know? A qualitative study of renal patients' views on 'altruistic' live-donor kidney transplantation

BACKGROUND

In the UK there is a short-fall between individuals requiring a renal transplant and kidneys available for transplantation. Non-directed 'altruistic' living kidney donation has emerged as a strategy for bridging this gap between supply and demand, with the number increasing each year.

OBJECTIVE

This study aimed to explore the views of potential recipients towards non-directed 'altruistic' live-donor kidney transplantation.

METHODS

Semi-structured interviews with 32 UK deceased-donor kidney transplant recipients were performed. Interviews explored willingness to consider directed and non-directed live-donor kidney transplants (LDKTs). Interviews were recorded, transcribed verbatim and transcripts were analysed using the constant comparison method described in Grounded Theory.

RESULTS

For those not willing to accept a non-directed 'altruistic' LDKT, the following themes were identified: i) Prioritising other recipients above self; ii) Fear of acquiring an unknown donor's characteristics, and iii) Concern for the donor - unnecessary risk. For those willing to accept a non-directed 'altruistic' LDKT the following themes were identified: iv) Prioritising known above unknown persons, v) Belief that they are as deserving as other potential recipients, and vi) Advantages of a LDKT.

CONCLUSIONS

Drawing on 'gift exchange theory', this study contributes to our understanding of the experience of the intended recipient of a gift. The anonymity of the donor-recipient appears to be seen as a benefit of non-directed 'altruistic' live-donor transplants, freeing recipients from the obligations of the gift. However, those who feel unworthy of the 'gifted transplant' are concerned about the donor and by the lack of opportunity for direct reciprocity. Highlighting the 'reciprocal benefits' reported by donors may allow individuals whose preference is a live-donor transplant to accept one if offered. These insights provide the transplant community with targets for intervention, through which the concerns of potential recipients might be addressed.

Nephrologists' perceptions regarding dialysis withdrawal and palliative care in Europe: lessons from a European Renal Best Practice survey

BACKGROUND

There is a variation in dialysis withdrawal rates, but reasons for this variation across European countries are largely unknown. We therefore surveyed nephrologists' perceptions of factors concerning dialysis withdrawal and palliative care and explored relationships between these perceptions and reports of whether withdrawal actually occurred in practice.

METHODS

We developed a 33-item electronic survey, disseminated via an email blast to all European Renal Association-European Dialysis and Transplant Association (ERA-EDTA) members. In our data analyses, we distinguished those respondents who reported occurrence from those reporting no dialysis withdrawal in their unit. With multilevel logistic regression, we investigated the association between respondents' characteristics and perceptions and whether they reported occurrence of dialysis withdrawal or not.

RESULTS

Five hundred and twenty-eight nephrologists from 45 countries completed the questionnaire; 42% reported occurrence of withdrawal in their unit in the past year, and 56% perceived that stopping life-prolonging treatment in terminally ill patients was allowed. Few respondents reported presence in their unit of protocols on withdrawal decision making (7%) or palliative care (10%) or the common involvement of a geriatrician in withdrawal decisions (10%). The majority stated that palliative care had not been part of their core curriculum (74%) and that they had not recently attended continuous medical education sessions on this topic (73%). Respondents from Eastern and Southern Europe had a 42 and 40% lower probability, respectively, of reporting withdrawal compared with those from North European countries. Working in a public centre [odds ratio (OR), 2.41; 95% confidence interval (CI), 1.36-4.25] and respondents' perception that stopping life-prolonging treatment in terminally ill patients was allowed (OR, 1.96; 95% CI, 1.23-3.12), that withdrawal decisions were commonly shared between doctor and patient (OR, 1.97; 95% CI, 1.26-3.08) and that palliative care was reimbursed (OR, 1.81; 95% CI, 1.16-2.83) increased the odds of reporting occurrence of withdrawal.

