Experiences of Indigenous Patients Receiving Dialysis: Systematic Review of Qualitative Studies.

RATIONALE & OBJECTIVE: Indigenous People suffer a high burden of kidney disease. Those receiving maintenance dialysis have worse outcomes compared with similarly treated non-Indigenous patients. We characterized the experiences of Indigenous patients receiving dialysis in British-colonized countries to gain insights into which aspects of kidney care may benefit from improvement. STUDY DESIGN: A systematic review of published qualitative interview studies. SETTING & STUDY POPULATIONS: Indigenous Peoples aged 18 years and over, receiving hemodialysis or peritoneal dialysis in British-colonized countries. SELECTION CRITERIA FOR STUDIES: Search terms for Indigenous Peoples, dialysis, and qualitative research were entered into Medline, Embase, PsycINFO, and CINAHL and searched from inception to January 5, 2023. DATA EXTRACTION: Characteristics of each study were extracted into Microsoft Excel for quality assessment. ANALYTICAL APPROACH: Data were analyzed using thematic synthesis. RESULTS: The analysis included 28 studies involving 471 participants from Australia, New Zealand, Canada, and the United States. We identified four themes: centrality of family and culture (continuing dialysis for family, gaining autonomy through shared involvement, balancing primary responsibility to care for family); marginalization due to structural and social inequities (falling through gaps in primary care intensifying shock, discriminated against and judged by specialists, alienated and fearful of hospitals, overwhelmed by travel, financial and regimental burdens); vulnerability in accessing health care (need for culturally responsive care, lack of language interpreters, without agency in decision-making, comorbidities compounding complexity of self-management); and distress from separation from community (disenfranchisement and sorrow when away for dialysis, inability to perpetuate cultural continuity, seeking a kidney transplant). LIMITATIONS: We only included articles published in English. CONCLUSIONS: Indigenous patients receiving dialysis experience inequities in health care that compound existing accessibility issues caused by colonization. Improving the accessibility and cultural responsiveness of dialysis and kidney transplant services in collaboration with Indigenous stakeholders holds promise to enhance the experience of Indigenous patients receiving dialysis. PLAIN-LANGUAGE SUMMARY: Worldwide Indigenous populations suffer a high incidence of chronic disease leading to lower life expectancy, particularly for kidney disease, an insidious condition requiring long-term dialysis treatment. By listening to Indigenous dialysis patients' stories, we hoped to understand how to improve their experience. We gathered 28 qualitative research studies from four countries reporting Indigenous adults' experiences of dialysis. They described lacking awareness of kidney disease, poor access to health services, systemic racism, inadequate cultural safety, and being dislocated from family, community, and culture. These findings indicate that respectful collaboration with Indigenous Peoples to craft and implement policy changes holds promise to improve prevention, integrate culturally responsive health care practices, and provide better access to local dialysis services and opportunities for kidney transplants.

Outcomes for clinical trials involving adults with chronic kidney disease: a multinational Delphi survey involving patients, caregivers and health professionals.

BACKGROUND: Many outcomes of high priority to patients and clinicians are infrequently and inconsistently reported across trials in chronic kidney disease (CKD), which generates research waste and limits evidence-informed decision making. We aimed to generate consensus among patients/caregivers and health professionals on critically important outcomes for trials in CKD prior to kidney failure and the need for kidney replacement therapy, and to describe the reasons for their choices. METHODS: This was an online two-round international Delphi survey. Adult patients with CKD (all stages and diagnoses), caregivers and health professionals who could read English, Spanish or French were eligible. Participants rated the importance of outcomes using a Likert scale (7-9 indicating critical importance) and a Best-Worst Scale. The scores for the two groups were assessed to determine absolute and relative importance. Comments were analysed thematically. RESULTS: In total, 1399 participants from 73 countries completed Round 1 of the Delphi survey, including 628 (45%) patients/caregivers and 771 (55%) health professionals. In Round 2, 790 participants (56% response rate) from 63 countries completed the survey including 383 (48%) patients/caregivers and 407 (52%) health professionals. The overall top five outcomes were: kidney function, need for dialysis/transplant, life participation, cardiovascular disease and death. In the final round, patients/caregivers indicated higher scores for most outcomes (17/22 outcomes), and health professionals gave higher priority to mortality, hospitalization and cardiovascular disease (mean difference >0.3). Consensus was based upon the two groups yielding median scores of ≥7 and mean scores >7, and the proportions of both groups rating the outcome as 'critically important' being >50%. Four themes reflected the reasons for their priorities: imminent threat of a health catastrophe, signifying diminishing capacities, ability to self-manage and cope, and tangible and direct consequences. CONCLUSION: Across trials in CKD, the outcomes of highest priority to patients, caregivers and health professionals were kidney function, need for dialysis/transplant, life participation, cardiovascular disease and death.

