Education Strategies in Dialysis Centers Associated With Increased Transplant Wait-listing Rates

The promise of xenotransplantation: a challenge

According to many scholars, kidney xenotransplantation promises to mitigate the organ supply shortage. This claim has a certain obviousness to it: by flooding the market with a new source of kidneys, xenotransplantation promises to be a panacea. Our goal is to challenge this claim. We argue that xenotransplantation may increase rather than decrease demand for kidneys, may reduce kidney allotransplants, and may be inaccessible or otherwise unused. By offering the challenge, we hope to show deeper reflection is needed on how xenotransplantation will affect the dearth of available organs.

Opportunities for Improving the Transplant Assessment and Education Process in British Columbia: Patient and Health Care Provider Perspective

Background

There are several steps patients and their health care providers must navigate to access kidney transplantation in British Columbia (BC).

Objective

We explored perceptions and experiences with the pretransplant process across BC to determine where process improvements can be made to enhance access to transplantation.

Design

Anonymous surveys were sent online and via post to health care providers (including nephrologists, registered nurses, and coordinators) and patients across BC.

Setting

Kidney care clinics, transplant regional clinics, and provincial transplant centers in BC.

Measurements

Surveys included Likert scale questions on the current pretransplant process and transplant education available in BC. The health provider survey focused on understanding the pretransplant process, knowledge, roles, and communication while the patient survey focused on patient education and experience of the pretransplant processes.

Results

A total of 100 health care providers and 146 patients responded. Seventy-six percent of health care providers understood their role and responsibility in the pretransplant process, while only 47% understood others' roles in the process. Fifty-nine percent of health care respondents felt adequately supported by the provincial donor and transplant teams. Seventy-one percent of registered nurses and 92% of nephrologists understood transplant eligibility. About 68% and 77% of nurses and nephrologists, respectively, reported having enough knowledge to discuss living donation with patients. Fifty percent of patients had received transplant education, of which 60% had a good grasp of the pretransplant clinical processes. Sixty-three percent felt their respective kidney teams had provided enough advice and tools to support them in finding a living donor. Fifty percent of patients reported feeling up to date with their status in the evaluation process.

Limitations

This analysis was conducted between December 2021 and June 2022 and may need to account for practice changes that occurred during the COVID-19 pandemic. Responses are from a selection of health care providers, thus acknowledging a risk of selection bias. Furthermore, we are not able to verify patients who reported receiving formal transplant education from their health care providers.

Conclusions

Exploring these themes suggests communication with regional clinics and transplant centers can be improved. In addition, patient and staff education can benefit from education on kidney transplantation and the pretransplant clinical processes. Our findings provide opportunities to develop strategies to actively address modifiable barriers in a patient's kidney transplantation journey.

Implementation of the ASCENT Trial to Improve Transplant Waitlisting Access

Introduction

The Allocation System for changes in Equity in Kidney Transplantation (ASCENT) study was a hybrid type 1 trial of a multicomponent intervention among 655 US dialysis facilities with low kidney transplant waitlisting to educate staff and patients about kidney allocation system (KAS) changes and increase access to and reduce racial disparities in waitlisting. Intervention components included a staff webinar, patient and staff educational videos, and facility-specific feedback reports.

Methods

Implementation outcomes were assessed using the Reach, Effectiveness, Adoption, Implementation, and Maintenance Framework. Postimplementation surveys were administered among intervention group facilities (n = 334); interviews were conducted with facility staff (n = 6). High implementation was defined as using 3 to 4 intervention components, low implementation as using 1 to 2 components, and nonimplementation as using no components.

Results

A total of 331 (99%) facilities completed the survey; 57% were high implementers, 31% were low implementers, and 12% were nonimplementers. Waitlisting events were higher or similar among high versus low implementer facilities for incident and prevalent populations; for Black incident patients, the mean proportion waitlisted in low implementer facilities was 0.80% (95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.73-0.87) at baseline and 0.55% at 1-year (95% CI: 0.48-0.62) versus 0.83% (95% CI: 0.78-0.88) at baseline and 1.40% at 1-year (95% CI: 1.35-1.45) in high implementer facilities. Interviews revealed that the intervention helped facilities prioritize transplant education, but that intervention components were not uniformly shared.