CONCLUSION

Reports of dialysis withdrawal occurrence varied between European countries. Occurrence reports were more likely if respondents worked in a public centre, if stopping life-prolonging treatments was perceived as allowed, if withdrawal decisions were considered shared between doctors and patients and if reimbursement of palliative care was believed to be in place. There is room for improvement regarding protocols on withdrawal and palliative care processes and regarding nephrologists' training and education on end-of-life care.

'Talk to me': a mixed methods study on preferred physician behaviours during end-of-life communication from the patient perspective

Background

Despite the recognized importance of end‐of‐life (EOL) communication between patients and physicians, the extent and quality of such communication is lacking.

Objective

We sought to understand patient perspectives on physician behaviours during EOL communication.

Design

In this mixed methods study, we conducted quantitative and qualitative strands and then merged data sets during a mixed methods analysis phase. In the quantitative strand, we used the quality of communication tool (QOC) to measure physician behaviours that predict global rating of satisfaction in EOL communication skills, while in the qualitative strand we conducted semi‐structured interviews. During the mixed methods analysis, we compared and contrasted qualitative and quantitative data.

Setting and Participants

Seriously ill inpatients at three tertiary care hospitals in Canada.

Results

We found convergence between qualitative and quantitative strands: patients desire candid information from their physician and a sense of familiarity. The quantitative results (n = 132) suggest a paucity of certain EOL communication behaviours in this seriously ill population with a limited prognosis. The qualitative findings (n = 16) suggest that at times, physicians did not engage in EOL communication despite patient readiness, while sometimes this may represent an appropriate deferral after assessment of a patient's lack of readiness.

Conclusions

Avoidance of certain EOL topics may not always be a failure if it is a result of an assessment of lack of patient readiness. This has implications for future tool development: a measure could be built in to assess whether physician behaviours align with patient readiness.

Community preferences for the allocation of donor organs for transplantation: a discrete choice study

BACKGROUND

Demand for organs for transplant exceeds supply. There is an ongoing debate about the relative weighting that should be given to different allocation criteria. Little is known about the relative weight the community places on various allocation criteria. This study aims to determine community preferences for organ allocation.

METHODS

Community respondents recruited from a web-based panel chose which patient received a transplant in 30 scenarios presenting two hypothetical patients. Patients were described in age, sex, previous transplants, whether they or family were registered donors, had caring responsibilities, adherence, time on waiting list, estimated survival and quality of life (QOL) with and without transplant, comorbidities, and lifestyle factors, such as smoking. Analyses were conducted in NLOGIT 5.0, using a mixed-logit model.

RESULTS

Two thousand fifty-one respondents aged 18 to 83 years completed the survey. All attributes significantly influenced recipient choice except sex and having diabetes. Younger patients were preferred over older patients. Family member donor registration, having caring responsibilities, and longer time on waiting list increased priority. Pretransplant life expectancy was valued more highly than posttransplant life expectancy; 1 year less of pretransplant life expectancy required an increase of 1.49 years in posttransplant life expectancy to compensate. Posttransplant QOL was valued more highly than pretransplant QOL.

CONCLUSION

Lower pretransplant life expectancy (need) was more important than higher posttransplant life expectancy (utility). Although current allocation algorithms are consistent with community preferences for prioritizing children and time on the waiting list, favoring patients with high predicted posttransplant survival as potential recipients may not be aligned with community preferences.

Patient and caregiver preferences for home dialysis-the home first study: a protocol for qualitative interviews and discrete choice experiments

INTRODUCTION

The number of patients requiring dialysis continues to increase worldwide imposing a substantial social and economic burden on patients, their families and healthcare systems. Compared with facility-based dialysis, dialysis performed by the patient at home is associated with higher quality of life, freedom, survival and reduced healthcare costs. International guidelines recommend suitable patients are offered a choice of dialysis modality, including home-based dialysis. Predialysis education and offering patients choice increase home dialysis uptake, yet the factors that patients and families are willing to trade off in making decisions about dialysis location are not well understood. The Home First study will explore patients' and caregivers' beliefs, attitudes and preferences regarding dialysis education and decision-making with regards to dialysis options; to identify key attributes which influence their decision-making, and to quantify the relative value of these attributes.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