Education programmes for people with chronic kidney disease and diabetes.

BACKGROUND: Adherence to complex regimens for people with chronic kidney disease (CKD) and diabetes is often poor. Interventions to enhance adherence require intensive education and behavioural counselling. However, whether the existing evidence is scientifically rigorous and can support recommendations for routine use of educational programmes in people with CKD and diabetes is still unknown. This is an update of a review first published in 2011. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the benefits and harms of education programmes for people with CKD and diabetes. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Kidney and Transplant Register of Studies up to 19 July 2024 using search terms relevant to this review. Studies in the Register are identified through searches of CENTRAL, MEDLINE, and EMBASE, conference proceedings, the International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP) Search Portal, and ClinicalTrials.gov. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and quasi-RCTs investigating the benefits and harms of educational programmes (information and behavioural instructions and advice given by a healthcare provider, who could be a nurse, pharmacist, educator, health professional, medical practitioner, or healthcare provider, through verbal, written, audio-recording, or computer-aided modalities) for people 18 years and older with CKD and diabetes. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two authors independently screened the literature, determined study eligibility, assessed quality, and extracted and entered data. We expressed dichotomous outcomes as risk ratios (RR) with 95% confidence intervals (CI) and continuous data as mean difference (MD) with 95% CI. Data were pooled using the random-effects model. The certainty of the evidence was assessed using the Grades of Recommendation, Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach. MAIN RESULTS: Eight studies (13 reports, 840 randomised participants) were included. The overall risk of bias was low for objective outcomes and attrition bias, unclear for selection bias, reporting bias and other biases, and high for subjective outcomes. Education programmes compared to routine care alone probably decrease glycated haemoglobin (HbA1c) (4 studies, 467 participants: MD -0.42%, 95% CI -0.53 to -0.31; moderate certainty evidence; 13.5 months follow-up) and may decrease total cholesterol (179 participants: MD -0.35 mmol/L, 95% CI -0.63 to -00.07; low certainty evidence) and low-density lipoprotein (LDL) cholesterol (179 participants: MD -0.40 mmol/L, 95% CI -0.65 to -0.14; low certainty evidence) at 18 months of follow-up. One study (83 participants) reported education programmes for people receiving dialysis who have diabetes may improve the diabetes knowledge of diagnosis, monitoring, hypoglycaemia, hyperglycaemia, medication with insulin, oral medication, personal health habits, diet, exercise, chronic complications, and living with diabetes and coping with stress (all low certainty evidence). There may be an improvement in the general knowledge of diabetes at the end of the intervention and at the end of the three-month follow-up (one study, 97 participants; low certainty evidence) in people with diabetes and moderately increased albuminuria (A2). In participants with diabetes and moderately increased albuminuria (A2) (one study, 97 participants), education programmes may improve a participant's beliefs in treatment effectiveness and total self-efficacy at the end of five weeks compared to routine care (low certainty evidence). Self-efficacy for in-home blood glucose monitoring and beliefs in personal control may increase at the end of the three-month follow-up (low certainty evidence). There were no differences in other self-efficacy measures. One study (100 participants) reported an education programme may increase change in behaviour for general diet, specific diet and home blood glucose monitoring at the end of treatment (low certainty evidence); however, at the end of three months of follow-up, there may be no difference in any behaviour change outcomes (all low certainty evidence). There were uncertain effects on death, serious hypoglycaemia, and kidney failure due to very low certainty evidence. No data was available for changes in kidney function (creatinine clearance, serum creatinine, doubling of serum creatinine or proteinuria). For an education programme plus multidisciplinary, co-ordinated care compared to routine care, there may be little or no difference in HbA1c, kidney failure, estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR), systolic or diastolic blood pressure, hypoglycaemia, hyperglycaemia, and LDL and high-density lipoprotein (HDL) cholesterol (all low certainty evidence in participants with type-2 diabetes mellitus and documented advanced diabetic nephropathy). There were no data for death, patient-orientated measures, change in kidney function (other than eGFR and albuminuria), cardiovascular disease morbidity, quality of life, or adverse events. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Education programmes may improve knowledge of some areas related to diabetes care and some self-management practices. Education programmes probably decrease HbA1c in people with CKD and diabetes, but the effect on other clinical outcomes is unclear. This review only included eight studies with small sample sizes. Therefore, more randomised studies are needed to examine the efficacy of education programmes on important clinical outcomes in people with CKD and diabetes.