Conclusion

The findings provide important context to interpret ASCENT effectiveness results and identified key barriers and facilitators to consider for future modification and scale-up of multilevel, multicomponent interventions in dialysis settings.

Non-English Primary Language: A Growing Population's Access to Cholecystectomy

OBJECTIVE

To examine access to cholecystectomy and postoperative outcomes among non-English primary-speaking patients.

BACKGROUND

The population of U.S. residents with limited English proficiency is growing. Language affects health literacy and is a well-recognized barrier to health care in the United States of America. Historically marginalized communities are at greater risk of requiring emergent gallbladder operations. However, little is known about how primary language affects surgical access and outcomes of common surgical procedures, such as cholecystectomy.

METHODS

We conducted a retrospective cohort study of adult patients after receipt of cholecystectomy in Michigan, Maryland, and New Jersey utilizing the Healthcare Cost and Utilization Project State Inpatient Database and State Ambulatory Surgery and Services Database (2016-2018). Patients were classified by primary spoken language: English or non-English. The primary outcome was admission type. Secondary outcomes included operative setting, operative approach, in-hospital mortality, postoperative complications, and length of stay. Multivariable logistics and Poisson regression were used to examine outcomes.

RESULTS

Among 122,013 patients who underwent cholecystectomy, 91.6% were primarily English speaking and 8.4% were non-English primary language speaking. Primary non-English speaking patients had a higher likelihood of emergent/urgent admissions (odds ratio: 1.22, 95% CI: 1.04-1.44, P = 0.015) and a lower likelihood of having an outpatient operation (odds ratio: 0.80, 95% CI: 0.70-0.91, P = 0.0008). There was no difference in the use of a minimally invasive approach or postoperative outcomes based on the primary language spoken.

CONCLUSIONS

Non-English primary language speakers were more likely to access cholecystectomy through the emergency department and less likely to receive outpatient cholecystectomy. Barriers to elective surgical presentation for this growing patient population need to be further studied.

Racial Equity in Living Donor Kidney Transplant Centers, 2008-2018

Importance

It is unclear whether center-level factors are associated with racial equity in living donor kidney transplant (LDKT).

Objective

To evaluate center-level factors and racial equity in LDKT during an 11-year time period.

Design, Setting, and Participants

A retrospective cohort longitudinal study was completed in February 2023, of US transplant centers with at least 12 annual LDKTs from January 1, 2008, to December 31, 2018, identified in the Health Resources Services Administration database and linked to the US Renal Data System and the Scientific Registry of Transplant Recipients.

Main Outcomes and Measures

Observed and model-based estimated Black-White mean LDKT rate ratios (RRs), where an RR of 1 indicates racial equity and values less than 1 indicate a lower rate of LDKT of Black patients compared with White patients. Estimated yearly best-case center-specific LDKT RRs between Black and White individuals, where modifiable center characteristics were set to values that would facilitate access to LDKT.

Results

The final cohorts of patients included 394 625 waitlisted adults, of whom 33.1% were Black and 66.9% were White, and 57 222 adult LDKT recipients, of whom 14.1% were Black and 85.9% were White. Among 89 transplant centers, estimated yearly center-level RRs between Black and White individuals accounting for center and population characteristics ranged from 0.0557 in 2008 to 0.771 in 2018. The yearly median RRs ranged from 0.216 in 2016 to 0.285 in 2010. Model-based estimations for the hypothetical best-case scenario resulted in little change in the minimum RR (from 0.0557 to 0.0549), but a greater positive shift in the maximum RR from 0.771 to 0.895. Relative to the observed 582 LDKT in Black patients and 3837 in White patients, the 2018 hypothetical model estimated an increase of 423 (a 72.7% increase) LDKTs for Black patients and of 1838 (a 47.9% increase) LDKTs for White patients.

Conclusions and Relevance

In this cohort study of patients with kidney failure, no substantial improvement occurred over time either in the observed or the covariate-adjusted estimated RRs. Under the best-case hypothetical estimations, modifying centers' participation in the paired exchange and voucher programs and increased access to public insurance may contribute to improved racial equity in LDKT. Additional work is needed to identify center-level and program-specific strategies to improve racial equity in access to LDKT.

Barriers and facilitators to surgical access in underinsured and immigrant populations

BACKGROUND

Marginalized communities are at risk of receiving inequitable access to surgical care. We aimed to examine the barriers and facilitators to access to surgery in underinsured and immigrant populations.

