Evidence map›Paper›PMID 20085970›Full record

SynthesisBMJ (Clinical research ed.)2010

The views of patients and carers in treatment decision making for chronic kidney disease: systematic review and thematic synthesis of qualitative studies.

R L Morton, A Tong, K Howard, P Snelling, A C Webster

2 registry-linked trialsAbstract readSystematic Review
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis in BMJ (Clinical research ed.), 2010. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to 2 registered trials, which are not on this map. Cited by 244 papers, 20 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
244citing papers in PubMed, 20 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

NCT06243068 naenrolling by invitationnot on this mapstarted 2024, after this paper: background citation

Improving Shared Decision-Making and Access to Non-Dialytic Treatment for People With Kidney Disease (The ExPAND Trial)

TypeinterventionalSponsorGeorge Washington UniversityRan2024 to 2028Enrolled3,000ConditionsChronic Kidney DiseaseArmsEducate and Engage, Educate and Engage Plus Kidney Supportive Care Program
NCT06799936 narecruitingnot on this mapstarted 2025, after this paper: background citation

A Communication-Priming Intervention to Improve Shared Decision-Making Between Older Adults With Advanced Chronic Kidney Disease and Clinicians: A Cluster-Randomized Controlled Trial

TypeinterventionalSponsorThe University of Hong KongRan2025 to 2027Enrolled280ConditionsChronic Kidney Disease Stage 4, Chronic Kidney Disease Stage 5Arms"CKD Jumpstart- Tips" priming intervention
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

244 citing papers in PubMed, 20 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Home versus in-centre haemodialysis for people with kidney failure.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2024
    Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Survival of patients who opt for dialysis versus conservative care: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Nephrology, dialysis, transplantation : official publication of the European Dialysis and Transplant Association - European Renal Association · 2022
    Pooled it
  6. Pooled it
  7. Pooled it
  8. Pooled it
  9. Pooled it
  10. Pooled it
  11. Pooled it
  12. Pooled it
  13. Pooled it
  14. Pooled it
  15. Pooled it
  16. Patients' views on the effectiveness of patient-held records: a systematic review and thematic synthesis of qualitative studies.Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy · 2015
    Pooled it
  17. Guideline
  18. Pooled it
  19. Pooled it
  20. Pooled it

184 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors.

R L MortonSydney School of Public Health, University of Sydney, Sydney, NSW 2006, Australia. rachaelm@health.usyd.edu.au
A Tong
K Howard
P Snelling
A C Webster

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveTo synthesise the views of patients and carers in decision making regarding treatment for chronic kidney disease, and to determine which factors influence those decisions.

designSystematic review of qualitative studies of decision making and choice for dialysis, transplantation, or palliative care, and thematic synthesis of qualitative studies. DATA SOURCES: Medline, PsycINFO, CINAHL, Embase, social work abstracts, and digital theses (database inception to week 3 October 2008) to identify literature using qualitative methods (focus groups, interviews, or case studies). Review methods Thematic synthesis involved line by line coding of the findings of the primary studies and development of descriptive and analytical themes.

results18 studies that reported the experiences of 375 patients and 87 carers were included. 14 studies focused on preferences for dialysis modality, three on transplantation, and one on palliative management. Four major themes were identified as being central to treatment choices: confronting mortality (choosing life or death, being a burden, living in limbo), lack of choice (medical decision, lack of information, constraints on resources), gaining knowledge of options (peer influence, timing of information), and weighing alternatives (maintaining lifestyle, family influences, maintaining the status quo).

conclusionsThe experiences of other patients greatly influenced the decision making of patients and carers. The problematic timing of information about treatment options and synchronous creation of vascular access seemed to predetermine haemodialysis and inhibit choice of other treatments, including palliative care. A preference to maintain the status quo may explain why patients often remain on their initial therapy.

Indexed as

Attitude to HealthDecision MakingCaregiversChoice BehaviorHumansKidney Failure, ChronicLife StylePatient Education as TopicPeer GroupRenal DialysisTime Factors

Identifiers

PMID20085970
PMCPMC2808468

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.