Patient and caregiver perspectives on blood pressure in children with chronic kidney disease.

BACKGROUND: More than 50% of children with chronic kidney disease (CKD) have uncontrolled hypertension, increasing their long-term risk of cardiovascular disease and progression to kidney failure. Children receiving medications or dialysis may also experience acute blood pressure fluctuations accompanied by debilitating symptoms. We aimed to describe the perspectives of children with CKD and their parental caregivers on blood pressure to inform patient-centered care. METHODS: Secondary thematic analysis was conducted on qualitative data from the Standardized Outcomes in Nephrology-Children and Adolescents initiative, encompassing 16 focus groups, an international Delphi survey and two consensus workshops. We analyzed responses from children with CKD (ages 8-21 years) and caregivers (of children ages 0-21 years) pertaining to blood pressure. RESULTS: Overall, 120 patients and 250 caregivers from 22 countries participated. We identified five themes: invisibility and normalization (reassured by apparent normotension, absence of symptoms and expected links with CKD), confused by ambiguity (hypertension indistinguishable from cardiovascular disease, questioning the need for prophylactic intervention, frustrated by inconsistent messages and struggling with technical skills in measurement), enabling monitoring and maintaining health (gaging well-being and preventing vascular complications), debilitating and constraining daily living (provoking anxiety and agitation, helpless and powerless and limiting life activities) and burden of medications (overwhelmed by the quantity of tablets and distress from unexpected side effects). CONCLUSIONS: For children with CKD and their caregivers, blood pressure was an important heath indicator, but uncertainty around its implications and treatment hampered management. Providing educational resources to track blood pressure and minimizing symptoms and treatment burden may improve outcomes in children with CKD.

Perspectives of patients, family members, health professionals and the public on the impact of COVID-19 on mental health.

BACKGROUND: The coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic has seen a global surge in anxiety, depression, post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD), and stress. AIMS: This study aimed to describe the perspectives of patients with COVID-19, their family, health professionals, and the general public on the impact of COVID-19 on mental health. METHODS: A secondary thematic analysis was conducted using data from the COVID-19 COS project. We extracted data on the perceived causes and impact of COVID-19 on mental health from an international survey and seven online consensus workshops. RESULTS: We identified four themes (with subthemes in parenthesis): anxiety amidst uncertainty (always on high alert, ebb and flow of recovery); anguish of a threatened future (intense frustration of a changed normality, facing loss of livelihood, trauma of ventilation, a troubling prognosis, confronting death); bearing responsibility for transmission (fear of spreading COVID-19 in public; overwhelming guilt of infecting a loved one); and suffering in isolation (severe solitude of quarantine, sick and alone, separation exacerbating grief). CONCLUSION: We found that the unpredictability of COVID-19, the fear of long-term health consequences, burden of guilt, and suffering in isolation profoundly impacted mental health. Clinical and public health interventions are needed to manage the psychological consequences arising from this pandemic.

