Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40170151›Full record

ArticleBMC nephrology2025

The way home: a scoping review of public health interventions to increase the utilization of home dialysis in chronic kidney disease patients.

Natcha Yongphiphatwong, Yot Teerawattananon, Pitsinee Supapol, Denla Pandejpong, Tanainan Chuanchaiyakul, Jiratorn Sutawong, Naline Gandhi, Nutthawongse Kiatkrissada, Saudamini Vishwanath Dabak, Thunyarat Anothaisintawee

Abstract readScoping Review
In one paragraph

Article in BMC nephrology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
10citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–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

10 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Observational
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. 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

10 authors.

Natcha YongphiphatwongThailand Development Research Institute (TDRI), Bangkok, Thailand.
Yot TeerawattananonHealth Intervention and Technology Assessment Program (HITAP), Ministry of Public Health, Nonthaburi, Thailand.
Pitsinee SupapolHealth Intervention and Technology Assessment Program (HITAP), Ministry of Public Health, Nonthaburi, Thailand.
Denla PandejpongHealth Intervention and Technology Assessment Program (HITAP), Ministry of Public Health, Nonthaburi, Thailand.
Tanainan ChuanchaiyakulHealth Intervention and Technology Assessment Program (HITAP), Ministry of Public Health, Nonthaburi, Thailand.
Jiratorn SutawongHealth Intervention and Technology Assessment Program (HITAP), Ministry of Public Health, Nonthaburi, Thailand.
Naline GandhiDUKE-NUS Medical School, Singapore, Singapore.
Nutthawongse KiatkrissadaFaculty of Pharmaceutical Science, Chulalongkorn University, Bangkok, Thailand.
Saudamini Vishwanath DabakHealth Intervention and Technology Assessment Program (HITAP), Ministry of Public Health, Nonthaburi, Thailand.
Thunyarat AnothaisintaweeDepartment of Clinical Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Department of Family Medicine, Faculty of Medicine, Ramathibodi Hospital, Mahidol University, Praram VI Road, Rachathewi, Bangkok, 10400, Thailand. Thunyarat.ano@mahidol.ac.th.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundHome dialysis (HoD) remains underutilized, despite evidence showing it provides comparable mortality rates to in-center hemodialysis (ICHD) while offering advantages such as improved quality of life and lower overall costs. This scoping review comprehensively evaluates the effects of public health interventions on the uptake and retention of HoD utilization, including both Peritoneal Dialysis (PD) and Home Hemodialysis (HHD).

methodsRelevant studies were searched in the Web of Science, Medline, Embase, Scopus, EBSCOhost, and EconLit databases from their inception through May 2024. Studies were eligible for review if they assessed the effectiveness of public health interventions in terms of utilization and retention rates for general HoD, PD, and HHD.

resultsForty-three studies were included, with interventions categorized into three main types: educational programs, service provision improvements, and modifications to payment structures. Our findings indicate that educational interventions-aimed at enhancing knowledge about dialysis options and promoting shared decision-making among patients, families, and healthcare providers-and service provision improvements, such as assisted PD and nephrologist-performed catheter insertions, could significantly increase the initiation, utilization, and retention rates of HoD. However, the impact of payment interventions on HoD outcomes differed across different contexts.

conclusionEducation and service provision enhancements may represent the most effective public health interventions for increasing initiation, utilization, and retention rates of HoD in dialysis-requiring patients. However, these findings are predominantly based on evidence from observational studies; further experimental studies with rigorous methodology are warranted to validate the effectiveness of these interventions in promoting HoD utilization.

Indexed as

Hemodialysis, HomePatient Acceptance of Health CarePublic HealthRenal Insufficiency, ChronicHumansPatient Education as TopicPeritoneal DialysisChronic kidney diseaseHome dialysisPolicy interventionsSystematic review

Identifiers

PMID40170151
PMCPMC11963271

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.