BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: This study was undertaken by the American Association of Kidney Patients (AAKP) to better understand ESRD patients' satisfaction with their current renal replacement therapy (RRT) and the education they received before initiating therapy. DESIGN, SETTING, PARTICIPANTS, & MEASUREMENTS: In addition to an open invitation on the AAKP website, nearly 9000 ESRD patients received invitations to complete the survey, which consisted of 46 questions. Satisfaction was measured on a 1 (extremely dissatisfied) to 7 (extremely satisfied) scale. RESULTS: Survey respondents were younger, more highly educated, and more likely to be white as well as employed as compared with the U.S. dialysis population. A total of 977 patients responded. Overall patient satisfaction with current RRT treatment varied from a low of 4.5 for in-center hemodialysis (ICHD) to a high of 6.1 in transplant (TX) patients. Peritoneal dialysis (PD) and home hemodialysis (HHD) mean scores were 5.2 and 5.5, respectively. PD, HHD, and TX patients' satisfaction scores were significantly higher than those of ICHD patients (P < 0.05). Approximately 31% of respondents felt that the therapies were not equally and fairly presented as treatment options, and 32% responded that they were not educated regarding HHD. CONCLUSIONS: ESRD patients are not uniformly advised about all possible treatment methods and hence were only moderately satisfied with their pretreatment education. Once on RRT, those on a home therapy or with a kidney TX are more satisfied than those with ICHD.
BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: This study was undertaken by the American Association of Kidney Patients (AAKP) to better understand ESRDpatients' satisfaction with their current renal replacement therapy (RRT) and the education they received before initiating therapy. DESIGN, SETTING, PARTICIPANTS, & MEASUREMENTS: In addition to an open invitation on the AAKP website, nearly 9000 ESRDpatients received invitations to complete the survey, which consisted of 46 questions. Satisfaction was measured on a 1 (extremely dissatisfied) to 7 (extremely satisfied) scale. RESULTS: Survey respondents were younger, more highly educated, and more likely to be white as well as employed as compared with the U.S. dialysis population. A total of 977 patients responded. Overall patient satisfaction with current RRT treatment varied from a low of 4.5 for in-center hemodialysis (ICHD) to a high of 6.1 in transplant (TX) patients. Peritoneal dialysis (PD) and home hemodialysis (HHD) mean scores were 5.2 and 5.5, respectively. PD, HHD, and TX patients' satisfaction scores were significantly higher than those of ICHD patients (P < 0.05). Approximately 31% of respondents felt that the therapies were not equally and fairly presented as treatment options, and 32% responded that they were not educated regarding HHD. CONCLUSIONS:ESRDpatients are not uniformly advised about all possible treatment methods and hence were only moderately satisfied with their pretreatment education. Once on RRT, those on a home therapy or with a kidney TX are more satisfied than those with ICHD.
Authors: Fredric O Finkelstein; Kenneth Story; Catherine Firanek; Paul Barre; Tomoko Takano; Steven Soroka; Salim Mujais; Kathleen Rodd; David Mendelssohn Journal: Kidney Int Date: 2008-07-30 Impact factor: 10.612
Authors: Osasuyi U Iyasere; Edwina A Brown; Lina Johansson; Les Huson; Joanna Smee; Alexander P Maxwell; Ken Farrington; Andrew Davenport Journal: Clin J Am Soc Nephrol Date: 2015-12-28 Impact factor: 8.237
Authors: Akilah King; Fanny Y Lopez; Lydia Lissanu; Eric Robinson; Erik Almazan; Gabrielle Metoyer; Jacob Tanumihardjo; Michael Quinn; Monica Peek; Milda Saunders Journal: J Ren Care Date: 2020-01-09
Authors: Mallika L Mendu; Sri Lekha Tummalapalli; Krista L Lentine; Kevin F Erickson; Susie Q Lew; Frank Liu; Edward Gould; Michael Somers; Pranav S Garimella; Terrence O'Neil; David L White; Rachel Meyer; Scott D Bieber; Daniel E Weiner Journal: J Am Soc Nephrol Date: 2020-02-13 Impact factor: 10.121
Authors: Ariella Maghen; Grecia B Vargas; Sarah E Connor; Sima Nassiri; Elisabeth M Hicks; Lorna Kwan; Amy D Waterman; Sally L Maliski; Jeffrey L Veale Journal: J Clin Nurs Date: 2018-03-05 Impact factor: 3.036
Authors: Fredric O Finkelstein; Kelli L Arsenault; Ana Taveras; Kwabena Awuah; Susan H Finkelstein Journal: Nat Rev Nephrol Date: 2012-10-23 Impact factor: 28.314
Authors: Michelle M O'Shaughnessy; Maria E Montez-Rath; Richard A Lafayette; Wolfgang C Winkelmayer Journal: Nephrol Dial Transplant Date: 2015-11-25 Impact factor: 5.992
Authors: Erin R Lutz; Kaitlin L Costello; Minjeong Jo; Constance A Gilet; Jennifer M Hawley; Jessica C Bridgman; Mi-Kyung Song Journal: Nephrol Nurs J Date: 2014 Jul-Aug Impact factor: 0.959