Core Outcome Measures for Trials in People With Coronavirus Disease 2019: Respiratory Failure, Multiorgan Failure, Shortness of Breath, and Recovery.

OBJECTIVES: Respiratory failure, multiple organ failure, shortness of breath, recovery, and mortality have been identified as critically important core outcomes by more than 9300 patients, health professionals, and the public from 111 countries in the global coronavirus disease 2019 core outcome set initiative. The aim of this project was to establish the core outcome measures for these domains for trials in coronavirus disease 2019. DESIGN: Three online consensus workshops were convened to establish outcome measures for the four core domains of respiratory failure, multiple organ failure, shortness of breath, and recovery. SETTING: International. PATIENTS: About 130 participants (patients, public, and health professionals) from 17 countries attended the three workshops. INTERVENTIONS: None. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: Respiratory failure, assessed by the need for respiratory support based on the World Health Organization Clinical Progression Scale, was considered pragmatic, objective, and with broad applicability to various clinical scenarios. The Sequential Organ Failure Assessment was recommended for multiple organ failure, because it was routinely used in trials and clinical care, well validated, and feasible. The Modified Medical Research Council measure for shortness of breath, with minor adaptations (recall period of 24 hr to capture daily fluctuations and inclusion of activities to ensure relevance and to capture the extreme severity of shortness of breath in people with coronavirus disease 2019), was regarded as fit for purpose for this indication. The recovery measure was developed de novo and defined as the absence of symptoms, resumption of usual daily activities, and return to the previous state of health prior to the illness, using a 5-point Likert scale, and was endorsed. CONCLUSIONS: The coronavirus disease 2019 core outcome set recommended core outcome measures have content validity and are considered the most feasible and acceptable among existing measures. Implementation of the core outcome measures in trials in coronavirus disease 2019 will ensure consistency and relevance of the evidence to inform decision-making and care of patients with coronavirus disease 2019.

Patient and caregiver perspectives on sleep in dialysis.

Sleep disturbances are common among patients receiving dialysis and are associated with an increased risk of mortality and morbidity, and impaired quality of life. Despite being highly prioritised by patients, sleep problems remain under-diagnosed and inadequately managed. The aim of the present study was to describe the perspectives of patients receiving dialysis and their caregivers on sleep. We extracted qualitative data on sleep from 26 focus groups, two international Delphi surveys, and two consensus workshops involving 644 patients and caregivers from 86 countries as part of the Standardised Outcomes in Nephrology-Haemodialysis and -Peritoneal Dialysis (SONG-HD/SONG-PD) initiatives. The responses were from patients aged ≥18 years receiving haemodialysis or peritoneal dialysis, and their caregivers. We analysed the data using thematic analysis with five themes identified: constraining daily living (with subthemes of: battling intrusive tiredness, exacerbating debilitating conditions, broken and incapacitated); roadblocks in relationships (unable to meet family needs, antipathy due to misunderstanding, wreaking emotional havoc); burden on caregivers (stress on support persons, remaining alert to help); losing enjoyment (limiting social contact, disempowerment in life); and undermining mental resilience (aggravating low mood, diminishing coping skills, reducing functional ability). Sleep disturbances are exhausting for patients on dialysis and pervade all aspects of their lives including the ability to do daily tasks, and maintaining relationships, mental and emotional well-being. Better assessment and management of sleep problems in dialysis is needed, which may lead to improvements in overall health and quality of life.

Perspectives on blood pressure by patients on haemo- and peritoneal dialysis.

