Patient and Caregiver Priorities for Outcomes in Hemodialysis: An International Nominal Group Technique Study

American Journal of Kidney Diseases

Volumn 68, Issue 3, 2016, Pages 444-454

  Urquhart Secord, Rachel ^a,b   Craig, Jonathan C ^a,b   Hemmelgarn, Brenda ^c   Tam Tham, Helen ^c   Manns, Braden ^c   Howell, Martin ^a,b   Polkinghorne, Kevan R ^d,e   Kerr, Peter G ^d,e   Harris, David C ^f   Thompson, Stephanie ^g   Schick Makaroff, Kara ^g   Wheeler, David C ^h   van Biesen, Wim ⁱ   Winkelmayer, Wolfgang C ^j   Johnson, David W ^k,l,m   Howard, Kirsten ^a   Evangelidis, Nicole ^a,b   Tong, Allison ^a,b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF SYDNEY   (Australia)

^b CHILDREN S HOSPITAL AT WESTMEAD   (Australia)

^c UNIVERSITY OF CALGARY   (Canada)

^d MONASH MEDICAL CENTRE   (Australia)

^e MONASH UNIVERSITY   (Australia)

^f WESTMEAD HOSPITAL   (Australia)

^g UNIVERSITY OF ALBERTA   (Canada)

^h UNIVERSITY COLLEGE LONDON   (United Kingdom)

ⁱ GHENT UNIVERSITY HOSPITAL   (Belgium)

^j BAYLOR COLLEGE OF MEDICINE   (United States)

^k UNIVERSITY OF QUEENSLAND   (Australia)

^l TRANSLATIONAL RESEARCH INSTITUTE   (Australia)

^m Metro South and Ipswich Nephrology and Transplant Services (MINTS)   (Australia)

more..

Author keywords

caregivers; clinical research priorities; end stage renal disease (ESRD); fatigue; focus group; hemodialysis; nominal group; outcome measurement; patient wellbeing; Patient centered outcomes; patients; qualitative research; quality of life; surrogate end points

Indexed keywords

CALCIUM; HEMOGLOBIN; IRON; PARATHYROID HORMONE; PHOSPHATE; POTASSIUM;

ADULT; AGED; ANEMIA; ANXIETY; ARTICLE; AUSTRALIA; BLOOD PRESSURE; BONE; CANADA; CARDIOVASCULAR DISEASE; CAREGIVER; CLINICAL OUTCOME; COGNITION; COPING BEHAVIOR; DEPRESSION; ENERGY; FAMILY; FATIGUE; FEMALE; FERTILITY; FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT; HEMODIALYSIS; HEMODIALYSIS PATIENT; HOSPITALIZATION; HUMAN; IMMUNITY; INDEPENDENCE; INFECTION; KNOWLEDGE; LOSS OF APPETITE; MAJOR CLINICAL STUDY; MALE; MENTAL STRESS; MORTALITY; MUSCLE CRAMP; NAUSEA; PRURITUS; SCORING SYSTEM; SELF CARE; SEXUAL FUNCTION; SLEEP; SURVIVAL; TASTE; THEMATIC ANALYSIS; TRAVEL; VASCULAR ACCESS; VOMITING; WEIGHT GAIN; WORK CAPACITY; ADOLESCENT; CLINICAL TRIAL; MIDDLE AGED; MULTICENTER STUDY; OUTCOME ASSESSMENT; RENAL INSUFFICIENCY, CHRONIC; VERY ELDERLY; YOUNG ADULT;

ADOLESCENT; ADULT; AGED; AGED, 80 AND OVER; AUSTRALIA; CANADA; CAREGIVERS; FEMALE; HUMANS; MALE; MIDDLE AGED; OUTCOME ASSESSMENT (HEALTH CARE); RENAL DIALYSIS; RENAL INSUFFICIENCY, CHRONIC; YOUNG ADULT;

EID: 84960983827     PISSN: 02726386     EISSN: 15236838     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1053/j.ajkd.2016.02.037     Document Type: Article

References (42)

