Understanding health decisions using critical realism: Home-dialysis decision-making during chronic kidney disease

Nursing Inquiry

Volumn 19, Issue 1, 2012, Pages 29-38

  Harwood, Lori ^a   Clark, Alexander M ^b  

^a LONDON HEALTH SCIENCES CENTRE   (Canada)

^b UNIVERSITY OF ALBERTA   (Canada)

Author keywords

Chronic illness; Decision making; Social theory

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; CHRONIC DISEASE; CHRONIC KIDNEY FAILURE; CLINICAL PRACTICE; DECISION MAKING; EPIDEMIOLOGY; HUMAN; KNOWLEDGE; METHODOLOGY; NURSING; NURSING THEORY; PHILOSOPHY; RENAL REPLACEMENT THERAPY;

CAUSALITY; CHRONIC DISEASE; DECISION MAKING; HUMANS; KIDNEY FAILURE, CHRONIC; KNOWLEDGE; NURSING THEORY; PHILOSOPHY, NURSING; PHYSICIAN'S PRACTICE PATTERNS; RENAL DIALYSIS;

EID: 84855313587     PISSN: 13207881     EISSN: 14401800     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1111/j.1440-1800.2011.00575.x     Document Type: Article

References (63)

1. Ackroyd S and S Fleetwood. 2000. Realism in contemporary organisation and management studies. London: Routledge.
2. Angus J, K Miller, T Pulfer and P McKeever. 2006. Studying delays in breast cancer diagnosis and treatment: Critical realism as a new foundation for inquiry. Oncology Nursing Forum 33: E62-70.
3. Bhaskar R. 1975. A realist theory of science. Brighton: Harvestor.
4. Bhaskar R. 1989. The possibility of naturalism. Brighton: Harvester.
5. Bhaskar R. 1998. Societies. In Critical realism: Essential readings, eds M Archer, R Bhaskar, A Collier, T Lawson and A Norrie, 206-57. London: Routledge.
6. Blagg C. 2007. The early history of dialysis for chronic renal failure in the United States: A view from Seattle. American Journal of Kidney Diseases 49: 482-96.
7. Blaxter M. 1997. Whose fault is it? People's own conceptions of the reasons for health inequalities. Social Science & Medicine 44: 747-56.
8. Bryne D. 2004. Complex and contingent causation. In Making realism work: Realist social theory and empirical research, eds B Carter and C New, 50-66. London: Routledge.
9. Carter B. 2003. What race means to a realist. In Critical realism: The difference it makes, ed. J Cruickshank, 149-60. London: Routledge.
10. CIHI. 2008. 2007 Annual report: Treatment of end-stage organ failure in Canada, 1996 to 2005. Ottawa: Canadian Institute for Health Information.
11. Clark AM, S Lissell and C Davis. 2008. Complex critical realism: Tenets and applications for nursing research. Advances in Nursing Science 31: E67-79.
12. Clark AM, P MacIntyre and J Cruickshank. 2007. A critical realist approach to understanding and evaluating heart health programmes. Health (London) 11: 513-39.
13. Clark AM, C Sharp and P MacIntyre. 2002. The role of age in moderating access to cardiac rehabilitation in Scotland. Ageing & Society 22: 501-15.
14. Connelly J. 2001. Critical realism and health promotion: Effective practice needs an effective theory. Health Education Research 16: 115-19.
15. Connelly J. 2004. Realism in evidence based medicine: Interpreting the randomised controlled trial. Journal of Health Organization and Management 18: 70-81.
16. Courtney A and A Maxwell. 2009. The challenge of doing what is right in renal transplantation: Balancing equity and utility. Nephron. Clinical Practice 111: 62-8.
17. Freydberg N, L Strain, R Tsuyuki, F McAlister and AM Clark. 2010. 'If he gives in, he will be gone...': The influence of work and place on experiences, reactions and self-care of heart failure in Canada. Social Science & Medicine 70: 1077-83.
18. Frohlich K, J Bodnarchuk, D Chateau, L Roos and S Forsyth. 2007. What you see is what you get? Questioning the relationship between objective and subjective appraisals of neighbourhood resources in relation to health. Canadian Journal of Public Health 98: 292-6.
19. Gomez C, P Valido, O Celadilla, A de Quiros and M Mojon. 1999. Validity of a standard information protocol provided to end-stage renal disease patients and its effect on treatment selection. Peritoneal Dialysis International 19: 471-7.
