Suma Prakash1, Adam T Perzynski, Peter C Austin, C Fangyun Wu, Mary Ellen Lawless, J Michael Paterson, Rob R Quinn, Ashwini R Sehgal, Matthew James Oliver. 1. Department of Medicine, Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, Ohio;, †Deartment of Medicine, MetroHealth Medical Center, Cleveland, Ohio;, ‡Institute for Clinical Evaluative Sciences;, §Department of Health Policy, Management and Evaluation, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada;, ‖Departments of Medicine and Community Health Sciences, University of Calgary, Calgary, Alberta, Canada;, ¶Department of Medicine, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada, *Sunnybrook Health Sciences Centre, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: The objective of this study was to evaluate the association between neighborhood socioeconomic status and barriers to peritoneal dialysis eligibility and choice. DESIGN, SETTING, PARTICIPANTS, & MEASUREMENTS: This study was a mixed methods parallel design study using quantitative and qualitative data from a prospective clinical database of ESRD patients. The eligibility and choice cohorts were assembled from consecutive incident chronic dialysis patients entering one of five renal programs in the province of Ontario, Canada, between January 1, 2004 and December 31, 2010. Socioeconomic status was measured as median household income and percentage of residents with at least a high school education using Statistics Canada dissemination area-level data. Multivariable models described the relationship between socioeconomic status and likelihood of peritoneal dialysis eligibility and choice. Barriers to peritoneal dialysis eligibility and choice were classified into qualitative categories using the thematic constant comparative approach. RESULTS: The peritoneal dialysis eligibility and choice cohorts had 1314 and 857 patients, respectively; 65% of patients were deemed eligible for peritoneal dialysis, and 46% of eligible patients chose peritoneal dialysis. Socioeconomic status was not a significant predictor of peritoneal dialysis eligibility or choice in this study. Qualitative analyses identified 16 barriers to peritoneal dialysis choice. Patients in lower- versus higher-income Statistics Canada dissemination areas cited built environment or space barriers to peritoneal dialysis (4.6% versus 2.7%) and family or social support barriers (8.3% versus 3.5%) more frequently. CONCLUSIONS: Peritoneal dialysis eligibility and choice were not associated with socioeconomic status. However, socioeconomic status may influence specific barriers to peritoneal dialysis choice. Additional studies to determine the effect of targeting interventions to specific barriers to peritoneal dialysis choice in low socioeconomic status patients on peritoneal dialysis use are needed.
BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: The objective of this study was to evaluate the association between neighborhood socioeconomic status and barriers to peritoneal dialysis eligibility and choice. DESIGN, SETTING, PARTICIPANTS, & MEASUREMENTS: This study was a mixed methods parallel design study using quantitative and qualitative data from a prospective clinical database of ESRDpatients. The eligibility and choice cohorts were assembled from consecutive incident chronic dialysis patients entering one of five renal programs in the province of Ontario, Canada, between January 1, 2004 and December 31, 2010. Socioeconomic status was measured as median household income and percentage of residents with at least a high school education using Statistics Canada dissemination area-level data. Multivariable models described the relationship between socioeconomic status and likelihood of peritoneal dialysis eligibility and choice. Barriers to peritoneal dialysis eligibility and choice were classified into qualitative categories using the thematic constant comparative approach. RESULTS: The peritoneal dialysis eligibility and choice cohorts had 1314 and 857 patients, respectively; 65% of patients were deemed eligible for peritoneal dialysis, and 46% of eligible patients chose peritoneal dialysis. Socioeconomic status was not a significant predictor of peritoneal dialysis eligibility or choice in this study. Qualitative analyses identified 16 barriers to peritoneal dialysis choice. Patients in lower- versus higher-income Statistics Canada dissemination areas cited built environment or space barriers to peritoneal dialysis (4.6% versus 2.7%) and family or social support barriers (8.3% versus 3.5%) more frequently. CONCLUSIONS: Peritoneal dialysis eligibility and choice were not associated with socioeconomic status. However, socioeconomic status may influence specific barriers to peritoneal dialysis choice. Additional studies to determine the effect of targeting interventions to specific barriers to peritoneal dialysis choice in low socioeconomic status patients on peritoneal dialysis use are needed.
Authors: Suma Prakash; Rudolph A Rodriguez; Peter C Austin; Refik Saskin; Alicia Fernandez; Louise M Moist; Ann M O'Hare Journal: J Am Soc Nephrol Date: 2010-06-17 Impact factor: 10.121
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: 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: Rajnish Mehrotra; Dulcie Kermah; Linda Fried; Kamyar Kalantar-Zadeh; Osman Khawar; Keith Norris; Allen Nissenson Journal: J Am Soc Nephrol Date: 2007-09-05 Impact factor: 10.121
Authors: Mary Ann Murray; Gillian Brunier; Jenny Oey Chung; Lee Ann Craig; Cynthia Mills; Alison Thomas; Dawn Stacey Journal: Patient Educ Couns Date: 2009-03-25
Authors: David C Mendelssohn; Salim K Mujais; Steven D Soroka; John Brouillette; Tomoko Takano; Paul E Barre; Bharati V Mittal; Ajay Singh; Catherine Firanek; Ken Story; Fredric O Finkelstein Journal: Nephrol Dial Transplant Date: 2008-08-28 Impact factor: 5.992
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: Elliot A Baerman; Jennifer Kaplan; Jenny I Shen; Wolfgang C Winkelmayer; Kevin F Erickson Journal: J Am Soc Nephrol Date: 2022-03-21 Impact factor: 14.978
Authors: Marc Turenne; Regina Baker; Jeffrey Pearson; Chad Cogan; Purna Mukhopadhyay; Elizabeth Cope Journal: Health Serv Res Date: 2017-05-30 Impact factor: 3.402
Authors: Matthew J Oliver; Ahmed A Al-Jaishi; Stephanie N Dixon; Jeffrey Perl; Arsh K Jain; Susan D Lavoie; Danielle M Nash; J Michael Paterson; Charmaine E Lok; Robert R Quinn Journal: Clin J Am Soc Nephrol Date: 2016-07-27 Impact factor: 8.237