Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38129771›Full record

ArticleBMC nephrology2023

Shared decision making in chronic kidney disease: a qualitative study of the impact of communication practices on treatment decisions for older patients.

Maria R Dahm, Suzanne Eggins Raine, Diana Slade, Laura J Chien, Alice Kennard, Giles Walters, Tony Spinks, Girish Talaulikar

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC nephrology, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
9citing 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

9 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Dialysis in the Elderly: A Practical Guide for the Clinician.International journal of nephrology · 2025
    Review
  7. Observational
  8. Article
  9. 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

8 authors.

Maria R DahmInstitute for Communication in Health Care (ICH), College of Arts and Social Sciences, Australian National University, Baldessin Precinct Building, 110 Ellery Crescent, Canberra, ACT, 2601, Australia. maria.dahm@anu.edu.au.
Suzanne Eggins RaineInstitute for Communication in Health Care (ICH), College of Arts and Social Sciences, Australian National University, Baldessin Precinct Building, 110 Ellery Crescent, Canberra, ACT, 2601, Australia.
Diana SladeInstitute for Communication in Health Care (ICH), College of Arts and Social Sciences, Australian National University, Baldessin Precinct Building, 110 Ellery Crescent, Canberra, ACT, 2601, Australia.
Laura J ChienInstitute for Communication in Health Care (ICH), College of Arts and Social Sciences, Australian National University, Baldessin Precinct Building, 110 Ellery Crescent, Canberra, ACT, 2601, Australia.
Alice KennardCanberra Hospital Renal Service, Canberra, Australia.
Giles WaltersCanberra Hospital Renal Service, Canberra, Australia.
Tony SpinksCanberra Hospital Renal Service, Canberra, Australia.
Girish TalaulikarCanberra Hospital Renal Service, Canberra, Australia.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundEffective interpersonal communication is critical for shared decision-making (SDM). Previous SDM communication training in nephrology has lacked context-specific evidence from ethnographic analysis of SDM interactions with older patients considering treatment options of end stage kidney disease (ESKD). This study explores communication strategies in SDM discussions in nephrology, specifically focusing on older patients considering dialysis as kidney replacement therapy (KRT).

methodsWe conducted a qualitative study analysing naturally-occurring audio-recorded clinical interactions (n = 12) between Australian kidney doctors, patients aged 60+, and carers. Linguistic ethnography and qualitative socially-oriented functional approaches were used for analysis.

resultsTwo types of communication strategies emerged: (1) Managing and advancing treatment decisions: involving active checking of knowledge, clear explanations of options, and local issue resolution. (2) Pulling back: Deferring or delaying decisions through mixed messaging. Specifically for non-English speaking patients, pulling back was further characterised by communication challenges deferring decision-making including ineffective issue management, and reliance on family as interpreters. Age was not an explicit topic of discussion among participants when it came to making decisions about KRT but was highly relevant to treatment decision-making. Doctors appeared reluctant to broach non-dialysis conservative management, even when it appears clinically appropriate. Conservative care, an alternative to KRT suitable for older patients with co-morbidities, was only explicitly discussed when prompted by patients or carers.

conclusionsThe findings highlight the impact of different communication strategies on SDM discussions in nephrology. This study calls for linguistic-informed contextualised communication training and provides foundational evidence for nephrology-specific communication skills training in SDM for KRT among older patients. There is urgent need for doctors to become confident and competent in discussing non-dialysis conservative management. Further international research should explore naturally-occurring SDM interactions in nephrology with other vulnerable groups to enhance evidence and training integration.

Indexed as

Decision Making, SharedRenal Insufficiency, ChronicAustraliaCommunicationDecision MakingHumansPatient ParticipationPhysician-Patient RelationsRenal DialysisdialysisHealth CommunicationPhysician-patient relationsQualitative researchShared-decision making

Identifiers

PMID38129771
PMCPMC10734071

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.