AIM: The management of blood pressure in patients requiring dialysis remains challenging and controversial. This study aimed to describe the perspectives of patients treated with peritoneal or haemodialysis regarding blood pressure, to inform patient-centred management. METHODS: We conducted a secondary thematic analysis of qualitative data from multiple data sets derived from the Standardised Outcomes in Nephrology (SONG) initiative. We extracted and analysed the responses of adult patients (aged 18 years or over) on haemodialysis and peritoneal dialysis, and their caregivers. Qualitative data were extracted from 26 focus groups, two international Delphi surveys and two consensus workshops completed as part of the SONG-Haemodialysis and SONG-Peritoneal dialysis projects. RESULTS: Collectively, the studies involved 644 patients and caregivers from 86 countries. We identified four themes: helpless and incapacitated (including the subthemes of disabling and debilitating symptoms, limiting ability to work, fear of "crashes" - a sudden drop in blood pressure - forced to depend on others); dismissed and ignored (disregarded as a problem, lacking information, education and reassurance); escalating medication burden; and taking control for improved self-management (determining thresholds in fluid management, establishing a routine for proactive monitoring). CONCLUSION: Blood pressure symptoms are debilitating for patients on dialysis and exacerbated by a perceived lack of information about how to understand and manage these symptoms. More patient-centred management of blood pressure, particularly symptom-causing blood pressure, in patients on dialysis is likely to substantially improve patient satisfaction and outcomes.

International Survey to Establish Prioritized Outcomes for Trials in People With Coronavirus Disease 2019.

OBJECTIVES: There are over 4,000 trials conducted in people with coronavirus disease 2019. However, the variability of outcomes and the omission of patient-centered outcomes may diminish the impact of these trials on decision-making. The aim of this study was to generate a consensus-based, prioritized list of outcomes for coronavirus disease 2019 trials. DESIGN: In an online survey conducted in English, Chinese, Italian, Portuguese, and Spanish languages, adults with coronavirus disease 2019, their family members, health professionals, and the general public rated the importance of outcomes using a 9-point Likert scale (7-9, critical importance) and completed a Best-Worst Scale to estimate relative importance. Participant comments were analyzed thematically. SETTING: International. SUBJECTS: Adults 18 years old and over with confirmed or suspected coronavirus disease 2019, their family members, members of the general public, and health professionals (including clinicians, policy makers, regulators, funders, and researchers). INTERVENTIONS: None. MEASUREMENTS: None. MAIN RESULTS: In total, 9,289 participants from 111 countries (776 people with coronavirus disease 2019 or family members, 4,882 health professionals, and 3,631 members of the public) completed the survey. The four outcomes of highest priority for all three groups were: mortality, respiratory failure, pneumonia, and organ failure. Lung function, lung scarring, sepsis, shortness of breath, and oxygen level in the blood were common to the top 10 outcomes across all three groups (mean > 7.5, median ≥ 8, and > 70% of respondents rated the outcome as critically important). Patients/family members rated fatigue, anxiety, chest pain, muscle pain, gastrointestinal problems, and cardiovascular disease higher than health professionals. Four themes underpinned prioritization: fear of life-threatening, debilitating, and permanent consequences; addressing knowledge gaps; enabling preparedness and planning; and tolerable or infrequent outcomes. CONCLUSIONS: Life-threatening respiratory and other organ outcomes were consistently highly prioritized by all stakeholder groups. Patients/family members gave higher priority to many patient-reported outcomes compared with health professionals.

Core Outcomes Set for Trials in People With Coronavirus Disease 2019.