This study will use a mixed-methods approach to describe patient and caregiver preferences and views about the factors that influence their choice of home or facility-based dialysis. Face-to-face, semistructured interviews will be conducted with 30-40 patients and 10-15 caregivers. Thematic analysis of interview transcripts will be conducted. Additional to providing information on the perspectives and experiences of patients and caregivers, these analyses will also inform the design of discrete choice experiments (DCEs). We will undertake DCEs with approximately 150 patients and 150 caregivers to quantify preferences for home and facility dialysis.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

The Hawke's Bay, Counties Manukau, and Capital Coast District Health Board Research Ethics Committees approved the study. Findings will be presented in national/international conferences and peer-reviewed journals. Dissemination to patients will take the form of presentations, newsletters and reports to support and community groups. Reports will be disseminated to funders and participating renal units and to the New Zealand Ministry of Health.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

ACTRN12615000314527.

Behavioral stage of change and dialysis decision-making

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES

Behavioral stage of change (SoC) algorithms classify patients' readiness for medical treatment decision-making. In the precontemplation stage, patients have no intention to take action within 6 months. In the contemplation stage, action is intended within 6 months. In the preparation stage, patients intend to take action within 30 days. In the action stage, the change has been made. This study examines the influence of SoC on dialysis modality decision-making.

DESIGN, SETTING, PARTICIPANTS, & MEASUREMENTS

SoC and relevant covariates were measured, and associations with dialysis decision-making were determined. In-depth interviews were conducted with 16 patients on dialysis to elicit experiences. Qualitative interview data informed the survey design. Surveys were administered to adults with CKD (eGFR≤25 ml/min/1.73 m(2)) from August, 2012 to June, 2013. Multivariable logistic regression modeled dialysis decision-making with predictors: SoC, provider connection, and dialysis knowledge score.

RESULTS

Fifty-five patients completed the survey (71% women, 39% white, and 59% black), and median annual income was $17,500. In total, 65% of patients were in the precontemplation/contemplation (thinking) and 35% of patients were in the preparation/maintenance (acting) SoC; 62% of patients had made dialysis modality decisions. Doctors explaining modality options, higher dialysis knowledge scores, and fewer lifestyle barriers were associated with acting versus thinking SoC (all P<0.02). Patients making modality decisions had doctors who explained dialysis options (76% versus 43%), were in the acting versus the thinking SoC (50% versus 10%), had higher dialysis knowledge scores (1.4 versus 0.5), and had lower eGFR (13.9 versus 16.8 ml/min/1.73 m(2); all P<0.05). In adjusted analyses, dialysis knowledge was significantly associated with decision-making (odds ratio, 4.2; 95% confidence interval, 1.4 to 12.9; P=0.01), and SoC was of borderline significance (odds ratio, 5.8; 95% confidence interval, 1.0 to 32.6; P=0.05). The model C statistic was 0.87.

CONCLUSIONS

Dialysis decision-making was associated with SoC, dialysis knowledge, and physicians discussing treatment options. Future studies determining ways to assist patients with CKD in making satisfying modality decisions are warranted.

'Conditional candour' and 'knowing me': an interpretive description study on patient preferences for physician behaviours during end-of-life communication

OBJECTIVE

To understand patients' preferences for physician behaviours during end-of-life communication.

METHODS

We used interpretive description methods to analyse data from semistructured, one-on-one interviews with patients admitted to general medical wards at three Canadian tertiary care hospitals. Study recruitment took place from October 2012 to August 2013. We used a purposive, maximum variation sampling approach to recruit hospitalised patients aged ≥55 years with a high risk of mortality within 6-12 months, and with different combinations of the following demographic variables: race (Caucasian vs non-Caucasian), gender and diagnosis (cancer vs non-cancer).