METHODS

A systematic review of disparities in access to surgical care was performed between January 1, 2000-March 2, 2022. Methodological quality was assessed with the Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool. A convergent integrated approach was used to code common themes between studies.

RESULTS

Of 1315 publications, a total of 66 studies were included for systematic review. Eight studies specifically discussed immigrant patient populations. Barriers and facilitators to surgical access were categorized by patient and health systems related factors.

CONCLUSIONS

Established facilitators to improve surgical access are centered on patient-level factors while interventions to address systems-related barriers are limited and may be an area for further investigation. Research focused on access to surgery in immigrant populations remains sparse.

Preliminary feasibility of animated video education designed to empower patients' referral to kidney transplantation

BACKGROUND

Referral for kidney transplantation is influenced by patient education; digital technologies can enhance broad information accessibility. This single-group study tested the feasibility and acceptability of patient-centered self-directed educational animated videos to improve mediators of kidney transplant referral.

METHODS

Community-based adults with chronic kidney disease stage ≥4 invited from a clinical registry or self-responding to flyers viewed eight sequential videos (19:36 min total duration) remotely on their own device. Change in kidney transplant knowledge, concerns, and confidence talking about kidney transplantation to doctors was assessed with self-report surveys before and immediately after viewing. Program feedback was assessed by survey and self-selected exit interview.

RESULTS

Viewers of the video set (n = 50) demonstrated increases in mean kidney transplantation knowledge by +22%, confidence discussing with their doctor by +6%, and reductions in concerns by -2%. Knowledge results were consistent across age, race, and literacy level. Over 90% indicated positive ratings on understanding, engaging, and helpfulness. In post-study interviews viewers indicated the videos promoted confidence in obtaining a kidney transplant and none reported that the 19-min duration of the home education was too long.

CONCLUSION

The animated video education is promising to improve diverse individuals' knowledge, concerns, and communication confidence about kidney transplantation and is highly acceptable.

Receipt and Sharing of Information to Improve Knowledge About Living Donor Kidney Transplant among Transplant Candidates with Advanced Chronic Kidney Disease

Introduction: Knowledge about living donor kidney transplant (LDKT) is associated with greater access. Yet, little is known about factors associated with high living donor transplant knowledge. Research Questions: Is receipt of LDKT information from health professionals or sharing information with family and friends associated with higher knowledge? Design: We conducted a cross-sectional analysis of data from preemptive LDKT candidates, which assessed knowledge, receipt of information about living donation from health professionals, and history of having shared living donor information with family members or friends. In multivariable logistic regression models adjusting for participants' age, race, and total household income, we quantified the association of high knowledge with receipt of living donation information from health professionals and sharing of this information with family/friends. Results: Among 130 participants, the median (IQR) age was 59.5 (52.0-65.0) years, 60% were female, 47.7% were Black, and 49.2% had a high school education or less. Over half (55.4%) had high LDKT knowledge. Nearly one third reported having received living donor information (33.1%) or sharing the information with family/friends (28.5%). After adjustment, those who received (vs. did not receive information) and shared information with family/friends had 3-fold higher odds of high LDKT knowledge (3.05 [1.24, 8.08]). Individuals who received LDKT information (vs. did not) from health professionals had 4-fold higher odds of high LDKT knowledge (adjusted OR [95% CI]: 4.01 [1.49, 12.18]. Conclusions: Receipt of living donation information from health professionals and sharing this information with family/friends were associated with high LDKT knowledge.

Pretransplant Patient Education in Solid-organ Transplant: A Narrative Review

Education for pretransplant, solid-organ recipient candidates aims to improve knowledge and understanding about the transplant process, outcomes, and potential complications to support informed, shared decision-making to reduce fears and anxieties about transplant, inform expectations, and facilitate adjustment to posttransplant life. In this review, we summarize novel pretransplant initiatives and approaches to educate solid-organ transplant recipient candidates. First, we review approaches that may be common to all solid-organ transplants, then we summarize interventions specific to kidney, liver, lung, and heart transplant. We describe evidence that emphasizes the need for multidisciplinary approaches to transplant education. We also summarize initiatives that consider online (eHealth) and mobile (mHealth) solutions. Finally, we highlight education initiatives that support racialized or otherwise marginalized communities to improve equitable access to solid-organ transplant. A considerable amount of work has been done in solid-organ transplant since the early 2000s with promising results. However, many studies on education for pretransplant recipient candidates involve relatively small samples and nonrandomized designs and focus on short-term surrogate outcomes. Overall, many of these studies have a high risk of bias. Frequently, interventions assessed are not well characterized or they are combined with administrative and data-driven initiatives into multifaceted interventions, which makes it difficult to assess the impact of the education component on outcomes. In the future, well-designed studies rigorously assessing well-defined surrogate and clinical outcomes will be needed to evaluate the impact of many promising initiatives.