20. Goovaerts T, M Jadoul and E Goffin. 2005. Influence of a pre-dialysis education programme (PDEP) on the mode of renal replacement therapy. Nephrology Dialysis Transplantation 20: 1842-7.
21. Jager K, J Korevaar, F Dekker, R Krediet and E Boeschoten. 2004. The effect of contraindications and patient preference on dialysis modality selection in ESRD patients in the Netherlands. American Journal of Kidney Diseases 43: 891-9.
22. Just P, F de Charro, E Tschosik, L Noe, S Bhattacharyya and M Riella. 2008. Reimbursement and economic factors influencing dialysis modality choice around the world. Nephrology Dialysis Transplantation 23: 2365-73.
23. Kellman E and D Watson. 2006. Technical aspects of peritoneal dialysis. In Contemporary nephrology nursing: Principles and practice, eds A Molzahn and E Butera, 632-59. Pitman, NJ, USA: Anthony J. Jannettii.
24. Klang B, H Bjorvell and N Clyne. 1999. Predialysis education helps patients choose dialysis modality and increases disease-specific knowledge. Journal of Advanced Nursing 29: 869-76.
25. Lameire N, P Pellters and R Vanholder. 2006. Peritoneal dialysis in Europe: An analysis of its rise and fall. Blood Purification 24: 107-14.
26. Landreneau K and P Ward-Smith. 2007. Perceptions of patients on hemodialysis concerning choice among renal replacement therapy. Nephrology Nursing Journal 34: 513-19. 525.
27. Latham C. 2006. Hemodialysis technology. In Contemporary nephrology nursing: Principles and practice, eds A Molzahn and E Butera, 531-57. Pitman, NJ, USA: Anthony J. Jannetti.
28. Lawson T. 2003. Reorientating economics. London: Routledge.
29. Lee H, B Manns, S Taub, W Ghali, S Dean, S Johnson and C Donaldson. 2002. Cost analysis of ongoing care of patients with end-stage renal disease: The impact of dialysis modality and dialysis access. American Journal of Kidney Diseases 40: 611-22.
30. Lee A, C Gudex, J Povlsen, B Bonnevie and C Nielsen. 2008. Patients' views regarding choice of dialysis modality. Nephrology Dialysis Transplantation 23: 3953-9.
31. Lin C, B Lee and F Hicks. 2005. The phenomenology of deciding about hemodialysis among Taiwanese. Western Journal of Nursing Research 27: 915-29.
32. Lipscomb M. 2008. Mixed method nursing studies: A critical realist critique. Nursing Philosophy 9: 32-45.
33. Little J, A Irwin, T Marshall, H Rayner and S Smith. 2001. Predicting a patient's choice of dialysis modality: Experience in a United Kingdom renal department. American Journal of Kidney Diseases 37: 981-6.
34. Lo W. 2007. Peritoneal dialysis utilization and outcome: What are we facing? Peritoneal Dialysis International 27(Suppl 2): S42-7.
35. Macintyre S, A Ellaway and S Cummins. 2002. Place effects on health: How can we conceptualise, operationalise and measure them? Social Science & Medicine 55: 125-39.
36. Manns B, D Mendelssohn and K Taub. 2007. The economics of end-stage renal disease care in Canada: Incentive and impact on delivery of care. International Journal of Health Care Finance and Economics 7: 149-69.
37. Manns B, K Taub, C VanderStraeten, H Jones, C Mills, M Visser and K McLaughlin. 2005. The impact of education on chronic kidney disease patients' plans to initiate dialysis with self-care dialysis: A randomized trial. Kidney International 68: 1777-83.
38. McLaughlin K, B Manns, G Mortis, R Hons and K Taub. 2003. Why patients with ESRD do not select self-care dialysis as a treatment option. American Journal of Kidney Diseases 41: 380-5.
39. Mehrotra R, D Marsh, E Vonesh, V Peters and A Nissenson. 2005. Patient education and access of ESRD patients to renal replacement therapies beyond in-centre hemodialysis. Kidney International 68: 378-90.
40. Mendelssohn D, N Langlois and P Blake. 2004. Peritoneal dialysis in Ontario: A natural experiment in physician reimbursement methodology. Peritoneal Dialysis International 24: 531-7.