RESULTS

A total of 16 participants were recruited, most of whom (69%) were women and 70% had a non-cancer diagnosis. Two major concepts regarding helpful physician behaviour during end-of-life conversations emerged: (1) 'knowing me', which reflects the importance of acknowledging the influence of family roles and life history on values and priorities expressed during end-of-life communication, and (2) 'conditional candour', which describes a process of information exchange that includes an assessment of patients' readiness, being invited to the conversation, and sensitive delivery of information.

CONCLUSIONS

Our findings suggest that patients prefer a nuanced approach to truth telling when having end-of-life discussions with their physician. This may have important implications for clinical practice and end-of-life communication training initiatives.

Discrete choice experiments in health economics: a review of the literature

BACKGROUND

Discrete choice experiments (DCEs) are increasingly used in health economics to address a wide range of health policy-related concerns.

OBJECTIVE

Broadly adopting the methodology of an earlier systematic review of health-related DCEs, which covered the period 2001-2008, we report whether earlier trends continued during 2009-2012.

METHODS

This paper systematically reviews health-related DCEs published between 2009 and 2012, using the same database as the earlier published review (PubMed) to obtain citations, and the same range of search terms.

RESULTS

A total of 179 health-related DCEs for 2009-2012 met the inclusion criteria for the review. We found a continuing trend towards conducting DCEs across a broader range of countries. However, the trend towards including fewer attributes was reversed, whilst the trend towards interview-based DCEs reversed because of increased computer administration. The trend towards using more flexible econometric models, including mixed logit and latent class, has also continued. Reporting of monetary values has fallen compared with earlier periods, but the proportion of studies estimating trade-offs between health outcomes and experience factors, or valuing outcomes in terms of utility scores, has increased, although use of odds ratios and probabilities has declined. The reassuring trend towards the use of more flexible and appropriate DCE designs and econometric methods has been reinforced by the increased use of qualitative methods to inform DCE processes and results. However, qualitative research methods are being used less often to inform attribute selection, which may make DCEs more susceptible to omitted variable bias if the decision framework is not known prior to the research project.

CONCLUSIONS

The use of DCEs in healthcare continues to grow dramatically, as does the scope of applications across an expanding range of countries. There is increasing evidence that more sophisticated approaches to DCE design and analytical techniques are improving the quality of final outputs. That said, recent evidence that the use of qualitative methods to inform attribute selection has declined is of concern.

COnsiderations of Nephrologists when SuggestIng Dialysis in Elderly patients with Renal failure (CONSIDER): a discrete choice experiment

BACKGROUND

Nephrologists often face difficult decisions when recommending dialysis or non-dialysis (supportive) care for elderly patients, given the uncertainty around survival and the burden of dialysis. Discrete choice experiments (DCEs) mimic real-world decisions through simultaneous consideration of multiple variables. We aimed to determine the relative influence of patient characteristics on dialysis recommendations.

METHODS

We conducted a DCE among Australasian nephrologists consisting of 12 scenarios of two patients (described in terms of age, gender, cognition, comorbidity, life expectancy, current quality of life (QOL), expected QOL with dialysis, social support, patient and family inclination). Nephrologists indicated which patient they preferred recommending dialysis for, or whether they preferred 'neither'. Mixed logit models determined the odds of recommending dialysis over no dialysis. Trade-offs between QOL and survival were calculated.

RESULTS

A total of 159 nephrologists participated (34% aged 40-49 years, 62% male and 69% Caucasian). All patient characteristics except gender significantly affected the likelihood of dialysis recommendation. Nephrologists were more likely to recommend dialysis for patients with preserved cognition (odds ratio [OR]: 68.3; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 33.4-140.0), lower comorbidity (OR: 2.1; 95% CI: 1.1-4.1), increased life expectancy (OR: 2.8; 95% CI: 2.1-3.7), high current QOL (OR: 2.8; 95% CI: 2.0-3.8) and positive patient and family dialysis inclination (OR: 27.5; 95% CI: 16.2-46.8 and OR: 2.0; 95% CI: 1.3-3.3, respectively). Nephrologists aged >65 were more likely (OR: 11.7; 95% CI: 1.8-77.2) to recommend dialysis. Nephrologists were willing to forgo 12 months of patient survival to avoid substantial QOL decrease with dialysis.

