Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2019 Jan 7;14(1):74-83.
doi: 10.2215/CJN.05380518. Epub 2018 Dec 20.

Patient and Caregiver Priorities for Outcomes in Peritoneal Dialysis: Multinational Nominal Group Technique Study

Affiliations

Patient and Caregiver Priorities for Outcomes in Peritoneal Dialysis: Multinational Nominal Group Technique Study

Karine E Manera et al. Clin J Am Soc Nephrol. .

Abstract

Background and objectives: The absence of accepted patient-centered outcomes in research can limit shared decision-making in peritoneal dialysis (PD), particularly because PD-related treatments can be associated with mortality, technique failure, and complications that can impair quality of life. We aimed to identify patient and caregiver priorities for outcomes in PD, and to describe the reasons for their choices.

Design, setting, participants, & measurements: Patients on PD and their caregivers were purposively sampled from nine dialysis units across Australia, the United States, and Hong Kong. Using nominal group technique, participants identified and ranked outcomes, and discussed the reasons for their choices. An importance score (scale 0-1) was calculated for each outcome. Qualitative data were analyzed thematically.

Results: Across 14 groups, 126 participants (81 patients, 45 caregivers), aged 18-84 (mean 54, SD 15) years, identified 56 outcomes. The ten highest ranked outcomes were PD infection (importance score, 0.27), mortality (0.25), fatigue (0.25), flexibility with time (0.18), BP (0.17), PD failure (0.16), ability to travel (0.15), sleep (0.14), ability to work (0.14), and effect on family (0.12). Mortality was ranked first in Australia, second in Hong Kong, and 15th in the United States. The five themes were serious and cascading consequences on health, current and impending relevance, maintaining role and social functioning, requiring constant vigilance, and beyond control and responsibility.

Conclusions: For patients on PD and their caregivers, PD-related infection, mortality, and fatigue were of highest priority, and were focused on health, maintaining lifestyle, and self-management. Reporting these patient-centered outcomes may enhance the relevance of research to inform shared decision-making.

Keywords: Caregivers; Decision Making; Life Style; Outcomes; Patient Participation; Self-Management; Wakefulness; blood pressure; peritoneal dialysis; quality of life.

PubMed Disclaimer

Figures

None
Graphical abstract
Figure 1.
Figure 1.
Overall importance scores for all outcomes across groups (SEM bars).
Figure 2.
Figure 2.
Thematic schema depicting themes underpinning rankings of outcomes. Patients/caregivers gave higher priority to lifestyle and functional outcomes, and morbidity and mortality, compared with biochemical parameters and symptoms. The reasons for their prioritization are indicated in the themes. The theme of “requiring constant vigilance” contributed to higher prioritization of outcomes related to morbidity and mortality (e.g., PD infection), lifestyle and function (e.g., flexibility with time), as well as some biochemical parameters (e.g., potassium). “Current and impending relevance” contributed to the prioritization of outcomes relating to symptoms (e.g., sexual function, fatigue, depression), whereas the theme of “beyond control and responsibility” explained the lower prioritizations of morbidity and mortality-related outcomes, as patients felt some outcomes were inevitable (e.g., kidney function, mortality). “Maintaining role and social functioning” related to lifestyle and functional outcomes, such as the ability to work and travel. “Serious cascading consequences on health” justified the high prioritization of morbidity and mortality outcomes.

Comment in

References

    1. Barry MJ, Edgman-Levitan S: Shared decision making--pinnacle of patient-centered care. N Engl J Med 366: 780–781, 2012 - PubMed
    1. Chewning B, Bylund CL, Shah B, Arora NK, Gueguen JA, Makoul G: Patient preferences for shared decisions: A systematic review. Patient Educ Couns 86: 9–18, 2012 - PMC - PubMed
    1. Tallon D, Chard J, Dieppe P: Relation between agendas of the research community and the research consumer. Lancet 355: 2037–2040, 2000 - PubMed
    1. Gandhi GY, Murad MH, Fujiyoshi A, Mullan RJ, Flynn DN, Elamin MB, Swiglo BA, Isley WL, Guyatt GH, Montori VM: Patient-important outcomes in registered diabetes trials. JAMA 299: 2543–2549, 2008 - PubMed
    1. Chalmers I, Bracken MB, Djulbegovic B, Garattini S, Grant J, Gülmezoglu AM, Howells DW, Ioannidis JPA, Oliver S: How to increase value and reduce waste when research priorities are set. Lancet 383: 156–165, 2014 - PubMed

Publication types

MeSH terms