Using Focus Groups to Understand Dialysis Staff Perspectives on Delivering Transplant Education

INTRODUCTION

Kidney transplant education in dialysis facilities could be optimized with internet resources, like videos, but most qualitative research predates widespread availability of online video education about kidney transplantation. To improve understanding of dialysis staff transplant education practices, as well as the potential value of video, we conducted focus groups of dialysis center staff members in Buffalo, NY.

METHODS/APPROACH

Seventeen focus groups (97 participants: 53 nurses, 10 dialysis technicians, 6 social workers, 6 dieticians, 7 administrative personnel, 2 trainees, and 1 insurance coordinator) from 8 dialysis facilities in Buffalo, NY, were conducted, audio-recorded, transcribed, and analyzed. After thematic data analysis, a diverse patient and caregiver community advisory board was invited to comment, and their voices were integrated. Findings: Five key themes were identified that captured barriers to transplant education delivery and how online video could be a facilitator: (1) delivery of transplant education was reliant on one person, (2) other dialysis staff had time to answer transplant questions but felt uninformed, (3) patient lack of interest in existing supplementary transplant education, (4) patient disinterest in transplantation education was due to education timing, feeling overwhelmed, and transplant fear/ambivalence, and (5) video education could be flexible, low effort, and spark transplant interest. Study limitations are potential selection bias and inclusion of English-speaking participants only.

DISCUSSION

Dialysis staff barriers of time, insufficient knowledge, and limited resources to provide education to patients and their care partners may be mitigated with online educational videos without increasing staff workload.

A scoping review of inequities in access to organ transplant in the United States

Background

Organ transplant is the preferred treatment for end-stage organ disease, yet the majority of patients with end-stage organ disease are never placed on the transplant waiting list. Limited access to the transplant waiting list combined with the scarcity of the organ pool result in over 100,000 deaths annually in the United States. Patients face unique barriers to referral and acceptance for organ transplant based on social determinants of health, and patients from disenfranchised groups suffer from disproportionately lower rates of transplantation. Our objective was to review the literature describing disparities in access to organ transplantation based on social determinants of health to integrate the existing knowledge and guide future research.

Methods

We conducted a scoping review of the literature reporting disparities in access to heart, lung, liver, pancreas and kidney transplantation based on social determinants of health (race, income, education, geography, insurance status, health literacy and engagement). Included studies were categorized based on steps along the transplant care continuum: referral for transplant, transplant evaluation and selection, living donor identification/evaluation, and waitlist outcomes.

Results

Our search generated 16,643 studies, of which 227 were included in our final review. Of these, 34 focused on disparities in referral for transplantation among patients with chronic organ disease, 82 on transplant selection processes, 50 on living donors, and 61 on waitlist management. In total, 15 studies involved the thoracic organs (heart, lung), 209 involved the abdominal organs (kidney, liver, pancreas), and three involved multiple organs. Racial and ethnic minorities, women, and patients in lower socioeconomic status groups were less likely to be referred, evaluated, and added to the waiting list for organ transplant. The quality of the data describing these disparities across the transplant literature was variable and overwhelmingly focused on kidney transplant.

Conclusions

This review contextualizes the quality of the data, identifies seminal work by organ, and reports gaps in the literature where future research on disparities in organ transplantation should focus. Future work should investigate the association of social determinants of health with access to the organ transplant waiting list, with a focus on prospective analyses that assess interventions to improve health equity.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12939-021-01616-x.

Patient and Clinician Perceptions of Informed Consent and Decision Making About Accepting KDPI > 85 Kidneys

Supplemental Digital Content is available in the text.

Background.

