ArticleBMC nephrology2025
Understanding the kidney replacement therapy decision-making process.
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 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.
- Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundPatients with late-stage chronic kidney disease (CKD) engage in life changing kidney replacement therapy (KRT) option(s) decision-making. This study aimed to do the following using journey mapping: determine new interventions to improve KRT decision-making and optimal timing of these interventions and to assess differences across CKD groups with regards to KRT decision-making.
methodsThis was a primarily qualitative cross-sectional cohort study of adults in one of the following 5 CKD groups: CKD 5 decided on KRT option, CKD 4 decided, CKD 4&5 undecided, post-transplant CKD 4&5, and CKD 3b-5 initially, who start unplanned dialysis in hospital requiring outpatient dialysis. CKD patients enrolled to participate in individual journey mapping sessions. Nephrology providers participated in focus groups. All participants completed demographic surveys. Individual journey maps were aggregated by process steps and emotional journeys by CKD group. Theme coding for journey maps and focus groups was performed by two study team members. A patient focus group was conducted for review of group journey map accuracy. Semi-structured interview guides were created for journey maps and focus groups. Descriptive quantitative statics were performed.
resultsForty-two patients participated in journey mapping; ten in the CKD 5 decided group and eight each in the other four groups. There were eleven provider participants from seven centers. Identified interventions for improvement were: assistance with shock/grief after the nephrologist recommends making a KRT decision, talking with peers to obtain patient perspectives on living with different KRT options, learning the kidney disease progression risk at the 2nd or 3rd nephrology visit and learning about all KRT options regardless of candidacy. Themes that emerged from provider focus groups were similar to those obtained with patient journey mapping. There were no significant differences in demographic trends in the suggested interventions ascertained for improving the KRT decision-making process.
conclusionsKRT decision-making journeys were similar across groups; thus a tailored approach by CKD group is not warranted. Key intervention approaches to improve KRT decision-making experience were identified for testing in future prospective studies.
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.