CONCLUSION

Nephrologists avoided dialysis recommendation if it was expected to considerably reduce QOL. To inform elderly patients' dialysis decisions, systematic and longitudinal cognition and QOL evaluations are needed as well as better research into understanding patient preferences.

Who should be prioritized for renal transplantation?: Analysis of key stakeholder preferences using discrete choice experiments

Background

Policies for allocating deceased donor kidneys have recently shifted from allocation based on Human Leucocyte Antigen (HLA) tissue matching in the UK and USA. Newer allocation algorithms incorporate waiting time as a primary factor, and in the UK, young adults are also favoured. However, there is little contemporary UK research on the views of stakeholders in the transplant process to inform future allocation policy. This research project aimed to address this issue.

Methods

Discrete Choice Experiment (DCE) questionnaires were used to establish priorities for kidney transplantation among different stakeholder groups in the UK. Questionnaires were targeted at patients, carers, donors / relatives of deceased donors, and healthcare professionals. Attributes considered included: waiting time; donor-recipient HLA match; whether a recipient had dependents; diseases affecting life expectancy; and diseases affecting quality of life.

Results

Responses were obtained from 908 patients (including 98 ethnic minorities); 41 carers; 48 donors / relatives of deceased donors; and 113 healthcare professionals. The patient group demonstrated statistically different preferences for every attribute (i.e. significantly different from zero) so implying that changes in given attributes affected preferences, except when prioritizing those with no rather than moderate diseases affecting quality of life. The attributes valued highly related to waiting time, tissue match, prioritizing those with dependents, and prioritizing those with moderate rather than severe diseases affecting life expectancy. Some preferences differed between healthcare professionals and patients, and ethnic minority and non-ethnic minority patients. Only non-ethnic minority patients and healthcare professionals clearly prioritized those with better tissue matches.

Conclusions

Our econometric results are broadly supportive of the 2006 shift in UK transplant policy which emphasized prioritizing the young and long waiters. However, our findings suggest the need for a further review in the light of observed differences in preferences amongst ethnic minorities, and also because those with dependents may be a further priority.

Patient preferences for the allocation of deceased donor kidneys for transplantation: a mixed methods study

BACKGROUND

Deceased donor kidneys are a scarce health resource, yet patient preferences for organ allocation are largely unknown. The aim of this study was to determine patient preferences for how kidneys should be allocated for transplantation.

METHODS

Patients on dialysis and kidney transplant recipients were purposively selected from two centres in Australia to participate in nominal/focus groups in March 2011. Participants identified and ranked criteria they considered important for deceased donor kidney allocation. Transcripts were thematically analysed to identify reasons for their rankings.

RESULTS

From six groups involving 37 participants, 23 criteria emerged. Most agreed that matching, wait-list time, medical urgency, likelihood of surviving surgery, age, comorbidities, duration of illness, quality of life, number of organs needed and impact on the recipient's life circumstances were important considerations. Underpinning their rankings were four main themes: enhancing life, medical priority, recipient valuation, and deservingness. These were predominantly expressed as achieving equity for all patients, or priority for specific sub-groups of potential recipients regarded as more "deserving".

CONCLUSIONS

Patients believed any wait-listed individual who would gain life expectancy and quality of life compared with dialysis should have access to transplantation. Equity of access to transplantation for all patients and justice for those who would look after their transplant were considered important. A utilitarian rationale based on maximizing health gains from the allocation of a scarce resource to avoid "wastage," were rarely expressed. Organ allocation organisations need to seek input from patients who can articulate preferences for allocation and advocate for equity and justice in organ allocation.

