BACKGROUND: For every patient with chronic kidney disease who undergoes renal-replacement therapy, there is one patient who undergoes conservative management of their disease. We aimed to determine the most important characteristics of dialysis and the trade-offs patients were willing to make in choosing dialysis instead of conservative care. METHODS: We conducted a discrete choice experiment involving adults with stage 3-5 chronic kidney disease from eight renal clinics in Australia. We assessed the influence of treatment characteristics (life expectancy, number of visits to the hospital per week, ability to travel, time spent undergoing dialysis [i.e., time spent attached to a dialysis machine per treatment, measured in hours], time of day at which treatment occurred, availability of subsidized transport and flexibility of the treatment schedule) on patients' preferences for dialysis versus conservative care. RESULTS: Of 151 patients invited to participate, 105 completed our survey. Patients were more likely to choose dialysis than conservative care if dialysis involved an increased average life expectancy (odds ratio [OR] 1.84, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.57-2.15), if they were able to dialyse during the day or evening rather than during the day only (OR 8.95, 95% CI 4.46-17.97), and if subsidized transport was available (OR 1.55, 95% CI 1.24-1.95). Patients were less likely to choose dialysis over conservative care if an increase in the number of visits to hospital was required (OR 0.70, 95% CI 0.56-0.88) and if there were more restrictions on their ability to travel (OR=0.47, 95%CI 0.36-0.61). Patients were willing to forgo 7 months of life expectancy to reduce the number of required visits to hospital and 15 months of life expectancy to increase their ability to travel. INTERPRETATION: Patients approaching end-stage kidney disease are willing to trade considerable life expectancy to reduce the burden and restrictions imposed by dialysis.
BACKGROUND: For every patient with chronic kidney disease who undergoes renal-replacement therapy, there is one patient who undergoes conservative management of their disease. We aimed to determine the most important characteristics of dialysis and the trade-offs patients were willing to make in choosing dialysis instead of conservative care. METHODS: We conducted a discrete choice experiment involving adults with stage 3-5 chronic kidney disease from eight renal clinics in Australia. We assessed the influence of treatment characteristics (life expectancy, number of visits to the hospital per week, ability to travel, time spent undergoing dialysis [i.e., time spent attached to a dialysis machine per treatment, measured in hours], time of day at which treatment occurred, availability of subsidized transport and flexibility of the treatment schedule) on patients' preferences for dialysis versus conservative care. RESULTS: Of 151 patients invited to participate, 105 completed our survey. Patients were more likely to choose dialysis than conservative care if dialysis involved an increased average life expectancy (odds ratio [OR] 1.84, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.57-2.15), if they were able to dialyse during the day or evening rather than during the day only (OR 8.95, 95% CI 4.46-17.97), and if subsidized transport was available (OR 1.55, 95% CI 1.24-1.95). Patients were less likely to choose dialysis over conservative care if an increase in the number of visits to hospital was required (OR 0.70, 95% CI 0.56-0.88) and if there were more restrictions on their ability to travel (OR=0.47, 95%CI 0.36-0.61). Patients were willing to forgo 7 months of life expectancy to reduce the number of required visits to hospital and 15 months of life expectancy to increase their ability to travel. INTERPRETATION:Patients approaching end-stage kidney disease are willing to trade considerable life expectancy to reduce the burden and restrictions imposed by dialysis.
Authors: Fliss E M Murtagh; James E Marsh; Paul Donohoe; Nasirul J Ekbal; Neil S Sheerin; Fiona E Harris Journal: Nephrol Dial Transplant Date: 2007-04-04 Impact factor: 5.992
Authors: Rachael L Morton; Jeannie Devitt; Kirsten Howard; Kate Anderson; Paul Snelling; Alan Cass Journal: Am J Kidney Dis Date: 2010-02-08 Impact factor: 8.860
Authors: Irina Gorodetskaya; Stefanos Zenios; Charles E McCulloch; Alan Bostrom; Chi-Yuan Hsu; Andrew B Bindman; Alan S Go; Glenn M Chertow Journal: Kidney Int Date: 2005-12 Impact factor: 10.612
Authors: Annemieke Visser; Geke J Dijkstra; Daphne Kuiper; Paul E de Jong; Casper F M Franssen; Ron T Gansevoort; Gerbrand J Izaks; Kitty J Jager; Sijmen A Reijneveld Journal: J Nephrol Date: 2009 Nov-Dec Impact factor: 3.902
Authors: D N Churchill; G W Torrance; D W Taylor; C C Barnes; D Ludwin; A Shimizu; E K Smith Journal: Clin Invest Med Date: 1987-01 Impact factor: 0.825
Authors: Andrea Hill; Clare Ramsey; Peter Dodek; Jean Kozek; Randy Fransoo; Robert Fowler; Malcolm Doupe; Hubert Wong; Damon Scales; Allan Garland Journal: Health Serv Res Date: 2019-11-10 Impact factor: 3.402
Authors: Keren Ladin; Renuka Pandya; Allison Kannam; Rohini Loke; Tira Oskoui; Ronald D Perrone; Klemens B Meyer; Daniel E Weiner; John B Wong Journal: Am J Kidney Dis Date: 2018-02-01 Impact factor: 8.860
Authors: Ann M O'Hare; Nancy Armistead; Wendy L Funk Schrag; Louis Diamond; Alvin H Moss Journal: Clin J Am Soc Nephrol Date: 2014-07-17 Impact factor: 8.237