Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34238295›Full record

ArticleBMC health services research2021

Information about different treatment options and shared decision making in dialysis care - a retrospective survey among hemodialysis patients.

Isabell Schellartz, Tim Ohnhaeuser, Thomas Mettang, Nadine Scholten

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC health services research, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing papers in PubMed
–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.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

7 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Review
  3. Review
  4. Observational
  5. Observational
  6. Article
  7. Article
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

4 authors.

Isabell SchellartzFaculty of Human Sciences, Faculty of Medicine, Institute of Medical Sociology, University of Cologne, Health Services Research and Rehabilitation Science (IMVR), Eupener Str. 129, 50933, Cologne, Germany. ischella@web.de.
Tim OhnhaeuserFaculty of Human Sciences, Faculty of Medicine, Institute of Medical Sociology, University of Cologne, Health Services Research and Rehabilitation Science (IMVR), Eupener Str. 129, 50933, Cologne, Germany.
Thomas MettangKidney Center, Wiesbaden, Germany.
Nadine ScholtenFaculty of Human Sciences, Faculty of Medicine, Institute of Medical Sociology, University of Cologne, Health Services Research and Rehabilitation Science (IMVR), Eupener Str. 129, 50933, Cologne, Germany.

Funding

Federal Joint Committee's innovation fund 01VSF16036
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundHemodialysis (HD) and peritoneal dialysis (PD) are equivalent treatment alternatives for patients with end stage renal disease. In Germany, there is a legal obligation to inform every patient about all treatment alternatives and their possible harms and benefits. However, there is a low utilization of PD. Therefore, the question arises, whether HD patients perceive that they were informed about different dialysis options. We further investigate, if personal characteristics of informed and non-informed patients vary, and if both groups experienced the decision for their dialysis treatment as shared decision making (SDM).

methodsThe database was a nationwide postal survey of 590 HD patients from two statutory health insurers in Germany. Participants were asked whether they have been informed about both dialysis options. A logistic regression model examines impact factors on this information. We investigate differences in the German version of the 9-item SDM Questionnaire (SDM-Q-9) between informed and non-informed patients with a multivariate linear regression model.

results56 % of the respondents reported they had been informed about different dialysis treatment options. Patients older than 65 had a 61 % lower chance than patients ≤ 65 for this information (p < 0.001). High educated patients had a 47 % higher chance for this information than patients with low education level (p = 0.030). Informed patients rated a higher SDM-Q-9 scores than non-informed patients (76.9 vs. 44.2; p < 0.001). Non-informed patients showed high values in those SDM-Q-9 items which had no regard to different treatment options.

conclusionsA great proportion of HD patients - mostly elderly patients and patients with a low education level - did not perceive that they were informed about different dialysis options before dialysis was initiated. The current obligation to provide information about all treatment alternatives in Germany is a first step to assure the unselected access to different treatment options. But it has not reached routine application in health care yet. Information about different treatment options can pave the way for SDM. While SDM is considered to be a valuable tool in clinical medicine, there is still room for improvement for its successful implementation when it comes to decision making on different dialysis treatment options.

trial registrationThe MAU-PD study (Multidimensional analysis of causes for the low prevalence of ambulatory peritoneal dialysis in Germany) is registered at the German Clinical Trials Register. DRKS-ID: DRKS00012555 Link: https://www.drks.de/drks_web/setLocale_EN.do . Date of Registration in DRKS: 2018/01/04.

Indexed as

Peritoneal DialysisRenal DialysisAgedDecision MakingDecision Making, SharedGermanyHumansPatient ParticipationRetrospective StudiesSurveys and QuestionnairesChronic Kidney DiseaseHemodialysisInformation about different treatment optionsInformed ChoiceShared Decision making

Identifiers

PMID34238295
PMCPMC8268609

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.