Dialysis modality preference of patients with CKD and family caregivers: a discrete-choice study

BACKGROUND

Dialysis modality preferences of patients with chronic kidney disease (CKD) and family caregivers are important, yet rarely quantified.

STUDY DESIGN

Prospective, unlabeled, discrete-choice experiment with random-parameter logit analysis.

SETTING & PARTICIPANTS

Adults with stages 3-5 CKD and caregivers educated about dialysis treatment options from 8 Australian renal clinics.

PREDICTORS

Preferences for and trade-offs between the dialysis treatment attributes of life expectancy, number of hospital visits per week, ability to travel, hours per treatment, treatment time of day, subsidized transport service, and flexibility of treatment schedule.

OUTCOMES & MEASUREMENTS

Results presented as ORs for preferring home-based or in-center dialysis to conservative care.

RESULTS

105 predialysis patients and 73 family caregivers completed the study. Median patient age was 63 years, and mean estimated glomerular filtration rate was 18.1 (range, 6-34) mL/min/1.73 m(2). Median caregiver age was 61 years. Home-based dialysis (either peritoneal or home hemodialysis) was chosen by patients in 65% of choice sets; in-center dialysis, in 35%; and conservative care, in 10%. For caregivers, this was 72%, 25%, and 3%, respectively. Both patients and caregivers preferred longer rather than shorter hours of dialysis (ORs of 2.02 [95% CI, 1.51-2.70] and 2.67 [95% CI, 1.85-3.85] for patients and caregivers, respectively), but were less likely to choose nocturnal than daytime dialysis (ORs of 0.07 [95% CI, 0.01-0.75] and 0.03 [95% CI, 0.01-0.20]). Patients were willing to forgo 23 (95% CI, 19-27) months of life expectancy with home-based dialysis to decrease their travel restrictions. For caregivers, this was 17 (95% CI, 16-18) patient-months.

LIMITATIONS

Data were limited to stated preferences rather than actual choice of dialysis modality.

CONCLUSIONS

Our study suggests that it is rare for caregivers to prefer conservative nondialytic care for family members with CKD. Home-based dialysis modalities that enable patients and their family members to travel with minimal restriction would be strongly aligned with the preferences of both parties.

Factors influencing patient choice of dialysis versus conservative care to treat end-stage kidney disease

BACKGROUND

For every patient with chronic kidney disease who undergoes renal-replacement therapy, there is one patient who undergoes conservative management of their disease. We aimed to determine the most important characteristics of dialysis and the trade-offs patients were willing to make in choosing dialysis instead of conservative care.

METHODS

We conducted a discrete choice experiment involving adults with stage 3-5 chronic kidney disease from eight renal clinics in Australia. We assessed the influence of treatment characteristics (life expectancy, number of visits to the hospital per week, ability to travel, time spent undergoing dialysis [i.e., time spent attached to a dialysis machine per treatment, measured in hours], time of day at which treatment occurred, availability of subsidized transport and flexibility of the treatment schedule) on patients' preferences for dialysis versus conservative care.

RESULTS

Of 151 patients invited to participate, 105 completed our survey. Patients were more likely to choose dialysis than conservative care if dialysis involved an increased average life expectancy (odds ratio [OR] 1.84, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.57-2.15), if they were able to dialyse during the day or evening rather than during the day only (OR 8.95, 95% CI 4.46-17.97), and if subsidized transport was available (OR 1.55, 95% CI 1.24-1.95). Patients were less likely to choose dialysis over conservative care if an increase in the number of visits to hospital was required (OR 0.70, 95% CI 0.56-0.88) and if there were more restrictions on their ability to travel (OR=0.47, 95%CI 0.36-0.61). Patients were willing to forgo 7 months of life expectancy to reduce the number of required visits to hospital and 15 months of life expectancy to increase their ability to travel.

INTERPRETATION

Patients approaching end-stage kidney disease are willing to trade considerable life expectancy to reduce the burden and restrictions imposed by dialysis.