Although the impact of the kidney donor profile index (KDPI) on kidney discard is well researched, less is known about how patients make decisions about whether to give consent for KDPI > 85 kidney offers.

Methods.

We conducted in-depth, semistructured interviews with 16 transplant recipients, 15 transplant candidates, and 23 clinicians (transplant surgeons, nephrologists, and nurse coordinators) to assess and compare perceptions of transplant education, informed consent for KDPI > 85 kidneys‚ and the decision-making process for accepting kidney offers. Thematic analysis was used to analyze qualitative data.

Results.

Four themes emerged: (1) patients reported uncertainty about the meaning of KDPI or could not recall information about KDPI; (2) patients reported uncertainty about their KDPI > 85 consent status and a limited role in KDPI > 85 consent decision making; (3) patients’ reported willingness to consider KDPI > 85 kidneys depended on their age, health status, and experiences with dialysis, and thus it changed over time; (4) patients’ underestimated the survival benefit of transplantation compared with dialysis, which could affect their KDPI > 85 consent decision making.

Conclusions.

To better support patients’ informed decision making about accepting KDPI > 85 kidneys, centers must ensure that all patients receive education about the trade-offs between accepting a KDPI > 85 kidney and remaining on dialysis. Additionally, education about KDPI and discussions about informed consent for KDPI > 85 kidneys must be repeated at multiple time points while patients are on the waiting list.

The beneficial effect of providing kidney transplantation information on transplantation status differs between for-profit and nonprofit dialysis centers

Informing end-stage kidney disease patients about kidney transplantation options increases the likelihood of kidney transplant waiting list (WL) enrollment and live donor kidney transplant (LDKT) receipt. Patients in for-profit dialysis centers have lower rates of WL enrollment and LDKT receipt. This study examined if the ownership status of dialysis centers modified the association between informing patients about transplantation options and patients' transplantation status. Multilevel analysis using mixed-effect multinomial logistic regression was performed using the United States Renal Data System (USRDS) data (January 2005 to December 2017). The study showed that informing patients improved the odds of WL enrollment and LDKT receipt. However, the effect of informing patients on transplantation status was less pronounced at for-profit as compared with nonprofit centers (Nonprofit: WL enrollment OR: 2.23 [95% CI: 2.07-2.40], and LDKT receipt OR: 3.35 [95% CI: 2.65-4.25]. For-profit: WL enrollment OR: 1.73 [95% CI: 1.66-1.79], and LDKT receipt OR: 2.35 [95% CI: 2.08-2.66]), although the odds of informing patients was higher for for-profit centers, and type of patients informed were similar across both types of centers. Information provided by for-profit centers was potentially less effective than those provided by nonprofit centers. Standardized guidelines for transplantation information provision are needed in order to ensure similar informational quality across centers.

Improving Access to Kidney Transplantation: Perspectives From Dialysis and Transplant Staff in the Southeastern United States

Rationale & Objective

There are many barriers to meeting the goal of increasing kidney transplants in the United States. It is important to understand dialysis and transplant center providers’ existing practices and identified barriers to increasing the number of dialysis patients who are evaluated for and get wait-listed for a transplant.

Study Design

Cross-sectional survey of dialysis unit and transplant center staff in End Stage Renal Disease Network 6 (Georgia, North Carolina, South Carolina).

Setting & Participants

Ninety-one transplant staff from all 9 transplant centers in the region and 421 dialysis staff from 421 facilities responded to the survey.

Predictors

N/A

Outcome

Provider perceptions of barriers faced by patients in the kidney transplant evaluation process and suggestions for improving care.

Analytical Approach

Mixed methods. Descriptive analyses of responses to multiple-choice questions and qualitative analysis of open-ended survey responses.

Results

The top 5 barriers to kidney transplantation as reported by transplant staff were transportation (63.7%), low health literacy (50.5%), lack of understanding about the transplant process (37.4%), distance to transplant center (29.7%), and low socioeconomic status (28.6%). When asked how dialysis units can help patients complete the evaluation process, the most common responses from transplant center staff were educating patients about transplant (54%), helping patients through steps in the process (35%), and better communication with transplant centers (15%). When dialysis unit staff were asked what could be done to help the facility improve its transplant wait-list rate, the most common responses were educational materials for patients and staff (55%), better communication with transplant centers (12%), and transportation and financial assistance (9%).

