Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40256209›Full record

ArticleKidney medicine2025

Integrating Clinical Reasoning Into a Patient Decision Aid for People Making Conservative Kidney Management and Dialysis Decisions: A User-Centered Intervention Development Design.

Anna Winterbottom, Andrew Mooney, Lynne Russon, Vicki Hipkiss, Lucy Ziegler, Jeanette Finderup, Richard Williams, Hilary L Bekker

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Kidney medicine, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing 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

4 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Review
  3. Review
  4. Review
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.

Anna WinterbottomLeeds Institute of Health Sciences, School of Medicine, University of Leeds, Leeds, United Kingdom.
Andrew MooneyAdult Renal Services, St James University Hospital, Leeds, United Kingdom.
Lynne RussonAdult Renal Services, St James University Hospital, Leeds, United Kingdom.
Vicki HipkissRenal Unit, St Luke's Hospital, Bradford, West Yorkshire, United Kingdom.
Lucy ZieglerAcademic Unit of Palliative Care, Leeds Institute of Health Sciences, University of Leeds, United Kingdom.
Jeanette FinderupDepartment of Renal Medicine, Aarhus University Hospital, Aarhus, Denmark.
Richard WilliamsChapeltown, Leeds, West Yorkshie, United Kingdom.
Hilary L BekkerLeeds Institute of Health Sciences, School of Medicine, University of Leeds, Leeds, United Kingdom.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Rationale & Objective: For older adults with kidney failure, conservative kidney management can provide better quality of life, less treatment burden, and for some, the same length of life benefit. Patient decision making around kidney treatments is complex and emotionally demanding for both patients and health professionals. Resources provided by kidney units about dialysis and conservative kidney management options are frequently not sufficient to support people making reasoned decisions between options. This article describes 2 studies underpinning the development of the Yorkshire Dialysis and Conservative Care Decision Aid. Study Design: Study 1: cross-sectional study using in-depth interview methods; study 2: user-centered iterative design with multiple stakeholders. Setting & Participants: Older adults with kidney failure and health professionals from 3 kidney units in the North of England. Resource development included input from co-applicants, patient and public involvement team, multidisciplinary health professionals, and academics in the United Kingdom and Denmark. Analytical Approach: Thematic analysis was used to analyze the data. Results: Three themes synthesized stakeholder responses: transition to a conservative kidney management pathway, clinical and social indicators for changing kidney care management, and preparation for end-of-life care. The findings informed the patient decision aid content, which was structured with reference to international guidance. There were 16 iterations of the patient decision aid addressing multiple-stakeholder evaluations. People with kidney failure, family members, and kidney professionals agreed the final resource provides accurate, balanced, accessible, and relevant information supporting engagement with the decision between conservative kidney management care and dialysis within the kidney care pathway in the context of their everyday life. Limitations: There was a lack of ethnic diversity in the sample. Conclusions: People with kidney failure must choose between dialysis and conservative kidney management when planning their kidney care. Development of this resource used evidence of professionals' clinical reasoning about kidney disease management. Providing details of the research underpinning patient decision aid development demonstrates why the resource can enhance health literacy and supports shared decision making conversations with people making these difficult decisions.

Indexed as

Advanced kidney diseasechronic kidney diseaseclinical decision makingclinical decision supportclinical reasoningclinicianscomprehensive conservative careconservative careconservative kidney managementconservative managementdecision support tooldialysisdialysis nursesend stage kidney diseaseend stage renal failurehealth care professionalsinformed decision makinginterviewskidney doctorskidney failurekidney nursesnephrologistsnephrology nursespalliative carepatient decision aidpatient informationpatient participationqualitativereasoningrenal nursesrenal physiciansshared decision makingsupportive care

Identifiers

PMID40256209
PMCPMC12008628

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.