ArticleJournal of advanced nursing2026
Interpretative Phenomenological Study Exploring Why People With Kidney Failure Say 'No' to a Kidney Transplant.
Article in Journal of advanced nursing, 2026. 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.
- Interpretative Phenomenological Study Exploring Why People With Kidney Failure Say 'No' to a Kidney Transplant.Journal of advanced nursing · 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
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
aimTo develop an in-depth understanding of peoples' perceptions and experiences of decision-making and reasons why they declined the opportunity of a kidney transplant.
designThe Theory of Planned Behaviour informed the qualitative interpretative phenomenological analysis.
methodsSemi-structured interviews were conducted between August 2022 and June 2023 with thirty adults in the United Kingdom who had declined a kidney transplant. Interviews were digitally recorded and transcribed verbatim.
findingsDeciding against having a kidney transplant for the majority of people was a concrete decision. Multiple reasons transcended four cross cutting themes: The impact of negative past experiences on kidney transplant decision-making, Negative attitudes, beliefs, and perceptions towards kidney transplantation, Preferred not to have a kidney transplant, and Perceived benefits of deciding against a kidney transplant. Earlier negative experiences culminated in mistrust. People feared kidney transplant failure and were not willing to take the risk of being worse off. Some people perceived they were too old and preferred younger people to be offered available kidneys. COVID-19 negatively impacted some people's decisions.
conclusionDespite people's decisions being perceived as at odds with healthcare professionals and current policies to increase transplantation rates, overall, the decision not to have a kidney transplant appeared carefully thought through. IMPLICATIONS FOR THE PROFESSION AND/OR PATIENT CARE: People's choices were informed, multifaceted and shaped by personal experiences, perceived risks and individual values. Recognising these factors is essential in improving patient-centred care and shared decision-making. Nurse-led patient education needs to carefully balance promoting kidney transplant as the preferred kidney replacement treatment option. IMPACT: The findings contribute new understanding and theory as to why people living with kidney failure decide against having a kidney transplant. Perceived benefits of not having a transplant outweighed potential advantages, and patients exercised their legal right to make an informed decision. REPORTING
methodCOREQ and SRQR. PATIENT OR PUBLIC CONTRIBUTION: People living with kidney disease were involved from the outset; their contributions included prioritising the research question, shaping the study design, commenting on participant documents, analysing, interpreting findings and dissemination.
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.