41. Mendelssohn D, S Mullaney, B Jung, P Blake and R Mehta. 2001. What do American nephrologists think about dialysis modality selection? American Journal of Kidney Diseases 37: 22-9.
42. Mendelssohn D, S Mujais, S Soroka, J Brouillette, T Takano, P Barre, B Mittal et al. 2009. A prospective evaluation of renal replacement therapy modality eligibility. Nephrology Dialysis Transplantation 24: 555-61.
43. Morton R, A Tong, K Howard, P Snelling and A Webster. 2010. The views of patients and carers in treatment decision making for chronic kidney disease: Systematic review and thematic synthesis of qualitative studies. BMJ 19(340): c112. DOI:.
44. Mowatt G, L Vale, J Perez, L Wyness, C Fraser, A MacLeod, C Daly and S Stearns. 2003. Systematic review of the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness, and economic evaluation, of home versus hospital or satellite unit haemodialysis for people with end-stage renal disease. Health Technology Assessment 7: 1-174.
45. Nesrallah G. 2006. Modality options for renal replacement therapy: The integrated care concept revisited. Hemodialysis International 10: 143-51.
46. O'Hare A, K Johansen and R Rodriguez. 2006. Dialysis and kidney transplantation among patients living in rural areas of the United States. Kidney International 69: 343-9.
47. Oliver M, A Garg, P Blake, J Johnson, M Verrelli, J Zacharias, S Pandeya and R Quinn. 2010. The impact of contraindications, barriers to self-care and support on incident peritoneal dialysis utilization. Nephrology Dialysis Transplantation 25: 2737-44.
48. Olsen W and J Morgan. 2005. A critical epistemology of analytical statistics: Addressing the sceptical realists. Journal for the Theory of Social Behaviour 35: 255-84.
49. Oreopoulos D, S Ossareh and E Thodis. 2008. Peritoneal dialysis: Past, present, and future. Iranian Journal of Kidney Diseases 2: 171-82.
50. Pagels A, M Wang and Y Wengstrom. 2008. The impact of a nurse-led clinic on self-care ability, disease-specific knowledge, and home dialysis modality. Nephrology Nursing Journal 35: 242-8.
51. Pawson R and N Tilley. 1997. Realistic evaluation. London: Sage Publications.
52. Pratschke J. 2003. Realistic models? Critical realism and statistical models in the social sciences. Philosophica 71: 13-38.
53. Ron A. 2002. Regression analysis and the philosophy of social science: A critical realist view. Journal of Critical Realism 1: 119-42.
54. Sayer A. 2000. Realism and social science. London: Sage Publications.
55. Stack A. 2002. Determinants of modality selection among incident us dialysis patients: Results from a national study. Journal of the American Society of Nephrology 13: 1279-87.
56. Tong A, P Sainsbury, S Chadban, R Walker, D Harris, S Carter and B Hall. 2009. Patient experiences and perspectives of living with CKD. American Journal of Kidney Diseases 53: 689-700.
57. Tweed A and K Ceaser. 2005. Renal replacement therapy choices for pre-dialysis renal patients. The British Journal of Nursing 14: 659-64.
58. USRDS. 2007. United States renal data system 2007 annual report. Bethesda, MD, USA: The National Institute of Health.
59. USRDS. 2010. United States renal data system 2010 annual report. Bethesda, MD, USA: The National Institute of Health.
60. Visser A, G Dijkstra, D Kuiper, P de Jong, C Franssen, R Gansevoort, G Izaks, K Jager and S Reijneveld. 2009. Accepting or declining dialysis: Considerations taken into account by elderly patients with end-stage renal disease. Journal of Nephrology 22: 794-9.
61. Wainwright S. 1997. A new paradigm for nursing: The potential of realism. Journal of Advanced Nursing 26: 1262-71.
62. Wainwright S and A Forbes. 2000. Philosophical problems with social research on health inequalities. Health Care Analysis 8: 259-77.
63. Williams S. 2003. Beyond meaning, discourse and the empirical world: Critical realist reflections on health. Social Theory and Health 1: 42-71.