Limitations

Survey responses are from 1 end stage renal disease network.

Conclusions

Dialysis units, transplant centers, and ESRD networks can work together to help patients address key barriers to transplantation to improve the country’s transplantation rate.

Elucidating measures of systemic racism to mitigate racial disparities in kidney transplantation

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Given recent national attention to the role of racism in perpetuating racial inequities in society and health, this review provides a timely and relevant summary of key measures of systemic racism in kidney transplantation. More specifically, the review identifies current and promising interventions, whereas highlighting the need for more sustainable and impactful interventions.

RECENT FINDINGS

Racial disparities persist in kidney transplantation. Black and Hispanic individuals are less likely to receive a kidney transplant than non-Hispanic Whites despite disproportionately higher rates of kidney failure. Studies demonstrate that socioeconomic factors do not fully explain existing racial disparities in transplantation. Systemic racism at all levels, individual, interpersonal, institutional, and structural, is at the core of racial disparities, and current interventions are insufficient in mitigating their effects. Thus, targeted and sustainable interventions must be implemented to mitigate systemic racism in kidney transplantation.

SUMMARY

Systemic racism in all its forms continues to influence disparities at all stages of kidney transplantation. This paper highlights recent findings that shed light on how racism contributes to racial disparities in kidney transplantation. Using these findings to identify targets and strategies for mitigation, relevant interventions and policies that show promise are detailed.

Destination Transplant: Protocol for a Parallel-group Randomized Trial of an Educational Intervention to Increase Kidney Transplant Among Black People on the Transplant Waiting List

For most patients with kidney failure, living donor kidney transplant (LDKT) is their best treatment option. Compared with White people, Black people are more likely to have kidney failure but less likely to receive LDKTs. In this study, the investigators will test an educational intervention, Destination Transplant, designed to reduce this disparity, among Black people already listed for kidney transplant.

Kidney Transplant Evaluation and Listing: Development and Preliminary Evaluation of Multimedia Education for Patients

Background

Patient knowledge gaps about the evaluation and waitlisting process for kidney transplantation lead to delayed and incomplete testing, which compromise transplant access. We aimed to develop and evaluate a novel video education approach to empower patients to proceed with the transplant evaluation and listing process and to increase their knowledge and motivation.

Material/Methods

We developed 2 theory-informed educational animations about the kidney transplantation evaluation and listing process with input from experts in transplantation and communication, 20 candidates/recipients, 5 caregivers, 1 anthropologist, 3 community advocates, and 36 dialysis or transplant providers. We then conducted an online pre-post study with 28 kidney transplantation candidates to measure the acceptability and feasibility of the 2 videos to improve patients’ evaluation and listing knowledge, understanding, and concerns.

Results

Compared with before intervention, the mean knowledge score increased after intervention by 38% (5.7 to 7.9; P<0.001). Increases in knowledge effect size were large across age group, health literacy, education, technology access, and duration of pretransplant dialysis. The proportion of positive responses increased from before to after animation viewing for understanding the evaluation process (25% to 61%; P=0.002) and waitlist placement (32% to 86%; P<0.001). Concerns about list placement decreased (32% to 7%; P=0.039). After viewing the animations, >90% of responses indicated positive ratings on trusting the information, comfort level with learning, and engagement.

Conclusions

In partnership with stakeholders, we developed 2 educational animations about kidney transplant evaluation and listing that were positively received by patients and have the potential to improve patient knowledge and understanding and reduce patient concerns.

Your Path to Transplant: A randomized controlled trial of a tailored expert system intervention to increase knowledge, attitudes, and pursuit of kidney transplant

Individually tailoring education over time may help more patients, especially racial/ethnic minorities, get waitlisted and pursue deceased and living donor kidney transplant (DDKT and LDKT, respectively). We enrolled 802 patients pursuing transplant evaluation at the University of California, Los Angeles Transplant Program into a randomized education trial. We compared the effectiveness of Your Path to Transplant (YPT), an individually tailored coaching and education program delivered at 4 time points, with standard of care (SOC) education on improving readiness to pursue DDKT and LDKT, transplant knowledge, taking 15 small transplant-related actions, and pursuing transplant (waitlisting or LDKT rates) over 8 months. Survey outcomes were collected prior to evaluation and at 4 and 8 months. Time to waitlisting or LDKT was assessed with at least 18 months of follow-up. At 8 months, compared to SOC, the YPT group demonstrated increased LDKT readiness (47% vs 33%, P = .003) and transplant knowledge (effect size [ES] = 0.41, P < .001). Transplant pursuit was higher in the YPT group (hazard ratio: 1.44, 95% confidence interval: 1.15-1.79, P = .002). A focused, coordinated education effort can improve transplant-seeking behaviors and waitlisting rates. ClinicalTrials.gov registration: NCT02181114.

