OBJECTIVES: To explore different perceptions of urban and rural nephrologists regarding patient suitability for transplant. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We conducted 4 focus groups, each consisting of 4 to 6 nephrologists practicing in either a rural (n=9) or an urban setting (n=11). A topic guide was developed and modified according to pilot testing. Broadly stated, open ended queries probed perceptions about the ideal or suboptimal candidates for transplant, perceived barriers to transplant, views regarding providing information to patients, and strategies that could improve transplant rates. At the sessions, all audio was recorded and professionally transcribed. Responses were pooled, de-identified, and analyzed using qualitative thematic content analysis. RESULTS: In considering candidacy, urban participants mentioned "age, " "compliance, " and "functional status "; "support " was a more-prevalent theme among rural nephrologists. Urban physicians discussed the expected effect of a transplant on a subject 's quality of life. As barriers to transplant, "evaluation time " was mentioned by urban groups only, and "distance to transplant center " was suggested by rural nephrologists only. To improve transplant rates, urban nephrologists suggested strategies that would increase the donor pool. Rural nephrologists, on the other hand, suggested a collaboration between nephrologists and the transplant center, "limiting listing eligibility " and "financial assistance. " Rural nephrologists suggested providing comparisons of modalities and information about selecting subjects. CONCLUSIONS: This qualitative study underscores geographic differences in perceptions of nephrologists regarding patient candidacy for kidney transplant, perceived barriers to kidney transplant, and proposed strategies to increase rates of kidney transplant. These differences are potential contributors to geographic variations in referring patients for kidney transplant.
OBJECTIVES: To explore different perceptions of urban and rural nephrologists regarding patient suitability for transplant. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We conducted 4 focus groups, each consisting of 4 to 6 nephrologists practicing in either a rural (n=9) or an urban setting (n=11). A topic guide was developed and modified according to pilot testing. Broadly stated, open ended queries probed perceptions about the ideal or suboptimal candidates for transplant, perceived barriers to transplant, views regarding providing information to patients, and strategies that could improve transplant rates. At the sessions, all audio was recorded and professionally transcribed. Responses were pooled, de-identified, and analyzed using qualitative thematic content analysis. RESULTS: In considering candidacy, urban participants mentioned "age, " "compliance, " and "functional status "; "support " was a more-prevalent theme among rural nephrologists. Urban physicians discussed the expected effect of a transplant on a subject 's quality of life. As barriers to transplant, "evaluation time " was mentioned by urban groups only, and "distance to transplant center " was suggested by rural nephrologists only. To improve transplant rates, urban nephrologists suggested strategies that would increase the donor pool. Rural nephrologists, on the other hand, suggested a collaboration between nephrologists and the transplant center, "limiting listing eligibility " and "financial assistance. " Rural nephrologists suggested providing comparisons of modalities and information about selecting subjects. CONCLUSIONS: This qualitative study underscores geographic differences in perceptions of nephrologists regarding patient candidacy for kidney transplant, perceived barriers to kidney transplant, and proposed strategies to increase rates of kidney transplant. These differences are potential contributors to geographic variations in referring patients for kidney transplant.
Authors: John Z Ayanian; Paul D Cleary; Joseph H Keogh; Susan J Noonan; Jo Ann David-Kasdan; Arnold M Epstein Journal: Am J Kidney Dis Date: 2004-02 Impact factor: 8.860
Authors: Laura J McPherson; Vaughn Barry; Jane Yackley; Jennifer C Gander; Stephen O Pastan; Laura C Plantinga; Sudeshna Paul; Rachel E Patzer Journal: Clin J Am Soc Nephrol Date: 2020-03-24 Impact factor: 8.237
Authors: S Joseph Kim; John S Gill; Greg Knoll; Patricia Campbell; Marcelo Cantarovich; Edward Cole; Bryce Kiberd Journal: J Am Soc Nephrol Date: 2019-08-06 Impact factor: 10.121
Authors: V Boima; M B Amissah-Arthur; E Yorke; D Dey; Delali Fiagbe; A E Yawson; J Nonvignon; C C Mate-Kole Journal: BMC Nephrol Date: 2021-04-13 Impact factor: 2.388
Authors: Shaifali Sandal; Kathleen Charlebois; Julio F Fiore; David Kenneth Wright; Marie-Chantal Fortin; Liane S Feldman; Ahsan Alam; Catherine Weber Journal: Can J Kidney Health Dis Date: 2019-02-13
Authors: Nicole Jane Scholes-Robertson; Martin Howell; Talia Gutman; Amanda Baumgart; Victoria SInka; David J Tunnicliffe; Stephen May; Rachel Chalmers; Jonathan Craig; Allison Tong Journal: BMJ Open Date: 2020-09-23 Impact factor: 2.692