1. 1 Gandhi, G.Y., Murad, M.H., Fujiyoshi, A., et al. Patient-important outcomes in registered diabetes trials. JAMA 299:21 (2008), 2543–2549.
2. 2 Inrig, J.K., Califf, R.M., Tasneem, A., et al. The landscape of clinical trials in nephrology: a systematic review of Clinicaltrials.gov. Am J Kidney Dis 63:5 (2014), 771–780.
3. 3 Yudkin, J.S., Lipska, K.J., Montori, V.M., The idolatry of the surrogate. BMJ, 343, 2011, d7995.
4. 4 Chalmers, I., Glasziou, P., Avoidable waste in the production and reporting of research evidence. Lancet 374:9683 (2009), 86–89.
5. 5 Chalmers, I., Bracken, M., Djulbegovic, B., et al. How to increase value and reduce waste when research priorities are set. Lancet 383:9912 (2014), 156–165.
6. 6 Fortnum, D., Smolonogov, T., Walker, R., Kairaitis, L., Pugh, D., ‘My kidneys, my choice, decision aid': supporting shared decision making. J Ren Care 41:2 (2015), 81–87.
7. 7 Morton, R.L., Tong, A., Howard, K., Snelling, P., Webster, A.C., The views of patients and carers in treatment decision making for chronic kidney disease: systematic review and thematic synthesis of qualitative studies. BMJ, 340, 2010, c112.
8. 8 Morton, R.L., Tong, A., Webster, A.C., Snelling, P., Howard, K., Characteristics of dialysis important to patients and family caregivers: a mixed methods approach. Nephrol Dial Transplant 26:12 (2011), 4038–4046.
9. 9 Tong, A., Crowe, S., Chando, S., et al. Research priorities in CKD: report of a national workshop conducted in Australia. Am J Kidney Dis 66:2 (2015), 212–222.
10. 10 Williams, G.J., Tong, A., Manns, B., et al. Scope and consistency of outcomes reported in randomised trials of haemodialysis. Nephrology 20:suppl 3 (2015), 7–11.
11. 11 Palmer, S.C., Hayen, A., Macaskill, P., et al. Serum levels of phosphorus, parathyroid hormone, and calcium and risks of death and cardiovascular disease in individuals with chronic kidney disease: a systematic review and meta-analysis. JAMA 305:11 (2011), 1119–1127.
12. 12 Phrommintikul, A., Haas, S.J., Elsik, M., Krum, H., Mortality and target haemoglobin concentrations in anaemic patients with chronic kidney disease treated with erythropoietin: a meta-analysis. Lancet 369:9559 (2007), 381–388.
13. 13 Howell, M., Tong, A., Wong, G., Craig, J.C., Howard, K., Important outcomes for kidney transplant recipients: a nominal group and qualitative study. Am J Kidney Dis 60:2 (2012), 186–196.
14. 14 Manns, B., Hemmelgarn, B., Lillie, E., et al. Setting research priorities for patients on or nearing dialysis. Clin J Am Soc Nephrol 9:10 (2014), 1813–1821.
15. 15 Howard, K., Jan, S., Rose, J., et al. Community preferences for the allocation & donation of organs–the PAraDOx Study. BMC Public Health, 11, 2011, 386.
16. 16 James, D., Warren-Forward, H., Research methods for formal consensus development. Nurse Res 22:3 (2015), 35–40.
17. 17 Jones, J., Hunter, D., Consensus methods for medical and health services research. BMJ 311:7001 (1995), 376–380.
18. 18 Corner, J., Wright, D., Hopkinson, J., Gunaratnam, Y., McDonald, J.W., Foster, C., The research priorities of patients attending UK cancer treatment centres: findings from a modified nominal group study. Br J Cancer 96:6 (2007), 875–881.
19. 19 Pruchno, R.A., Lemay, E.P., Feild, L., Levinsky, N.G., Spouse as health care proxy for dialysis patients: whose preferences matter?. Gerontologist 45:6 (2005), 812–819.
20. 20 Pruchno, R.A., Lemay, E.P. Jr., Feild, L., Levinsky, N.G., Predictors of patient treatment preferences and spouse substituted judgments: the case of dialysis continuation. Med Decis Making 26:2 (2006), 112–121.
21. 21 Wyld, M., Morton, R.L., Hayen, A., Howard, K., Webster, A.C., A systematic review and meta-analysis of utility-based quality of life in chronic kidney disease treatments. PLoS Med, 9(9), 2012, e1001307.
