Leigh Anne Dageforde1, Amanda Box, Irene D Feurer, Kerri L Cavanaugh. 1. 1 Vanderbilt Transplant Center, Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, TN. 2 Department of Surgery, Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, TN. 3 University of Tennessee Health Science Center, Memphis, TN. 4 Division of Nephrology, Department of Medicine, Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, TN. 5 Department of Biostatistics, Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, TN.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Some patients referred for kidney transplant evaluation fail to attend the visit. Our goal was to compare demographic, socioeconomic, and psychologic factors between evaluation visit attendees and absentees. METHODS: A convenience sample of patients referred and scheduled for kidney transplant evaluation at a single center from November 2012 to December 2013 participated in a phone survey reporting socioeconomic, demographic, and clinical characteristics; health literacy; and perceived knowledge and concerns about transplantation. Absentees were matched by race with attendees. Analyses of differences between groups were performed with chi-square test, Fisher exact test, and t tests. Multivariable logistic regression was adjusted for relevant demographic characteristics. RESULTS: One hundred four adults participated (61% men, 46% white, 52 ± 12 years). Financial concerns were the most prevalent (67.3% affording medication, 64.1% affording operation). Previous evaluation at a different transplant center (P = 0.029) and being on dialysis (P = 0.008) were significantly associated with absence. Attendance was associated with concerns about finding a living donor (P = 0.038) and higher perceived general knowledge about transplantation (P ≤ 0.001). No differences were appreciated in demographic, socioeconomic, or health literacy factors between groups. CONCLUSION: Both attendee and absentee patients were most concerned with the financial burden of kidney transplantation. Although concerns and perceived knowledge are important correlates of behavior, other considerations such as psychologic factors and prior medical experiences may influence patients' ability to complete the kidney transplant evaluation process. Although this pilot study was conducted in a small sample and has limited generalizability, our findings can guide future research.
BACKGROUND: Some patients referred for kidney transplant evaluation fail to attend the visit. Our goal was to compare demographic, socioeconomic, and psychologic factors between evaluation visit attendees and absentees. METHODS: A convenience sample of patients referred and scheduled for kidney transplant evaluation at a single center from November 2012 to December 2013 participated in a phone survey reporting socioeconomic, demographic, and clinical characteristics; health literacy; and perceived knowledge and concerns about transplantation. Absentees were matched by race with attendees. Analyses of differences between groups were performed with chi-square test, Fisher exact test, and t tests. Multivariable logistic regression was adjusted for relevant demographic characteristics. RESULTS: One hundred four adults participated (61% men, 46% white, 52 ± 12 years). Financial concerns were the most prevalent (67.3% affording medication, 64.1% affording operation). Previous evaluation at a different transplant center (P = 0.029) and being on dialysis (P = 0.008) were significantly associated with absence. Attendance was associated with concerns about finding a living donor (P = 0.038) and higher perceived general knowledge about transplantation (P ≤ 0.001). No differences were appreciated in demographic, socioeconomic, or health literacy factors between groups. CONCLUSION: Both attendee and absentee patients were most concerned with the financial burden of kidney transplantation. Although concerns and perceived knowledge are important correlates of behavior, other considerations such as psychologic factors and prior medical experiences may influence patients' ability to complete the kidney transplant evaluation process. Although this pilot study was conducted in a small sample and has limited generalizability, our findings can guide future research.
Authors: Johanna Sheu; Patti L Ephraim; Neil R Powe; Hamid Rabb; Mikiko Senga; Kira E Evans; Bernard G Jaar; Deidra C Crews; Raquel C Greer; L Ebony Boulware Journal: Qual Health Res Date: 2012-07
Authors: Leigh Anne Dageforde; Kerri L Cavanaugh; Derek E Moore; Kelly Harms; Andrew Wright; C Wright Pinson; Irene D Feurer Journal: J Health Commun Date: 2015-06-14
Authors: Mark B Lockwood; Milda R Saunders; Christopher S Lee; Yolanda T Becker; Michelle A Josephson; W James Chon Journal: Prog Transplant Date: 2013-12 Impact factor: 1.187
Authors: Jesse D Schold; Jon A Gregg; Jeffrey S Harman; Allyson G Hall; Pamela R Patton; Herwig-Ulf Meier-Kriesche Journal: Clin J Am Soc Nephrol Date: 2011-05-19 Impact factor: 8.237
Authors: Lisa D Chew; Joan M Griffin; Melissa R Partin; Siamak Noorbaloochi; Joseph P Grill; Annamay Snyder; Katharine A Bradley; Sean M Nugent; Alisha D Baines; Michelle Vanryn Journal: J Gen Intern Med Date: 2008-03-12 Impact factor: 5.128
Authors: Kerri Cavanaugh; Kenneth A Wallston; Tebeb Gebretsadik; Ayumi Shintani; Mary Margaret Huizinga; Dianne Davis; Rebecca Pratt Gregory; Robb Malone; Michael Pignone; Darren DeWalt; Tom A Elasy; Russell L Rothman Journal: Diabetes Care Date: 2009-09-09 Impact factor: 19.112
Authors: J A Green; P L Ephraim; F F Hill-Briggs; T Browne; T S Strigo; C L Hauer; R A Stametz; J D Darer; U D Patel; K Lang-Lindsey; B L Bankes; S A Bolden; P Danielson; S Ruff; L Schmidt; A Swoboda; P Woods; B Vinson; D Littlewood; G Jackson; J F Pendergast; J St Clair Russell; K Collins; E Norfolk; I D Bucaloiu; S Kethireddy; C Collins; D Davis; J dePrisco; D Malloy; C J Diamantidis; S Fulmer; J Martin; D Schatell; N Tangri; A Sees; C Siegrist; J Breed; A Medley; E Graboski; J Billet; M Hackenberg; D Singer; S Stewart; A Alkon; N A Bhavsar; L Lewis-Boyer; C Martz; C Yule; R C Greer; M Saunders; B Cameron; L E Boulware Journal: Contemp Clin Trials Date: 2018-09-12 Impact factor: 2.226
Authors: Luke D Rothermel; Claire C Conley; Anuja L Sarode; Michael F Young; Zulema L Uscanga; McKenzie McIntyre; Jason B Fleming; Susan T Vadaparampil Journal: J Natl Compr Canc Netw Date: 2021-12 Impact factor: 11.908
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: Fatima Warsame; Christine E Haugen; Hao Ying; Jacqueline M Garonzik-Wang; Niraj M Desai; Rasheeda K Hall; Rekha Kambhampati; Deidra C Crews; Tanjala S Purnell; Dorry L Segev; Mara A McAdams-DeMarco Journal: Am J Transplant Date: 2018-08-16 Impact factor: 8.086
Authors: Dominic M Taylor; Simon D S Fraser; J Andrew Bradley; Clare Bradley; Heather Draper; Wendy Metcalfe; Gabriel C Oniscu; Charles R V Tomson; Rommel Ravanan; Paul J Roderick Journal: Clin J Am Soc Nephrol Date: 2017-05-09 Impact factor: 8.237
Authors: Amy D Waterman; John D Peipert; Yujie Cui; Jennifer L Beaumont; Andrea Paiva; Amanda F Lipsey; Crystal S Anderson; Mark L Robbins Journal: Am J Transplant Date: 2020-09-15 Impact factor: 8.086