Recommendations for Systematizing Transplant Education Within a Care Delivery System for Patients With Chronic Kidney Disease Stages 3 to 5

CONTEXT

Early tailored transplant education could help patients make informed transplant choices.

OBJECTIVE

We interviewed 40 patients with chronic kidney disease (CKD) stages 3 to 5, 13 support persons, and 10 providers at Kaiser Permanente Southern California to understand: (1) barriers to transplant education and (2) transplant educational preferences and recommendations based on CKD stage and primary language spoken.

DESIGN

A grounded theory analysis identified central themes related to transplant education barriers, preferences, and recommendations.

RESULTS

Barriers included confusion about diagnosis and when transplant may be necessary, concerns about transplant risks, families' lack of transplant knowledge, financial burdens, transportation and scheduling, and the emotional overload of chronic illness. Hispanic and Spanish-speaking participants reported difficulty in understanding transplant education and medical mistrust. Recommendations included providing general education, earlier introduction to transplant, wait-listing information, transplant education for support persons, living donation education for patients and potential donors, opportunities to meet living donors and kidney recipients, information on the benefits of transplant, recovery, and available financial resources, flexible class scheduling, online and print resources, and more provider follow-up. Spanish-speaking and Hispanic participants recommended using bilingual educators, print, video, and online resources in Spanish, and culturally responsive education. Patients with CKD stages 3 to 4 wanted information on slowing disease progression and avoiding transplant.

CONCLUSION

Increasing access to culturally responsive transplant education in multiple languages, pairing appropriate content to the disease stage, and increasing system-wide follow-up as the disease progresses might help patients make more informed choices about transplant.

Direct Delivery of Kidney Transplant Education to Black and Low-Income Patients Receiving Dialysis: A Randomized Controlled Trial

RATIONALE & OBJECTIVE

Compared with others, black and low-income patients receiving dialysis are less likely to receive kidney transplantation (KT) education within dialysis centers. We examined the efficacy of 2 supplementary KT education approaches delivered directly to patients.

STUDY DESIGN

Prospective, 3-arm parallel-group, randomized, controlled trial.

SETTINGS & PARTICIPANTS

Adult, black, and white low-income patients receiving dialysis in Missouri.

INTERVENTION

Patients were randomly assigned to 1 of 3 educational conditions: (1) standard of care, usual KT education provided in dialysis centers (control); (2) Explore Transplant @ Home patient-guided, 4 modules of KT education sent directly to patients using print, video, and text messages; and (3) Explore Transplant @ Home educator-guided, the patient-guided intervention plus 4 telephonic discussions with an educator.

OUTCOMES

Primary: patient knowledge of living (LDKT) and deceased donor KT (DDKT). Secondary: informed decision making, change in attitudes in favor of LDKT and DDKT, and change in the number of new steps taken toward KT.

RESULTS

In intent-to-treat analyses, patients randomly assigned to educator- and patient-guided interventions had greater knowledge gains (1.4 point increase) than control patients (0.8 point increase; P=0.02 and P=0.01, respectively). Compared with control patients, more patients randomly assigned to educator- and patient-guided interventions were able to make informed decisions about starting KT evaluation (82% vs 91% and 95%; P=0.003), pursuing DDKT (70% vs 84% and 84%; P=0.003), and pursuing LDKT (73% vs 91% and 92%; P<0.001).

LIMITATIONS

Potential contamination because of patient-level randomization; no assessment of clinical end points.

CONCLUSIONS

Education presented directly to dialysis patients, with or without coaching by telephone, increased dialysis patients' KT knowledge and informed decision making without increasing educational burden on providers.

FUNDING SOURCE

This project was funded by the National Institutes of Health and Health Resources and Services Administration.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

Registered at ClinicalTrials.gov with study number NCT02268682.