↓ Skip to main content

Dove Medical Press

Factors influencing access to education, decision making, and receipt of preferred dialysis modality in unplanned dialysis start patients

Overview of attention for article published in Patient preference and adherence, November 2016
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
17 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
66 Mendeley
Title
Factors influencing access to education, decision making, and receipt of preferred dialysis modality in unplanned dialysis start patients
Published in
Patient preference and adherence, November 2016
DOI 10.2147/ppa.s119243
Pubmed ID
Authors

Anna Machowska, Mark Dominik Alscher, Satyanarayana Reddy Vanga, Michael Koch, Michael Aarup, Abdul Rashid Qureshi, Bengt Lindholm, Peter A Rutherford

Abstract

Unplanned dialysis start (UPS) leads to worse clinical outcomes than planned start, and only a minority of patients ever receive education on this topic and are able to make a modality choice, particularly for home dialysis. This study aimed to determine the predictive factors for patients receiving education, making a decision, and receiving their preferred modality choice in UPS patients following a UPS educational program (UPS-EP). The Offering Patients Therapy Options in Unplanned Start (OPTiONS) study examined the impact of the implementation of a specific UPS-EP, including decision support tools and pathway improvement on dialysis modality choice. Linear regression models were used to examine the factors predicting three key steps: referral and receipt of UPS-EP, modality decision making, and actual delivery of preferred modality choice. A simple economic assessment was performed to examine the potential benefit of implementing UPS-EP in terms of dialysis costs. The majority of UPS patients could receive UPS-EP (214/270 patients) and were able to make a decision (177/214), although not all patients received their preferred choice (159/177). Regression analysis demonstrated that the initial dialysis modality was a predictive factor for referral and receipt of UPS-EP and modality decision making. In contrast, age was a predictor for referral and receipt of UPS-EP only, and comorbidity was not a predictor for any step, except for myocardial infarction, which was a weak predictor for lower likelihood of receiving preferred modality. Country practices predicted UPS-EP receipt and decision making. Economic analysis demonstrated the potential benefit of UPS-EP implementation because dialysis modality costs were associated with modality distribution driven by patient preference. Education and decision support can allow UPS patients to understand their options and choose dialysis modality, and attention needs to be focused on ensuring equity of access to educational programs, especially for the elderly. Physician practice and culture across units/countries is an important predictor of UPS patient management and modality choice independent of patient-related factors. Additional work is required to understand and improve patient pathways to ensure that modality preference is enacted. There appears to be a cost benefit of delivering education, supporting choice, and ensuring that the choice is enacted in UPS patients.

Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 66 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 66 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 13 20%
Student > Master 10 15%
Student > Doctoral Student 6 9%
Student > Bachelor 6 9%
Librarian 5 8%
Other 11 17%
Unknown 15 23%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 18 27%
Nursing and Health Professions 8 12%
Psychology 4 6%
Unspecified 4 6%
Social Sciences 3 5%
Other 11 17%
Unknown 18 27%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 04 November 2016.
All research outputs
#22,759,802
of 25,374,647 outputs
Outputs from Patient preference and adherence
#1,648
of 1,757 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#277,955
of 317,808 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Patient preference and adherence
#44
of 45 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,374,647 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,757 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.5. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 317,808 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 45 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.