22. 22 Curtin, R.B., Oberley, E.T., Sacksteder, P., Friedman, A., Differences between employed and nonemployed dialysis patients. Am J Kidney Dis 27:4 (1996), 533–540.
23. 23 Muehrer, R.J., Schatell, D., Witten, B., Gangnon, R., Becker, B.N., Hofmann, R.M., Factors affecting employment at initiation of dialysis. Clin J Am Soc Nephrol 6:3 (2011), 489–496.
24. 24 Sheeran, P., Abraham, C., Unemployment and self-conception: a symbolic interactionist analysis. J Community Appl Soc Psychol 4:2 (1994), 115–129.
25. 25 Tong, A., Manns, B., Hemmelgarn, B., et al. Standardised Outcomes in Nephrology - Haemodialysis (SONG-HD): study protocol for establishing a core outcome set in haemodialysis. Trials, 16(1), 2015, 364.
26. 26 ANZDATA. Chapter 4: haemodialysis. In: ANZDATA Registry 37th Report. Adelaide, Australia: Australia and New Zealand Dialysis and Transplant Registry; 2015:1-38.
27. 27 Canadian Institute for Health Information. Canadian Organ Replacement Register Annual Report: Treatment of End-Stage Organ Failure, 2004 to 2013. 2015, CIHI, Ottawa, Canada.
28. 28 Kucirka, L.M., Grams, M.E., Lessler, J., et al. Association of race and age with survival among patients undergoing dialysis. JAMA 306:6 (2011), 620–626.
29. 29 Yeates, K., Health disparities in renal disease in Canada. Semin Nephrol 30:1 (2010), 12–18.
30. 30 Zarkowsky, D.S., Arhuidese, I.J., Hicks, C.W., et al. Racial/ethnic disparities associated with initial hemodialysis access. JAMA Surg 150:6 (2015), 529–536.
31. 31 Volkova, N., McClellan, W., Soucie, J.M., Schoolwerth, A., Racial disparities in the prevalence of cardiovascular disease among incident end-stage renal disease patients. Nephrol Dial Transplant 21:8 (2006), 2202–2209.
32. 32 Palmer, S.C., Palmer, A.R., Craig, J.C., et al. Home versus in-centre haemodialysis for end-stage kidney disease. Cochrane Database Syst Rev, 11, 2014, CD009535.
33. 33 Kraus, M., Burkart, J., Hegeman, R., Solomon, R., Coplon, N., Moran, J., A comparison of center-based vs. home-based daily hemodialysis for patients with end-stage renal disease. Hemodial Int 11:4 (2007), 468–477.
34. 34 Kirwan, J., Heiberg, T., Hewlett, S., et al. Outcomes from the Patient Perspective Workshop at OMERACT 6. J Rheumatol 30:4 (2003), 868–872.
35. 35 Prinsen, C.A., Vohra, S., Rose, M.R., et al. Core Outcome Measures in Effectiveness Trials (COMET) initiative: protocol for an international Delphi study to achieve consensus on how to select outcome measurement instruments for outcomes included in a ‘core outcome set.'. Trials, 15, 2014, 247.
36. 36 Tugwell, P., Boers, M., Brooks, P., Simon, L., Strand, V., Idzerda, L., OMERACT: an international initiative to improve outcome measurement in rheumatology. Trials, 8, 2007, 38.
37. 37 Clarke, M., Williamson, P., Core outcome sets and trial registries. Trials, 16, 2015, 216.
38. 38 Kirwan, J.R., Hewlett, S., Patient perspective: reasons and methods for measuring fatigue in rheumatoid arthritis. J Rheumatol 34:5 (2007), 1171–1173.
39. 39 Breckenridge, K., Bekker, H.L., Gibbons, E., et al. How to routinely collect data on patient-reported outcome and experience measures in renal registries in Europe: an expert consensus meeting. Nephrol Dial Transplant 30:10 (2015), 1605–1614.
40. 40 Hays, R.D., Kallich, J.D., Mapes, D.L., Coons, S.J., Carter, W.B., Development of the Kidney Disease Quality of Life (KDQOL) instrument. Qual Life Res 3:5 (1994), 329–338.
41. 41 Hawker, G.A., Davis, A.M., French, M.R., et al. Development and preliminary psychometric testing of a new OA pain measure–an OARSI/OMERACT initiative. Osteoarthritis Cartilage 16:4 (2008), 409–414.
42. ® Validity Standards Committee on behalf of the PROMIS Network of Investigators, PROMIS Instrument Development and Validation Scientific Standards Version 2.0. 2012, PROMIS, Chapel Hill, NC.