ArticleJAMA network open2024
Health Care Perceptions and a Concierge-Based Transplant Evaluation for Patients With Kidney Disease.
Article in JAMA network open, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Healthcare-Related Sociocultural Factors, Racial Disparities, and Kidney Transplant Outcomes in the Kidney Transplant Fast Track Program.Clinical transplantation · 2026Observational
- Education Intervention for Evaluation and Living Donor Kidney Transplantation: A randomized trial.medRxiv : the preprint server for health sciences · 2026Article
- Healthcare-related sociocultural factors, racial disparities, and kidney transplant outcomes in the Kidney Transplant Fast Track program.medRxiv : the preprint server for health sciences · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Importance: The kidney transplant (KT) evaluation process is particularly time consuming and burdensome for Black patients, who report more discrimination, racism, and mistrust in health care than White patients. Whether alleviating patient burden in the KT evaluation process may improve perceptions of health care and enhance patients' experiences is important to understand. Objective: To investigate whether Black and White participants would experience improvements in perceptions of health care after undergoing a streamlined, concierge-based approach to KT evaluation. Design, Setting, and Participants: This prospective cohort study from a single urban transplant center included Black and White English-speaking adults who were referred for KT and deemed eligible to proceed with the KT evaluation process. The patients responded to baseline and follow-up questionnaires. The study was conducted from May 2015 to June 2018. Questionnaires were collected before KT evaluation initiation (baseline) and after KT evaluation completion (follow-up). Data were analyzed from October 2022 to January 2024. Exposure: Data were stratified by race (Black compared with White) and time (baseline compared with follow-up). Main Outcomes and Measures: The main outcomes were experiences of discrimination in health care, perceived racism in health care, medical mistrust of health care systems, and trust in physician. Repeated-measures regression was used to assess race, time, and the race-by-time interaction as factors associated with each outcome. Results: The study included 820 participants (mean [SD] age, 56.50 [12.93] years; 514 [63%] male), of whom 205 (25%) were Black and 615 (75%) were White. At baseline and follow-up, Black participants reported higher discrimination (119 [58%]; χ21 = 121.89; P < .001 and 77 [38%]; χ21 = 96.09; P < .001, respectively), racism (mean [SD], 2.73 [0.91]; t290.46 = 7.77; P < .001 and mean [SD], 2.63 [0.85]; t296.90 = 7.52; P < .001, respectively), and mistrust (mean [SD], 3.32 [0.68]; t816.00 = 7.29; P < .001 and mean [SD], 3.18 [0.71]; t805.00 = 6.43; P < .001, respectively) scores but lower trust in physician scores (mean [SD], 3.93 [0.65]; t818.00 = -2.01; P = .04 and mean [SD], 3.78 [0.65]; t811.00 = -5.42; P < .001, respectively) compared with White participants. All participants experienced statistically significant reductions in discrimination (Black participants: odds ratio, 0.27 [95% CI, 0.16-0.45]; P < .001; White participants: odds ratio, 0.37 [95% CI, 0.25-0.55]; P < .001) and medical mistrust in health care (Black participants: β [SE], -0.16 [0.05]; P < .001; White participants: β [SE], -0.09 [0.03]; P < .001), and Black participants reported lower perceived racism at follow-up (β [SE], -0.11 [0.05]; P = .04). There was a statistically significant race-by-time interaction outcome in which Black participants' trust in physicians was significantly lower at follow-up, but White participants reported no change. Conclusions and Relevance: The findings of this cohort study of patients who underwent a streamlined, concierge-based KT evaluation process suggest that a streamlined approach to clinic-level procedures may improve patients' perceptions of the health care system but may not improve their trust in physicians. Future research should determine whether these factors are associated with KT outcome, type of KT received, and time to KT.
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.