Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34283851›Full record

Trial reportPloS one2021

A breakthrough series collaborative to increase patient participation with hemodialysis tasks: A stepped wedge cluster randomised controlled trial.

James Fotheringham, Tania Barnes, Louese Dunn, Sonia Lee, Steven Ariss, Tracey Young, Stephen J Walters, Paul Laboi, Andy Henwood, Rachel Gair and 1 more

Abstract readRandomized Controlled Trial
In one paragraph

Trial report in PloS one, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 20 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
20citing 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

20 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Trial
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Review
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. 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

11 authors.

James FotheringhamSheffield Kidney Institute, Sheffield Teaching Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Sheffield, England.ORCID 0000-0002-8980-2223
Tania BarnesSheffield Kidney Institute, Sheffield Teaching Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Sheffield, England.
Louese DunnSheffield Kidney Institute, Sheffield Teaching Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Sheffield, England.
Sonia LeeSheffield Kidney Institute, Sheffield Teaching Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Sheffield, England.
Steven ArissSchool of Health and Related Research, University of Sheffield, Sheffield, England.
Tracey YoungSchool of Health and Related Research, University of Sheffield, Sheffield, England.
Stephen J WaltersSchool of Health and Related Research, University of Sheffield, Sheffield, England.
Paul LaboiRenal Department, York Teaching Hospital NHS Foundation Trust, York, England.
Andy HenwoodRenal Department, York Teaching Hospital NHS Foundation Trust, York, England.
Rachel GairThink Kidneys, UK Renal Registry, Bristol, England.
Martin WilkieSheffield Kidney Institute, Sheffield Teaching Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Sheffield, England.ORCID 0000-0003-1059-6453

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundCompared to in-centre, home hemodialysis is associated with superior outcomes. The impact on patient experience and clinical outcomes of consistently providing the choice and training to undertake hemodialysis-related treatment tasks in the in-centre setting is unknown.

methodsA stepped-wedge cluster randomised trial in 12 UK renal centres recruited prevalent in-centre hemodialysis patients with sites randomised into early and late participation in a 12-month breakthrough series collaborative that included data collection, learning events, Plan-Study-Do-Act cycles, and teleconferences repeated every 6 weeks, underpinned by a faculty, co-production, materials and a nursing course. The primary outcome was the proportion of patients undertaking five or more hemodialysis-related tasks or home hemodialysis. Secondary outcomes included independent hemodialysis, quality of life, symptoms, patient activation and hospitalisation. ISRCTN Registration Number 93999549.

results586 hemodialysis patients were recruited. The proportion performing 5 or more tasks or home hemodialysis increased from 45.6% to 52.3% (205 to 244/449, difference 6.2%, 95% CI 1.4 to 11%), however after analysis by step the adjusted odds ratio for the intervention was 1.63 (95% CI 0.94 to 2.81, P = 0.08). 28.3% of patients doing less than 5 tasks at baseline performed 5 or more at the end of the study (69/244, 95% CI 22.2-34.3%, adjusted odds ratio 3.71, 95% CI 1.66-8.31). Independent or home hemodialysis increased from 7.5% to 11.6% (32 to 49/423, difference 4.0%, 95% CI 1.0-7.0), but the remaining secondary endpoints were unaffected.

conclusionsOur intervention did not increase dialysis related tasks being performed by a prevalent population of centre based patients, but there was an increase in home hemodialysis as well as an increase in tasks among patients who were doing fewer than 5 at baseline. Further studies are required that examine interventions to engage people who dialyse at centres in their own care.

Indexed as

AdultAgedAged, 80 and overCost-Benefit AnalysisFemaleHospitalizationHumansMaleMiddle AgedPatient ParticipationQuality of LifeRenal DialysisSurveys and Questionnaires

Identifiers

PMID34283851
PMCPMC8291659

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.