ArticleBMC palliative care2024
Dialysis decision-making process by Chinese American patients at an urban, academic medical center: a retrospective chart review.
Article in BMC palliative care, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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.
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.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed, 1 citations in OpenAlex.
- Shared Decision-Making in Choosing Dialysis Modalities for Patients With Chronic Kidney Disease: An Evolutionary Concept Analysis.Nursing & health sciences · 2025Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundClinical practice guidelines emphasize shared decision-making for kidney replacement treatment, yet little is known about the influence of cultural differences on that process. We undertook a retrospective chart review to explore the process and timing of dialysis decision making and initiation in Chinese American patients to provide quality kidney care for this population.
designParticipants received outpatient care at Tufts Medical Center and dialysis at Dialysis Clinic, Inc. Boston or Somerville, MA from 2001-2021. Clinic chart review sourced demographic, clinical, and end-of-life care information from 180 participants (82 Chinese American, 98 other) from stage 4 chronic kidney disease (CKD) and dialysis initiation.
resultsChinese American participants were older (mean 70 vs. 59, p < 0.0001), less likely to speak English (12% vs. 87%, p < 0.0001), and used interpreter services more (80% vs. 11%, p < 0.0001). Chinese American participants had more visits (median 14 vs. 10, p = 0.005); were more often accompanied by family members (75% vs. 40%, p < 0.001); and had significantly lower rates of healthcare proxy documentation (35% vs. 55%, p = 0.006). There was no statistical difference in months between first CKD 4 visit and first dialysis. Both groups started dialysis at the same average eGFR and with similar rates of permanent dialysis access. Chinese American participants had significantly lower serum albumin at dialysis initiation (mean 3.3 g/dL vs 3.7 g/dL, p = 0.0003). Documentation reflected a low number of conversations about non-dialytic care, end-of-life planning, or palliative care in both groups across all visits.
conclusionThe time between CKD 4 and dialysis initiation was the same in both groups, suggesting a similar overall outcome of care. Chart documentation suggests that Chinese American participants had a significantly higher number of visits with nephrologists where discussion about dialysis was noted and were more likely to have a family member present at the visit. Fewer Chinese American participants completed healthcare proxies. Among all study participants, healthcare proxy, code status, and palliative care discussions were reported less frequently than expected. These findings highlight opportunities for collaboration between palliative care clinicians and nephrologists.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
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.