Allyson Hart1, Marilyn Bruin2, Sauman Chu2, Arthur Matas3, Melissa R Partin4, Ajay K Israni1. 1. Department of Medicine, Hennepin Healthcare, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, Minnesota. 2. Department of Design, Housing, and Apparel, College of Design, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, Minnesota. 3. Department of Surgery, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, Minnesota. 4. Center for Chronic Disease Outcomes Research, Minneapolis VA Medical Center, Department of Medicine, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, Minnesota.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Kidney transplant candidates face complex decisions about transplant options such as living donation or acceptance of lower quality kidneys. We sought to characterize knowledge and decision support needs regarding kidney transplant outcomes and options. METHODS: We conducted 10 interviews and four focus groups of 28 adult kidney transplant candidates from two centers in Minnesota. Transcripts were analyzed thematically using a grounded theory approach. RESULTS: We identified four themes: First, candidates have a limited understanding of treatment options and demonstrate confusion or a lack of awareness about waiting list outcomes and prognosis. Second, candidates desired frank discussions about likely outcomes and individualized prognosis. Third, emotional barriers impact how patients make informed decisions. Finally, participants relied on the support of family and friends to help process information, and many favored the medical community engaging their family and friends in their medical decisions. These findings were incorporated into a conceptual model to support kidney transplant candidates in medical decision making. CONCLUSIONS: Transplant candidates had limited understanding about treatment options and outcomes on the kidney transplant waiting list. Individualized risk information and cognitive approaches that recognize how patients process information and balance competing risks may improve informed decision making.
BACKGROUND: Kidney transplant candidates face complex decisions about transplant options such as living donation or acceptance of lower quality kidneys. We sought to characterize knowledge and decision support needs regarding kidney transplant outcomes and options. METHODS: We conducted 10 interviews and four focus groups of 28 adult kidney transplant candidates from two centers in Minnesota. Transcripts were analyzed thematically using a grounded theory approach. RESULTS: We identified four themes: First, candidates have a limited understanding of treatment options and demonstrate confusion or a lack of awareness about waiting list outcomes and prognosis. Second, candidates desired frank discussions about likely outcomes and individualized prognosis. Third, emotional barriers impact how patients make informed decisions. Finally, participants relied on the support of family and friends to help process information, and many favored the medical community engaging their family and friends in their medical decisions. These findings were incorporated into a conceptual model to support kidney transplant candidates in medical decision making. CONCLUSIONS: Transplant candidates had limited understanding about treatment options and outcomes on the kidney transplant waiting list. Individualized risk information and cognitive approaches that recognize how patients process information and balance competing risks may improve informed decision making.
Authors: Rachel E Patzer; Mohua Basu; Christian P Larsen; Stephen O Pastan; Sumit Mohan; Michael Patzer; Michael Konomos; William M McClellan; Janice Lea; David Howard; Jennifer Gander; Kimberly Jacob Arriola Journal: Transplantation Date: 2016-03 Impact factor: 4.939
Authors: L Ebony Boulware; Lucy A Meoni; Nancy E Fink; Rulan S Parekh; W H Linda Kao; Michael J Klag; Neil R Powe Journal: Am J Transplant Date: 2005-06 Impact factor: 8.086
Authors: Sohal Y Ismail; Annemarie E Luchtenburg; Judith A Kal-V Gestel; Willij C Zuidema; Willem Weimar; Jan J V Busschbach; Emma K Massey Journal: Transplantation Date: 2013-09 Impact factor: 4.939
Authors: Rachel E Patzer; Laura McPherson; Mohua Basu; Sumit Mohan; Michael Wolf; Mariana Chiles; Allison Russell; Jennifer C Gander; John J Friedewald; Daniela Ladner; Christian P Larsen; Thomas Pearson; Stephen Pastan Journal: Am J Transplant Date: 2018-03-26 Impact factor: 8.086
Authors: Amy D Waterman; Mark L Robbins; Andrea L Paiva; John D Peipert; Crystal S Kynard-Amerson; Christina J Goalby; LaShara A Davis; Jessica L Thein; Emily A Schenk; Kari A Baldwin; Stacy L Skelton; Nicole R Amoyal; Leslie A Brick Journal: BMC Nephrol Date: 2014-10-14 Impact factor: 2.388
Authors: Eusebio M Alvaro; Jason T Siegel; Dana Turcotte; Nadra Lisha; William D Crano; Alexander Dominick Journal: Prog Transplant Date: 2008-12 Impact factor: 1.065
Authors: M Elle Saine; Erin M Schnellinger; Michel Liu; Joshua M Diamond; Maria M Crespo; Stacey Prenner; Vishnu Potluri; Christian Bermudez; Heather Mentch; Michaella Moore; Behdad Besharatian; David S Goldberg; Frances K Barg; Peter P Reese Journal: Transplant Direct Date: 2022-07-19
Authors: Nicole DePasquale; Matthew J Ellis; Debra L Sudan; Patti L Ephraim; Lisa M McElroy; Dinushika Mohottige; Clemontina A Davenport; Xiyuan Zhang; Sarah B Peskoe; Tara S Strigo; Ashley N Cabacungan; Iris Pounds; Jennie A Riley; Margaret Falkovic; L Ebony Boulware Journal: Clin Transplant Date: 2021-01-25 Impact factor: 2.863
Authors: Karolina Schantz; Elisa J Gordon; Unsun Lee; Maria Rocha; John Friedewald; Daniela P Ladner; Yolanda Becker; Richard Formica; Peter P Reese; Dixon Kaufman; Masoud Barah; Marissa Walker; Om Mehrotra; Dania Viveros; Sanjay Mehrotra Journal: Transplant Direct Date: 2021-12-16
Authors: François-Xavier Paquette; Amir Ghassemi; Olga Bukhtiyarova; Moustapha Cisse; Natanael Gagnon; Alexia Della Vecchia; Hobivola A Rabearivelo; Youssef Loudiyi Journal: JMIR Med Inform Date: 2022-06-14