Amy D Waterman1, John Devin Peipert2, Anna-Michelle McSorley3, Christina J Goalby3, Jennifer L Beaumont4, Leanne Peace5. 1. Division of Nephrology, David Geffen School of Medicine, University of California Los Angeles; Terasaki Research Institute, Los Angeles, CA. Electronic address: awaterman@mednet.ucla.edu. 2. Department of Medical Social Sciences, Feinberg School of Medicine, Northwestern University; Northwestern University Transplant Outcomes Research Collaborative, Comprehensive Transplant Center, Feinberg School of Medicine, Chicago, IL. 3. Division of Nephrology, David Geffen School of Medicine, University of California Los Angeles. 4. Terasaki Research Institute, Los Angeles, CA. 5. Missouri Kidney Program, University of Missouri, Columbia, MO.
Abstract
RATIONALE & OBJECTIVE: Compared with others, black and low-income patients receiving dialysis are less likely to receive kidney transplantation (KT) education within dialysis centers. We examined the efficacy of 2 supplementary KT education approaches delivered directly to patients. STUDY DESIGN: Prospective, 3-arm parallel-group, randomized, controlled trial. SETTINGS & PARTICIPANTS: Adult, black, and white low-income patients receiving dialysis in Missouri. INTERVENTION: Patients were randomly assigned to 1 of 3 educational conditions: (1) standard of care, usual KT education provided in dialysis centers (control); (2) Explore Transplant @ Home patient-guided, 4 modules of KT education sent directly to patients using print, video, and text messages; and (3) Explore Transplant @ Home educator-guided, the patient-guided intervention plus 4 telephonic discussions with an educator. OUTCOMES: Primary: patient knowledge of living (LDKT) and deceased donor KT (DDKT). Secondary: informed decision making, change in attitudes in favor of LDKT and DDKT, and change in the number of new steps taken toward KT. RESULTS: In intent-to-treat analyses, patients randomly assigned to educator- and patient-guided interventions had greater knowledge gains (1.4 point increase) than control patients (0.8 point increase; P=0.02 and P=0.01, respectively). Compared with control patients, more patients randomly assigned to educator- and patient-guided interventions were able to make informed decisions about starting KT evaluation (82% vs 91% and 95%; P=0.003), pursuing DDKT (70% vs 84% and 84%; P=0.003), and pursuing LDKT (73% vs 91% and 92%; P<0.001). LIMITATIONS: Potential contamination because of patient-level randomization; no assessment of clinical end points. CONCLUSIONS: Education presented directly to dialysis patients, with or without coaching by telephone, increased dialysis patients' KT knowledge and informed decision making without increasing educational burden on providers. FUNDING SOURCE: This project was funded by the National Institutes of Health and Health Resources and Services Administration. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Registered at ClinicalTrials.gov with study number NCT02268682.
RCT Entities:
RATIONALE & OBJECTIVE: Compared with others, black and low-income patients receiving dialysis are less likely to receive kidney transplantation (KT) education within dialysis centers. We examined the efficacy of 2 supplementary KT education approaches delivered directly to patients. STUDY DESIGN: Prospective, 3-arm parallel-group, randomized, controlled trial. SETTINGS & PARTICIPANTS: Adult, black, and white low-income patients receiving dialysis in Missouri. INTERVENTION: Patients were randomly assigned to 1 of 3 educational conditions: (1) standard of care, usual KT education provided in dialysis centers (control); (2) Explore Transplant @ Home patient-guided, 4 modules of KT education sent directly to patients using print, video, and text messages; and (3) Explore Transplant @ Home educator-guided, the patient-guided intervention plus 4 telephonic discussions with an educator. OUTCOMES: Primary: patient knowledge of living (LDKT) and deceased donor KT (DDKT). Secondary: informed decision making, change in attitudes in favor of LDKT and DDKT, and change in the number of new steps taken toward KT. RESULTS: In intent-to-treat analyses, patients randomly assigned to educator- and patient-guided interventions had greater knowledge gains (1.4 point increase) than control patients (0.8 point increase; P=0.02 and P=0.01, respectively). Compared with control patients, more patients randomly assigned to educator- and patient-guided interventions were able to make informed decisions about starting KT evaluation (82% vs 91% and 95%; P=0.003), pursuing DDKT (70% vs 84% and 84%; P=0.003), and pursuing LDKT (73% vs 91% and 92%; P<0.001). LIMITATIONS: Potential contamination because of patient-level randomization; no assessment of clinical end points. CONCLUSIONS: Education presented directly to dialysis patients, with or without coaching by telephone, increased dialysis patients' KT knowledge and informed decision making without increasing educational burden on providers. FUNDING SOURCE: This project was funded by the National Institutes of Health and Health Resources and Services Administration. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Registered at ClinicalTrials.gov with study number NCT02268682.
Authors: Erin C Hall; Nathan T James; Jacqueline M Garonzik Wang; Jonathan C Berger; Robert A Montgomery; Nabil N Dagher; Niraj M Desai; Dorry L Segev Journal: Am J Kidney Dis Date: 2012-02-25 Impact factor: 8.860
Authors: David A Axelrod; Nino Dzebisashvili; Mark A Schnitzler; Paolo R Salvalaggio; Dorry L Segev; Sommer E Gentry; Janet Tuttle-Newhall; Krista L Lentine Journal: Clin J Am Soc Nephrol Date: 2010-08-26 Impact factor: 8.237
Authors: James R Rodrigue; Matthew J Paek; Ogo Egbuna; Amy D Waterman; Jesse D Schold; Martha Pavlakis; Didier A Mandelbrot Journal: Transplantation Date: 2014-11-15 Impact factor: 4.939
Authors: L Ebony Boulware; Felicia Hill-Briggs; Edward S Kraus; J Keith Melancon; Brenda Falcone; Patti L Ephraim; Bernard G Jaar; Luis Gimenez; Michael Choi; Mikiko Senga; Maria Kolotos; LaPricia Lewis-Boyer; Courtney Cook; Laney Light; Nicole DePasquale; Todd Noletto; Neil R Powe Journal: Am J Kidney Dis Date: 2012-10-22 Impact factor: 8.860
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: Noel Engels; Gretchen N de Graav; Paul van der Nat; Marinus van den Dorpel; Anne M Stiggelbout; Willem Jan Bos Journal: BMJ Open Date: 2022-09-21 Impact factor: 3.006
Authors: Alvin H Li; Marcus Lo; Jacob E Crawshaw; Alexie J Dunnett; Kyla L Naylor; Amit X Garg; Justin Presseau Journal: Cochrane Database Syst Rev Date: 2021-04-04
Authors: Nwamaka D Eneanya; Shananssa G Percy; Taylor L Stallings; Wei Wang; David J R Steele; Michael J Germain; Jane O Schell; Michael K Paasche-Orlow; Angelo E Volandes Journal: Am J Nephrol Date: 2020-08-13 Impact factor: 3.754
Authors: Jesse D Schold; Sumit Mohan; Anne Huml; Laura D Buccini; John R Sedor; Joshua J Augustine; Emilio D Poggio Journal: J Am Soc Nephrol Date: 2021-02-11 Impact factor: 10.121
Authors: Amy D Waterman; Devika Nair; Intan Purnajo; Kerri L Cavanaugh; Brian S Mittman; John Devin Peipert Journal: Clin J Am Soc Nephrol Date: 2022-03-24 Impact factor: 8.237
Authors: Christine Park; Mandisa-Maia Jones; Samantha Kaplan; Felicitas L Koller; Julius M Wilder; L Ebony Boulware; Lisa M McElroy Journal: Int J Equity Health Date: 2022-02-12