OBJECTIVES: The outcomes reported in trials in coronavirus disease 2019 are extremely heterogeneous and of uncertain patient relevance, limiting their applicability for clinical decision-making. The aim of this workshop was to establish a core outcomes set for trials in people with suspected or confirmed coronavirus disease 2019. DESIGN: Four international online multistakeholder consensus workshops were convened to discuss proposed core outcomes for trials in people with suspected or confirmed coronavirus disease 2019, informed by a survey involving 9,289 respondents from 111 countries. The transcripts were analyzed thematically. The workshop recommendations were used to finalize the core outcomes set. SETTING: International. SUBJECTS: Adults 18 years old and over with confirmed or suspected coronavirus disease 2019, their family members, members of the general public and health professionals (including clinicians, policy makers, regulators, funders, researchers). INTERVENTIONS: None. MEASUREMENTS: None. MAIN RESULTS: Six themes were identified. "Responding to the critical and acute health crisis" reflected the immediate focus on saving lives and preventing life-threatening complications that underpinned the high prioritization of mortality, respiratory failure, and multiple organ failure. "Capturing different settings of care" highlighted the need to minimize the burden on hospitals and to acknowledge outcomes in community settings. "Encompassing the full trajectory and severity of disease" was addressing longer term impacts and the full spectrum of illness (e.g. shortness of breath and recovery). "Distinguishing overlap, correlation and collinearity" meant recognizing that symptoms such as shortness of breath had distinct value and minimizing overlap (e.g. lung function and pneumonia were on the continuum toward respiratory failure). "Recognizing adverse events" refers to the potential harms of new and evolving interventions. "Being cognizant of family and psychosocial wellbeing" reflected the pervasive impacts of coronavirus disease 2019. CONCLUSIONS: Mortality, respiratory failure, multiple organ failure, shortness of breath, and recovery are critically important outcomes to be consistently reported in coronavirus disease 2019 trials.

Perspectives on mental health among patients receiving dialysis.

BACKGROUND: Diminished mental health is associated with increased morbidity and mortality and may contribute to loss of independence and motivation in patients receiving dialysis and their caregivers. Increased understanding of the patient perspective on triggers, impacts and strategies for managing mental health may inform ways to address mental health conditions in this population. METHODS: A secondary thematic analysis was undertaken using data from the Standardized Outcomes in Nephrology (SONG)-Hemodialysis and SONG-Peritoneal Dialysis projects. We extracted and analysed data on the perceived causes, meaning, impact and management of mental health in patients receiving dialysis from 26 focus groups (in six countries), multinational Delphi surveys and consensus workshops. RESULTS: A total of 644 patients and caregivers participated. We identified five themes: bound to dialysis (forced into isolation, enslaved to a machine, stress of relentless planning and grieving the loss of a normal life), underrecognized and ignored (missed by health practitioners, need for mental health support), an uncertain future (dreading complications, coming to terms with mortality), developing self-reliance (vulnerability in being solely responsible for dialysis, sustaining motivation for dialysis, necessity for self-vigilance and taking charge to regulate emotions) and responding to a lifestyle overhaul (guilt of burdening family, controlling symptoms for overall mental wellness, protecting independence and trying to feel grateful). CONCLUSIONS: Patients receiving dialysis and their caregivers endure mental and emotional distress attributed to the burden of dialysis, lifestyle restrictions, the constant threat of death and symptom burden, which can impair motivation for self-management. Increased attention to monitoring and management of mental health in this population is needed.

Scope and Consistency of Outcomes Reported in Randomized Trials Conducted in Adults Receiving Hemodialysis: A Systematic Review.

BACKGROUND: Clinical trials are most informative for evidence-based decision making when they consistently measure and report outcomes of relevance to stakeholders. We aimed to assess the scope and consistency of outcomes reported in trials for hemodialysis. STUDY DESIGN: Systematic review. SETTING & POPULATION: Adults requiring maintenance hemodialysis enrolled in clinical trials. SELECTION CRITERIA: All Cochrane systematic reviews of interventions published by August 29, 2016, and the trials published and registered in ClinicalTrials.gov since January 2011. INTERVENTIONS: Any hemodialysis-related interventions. OUTCOMES: Frequency and characteristics of the reported outcome domains and measures. RESULTS: From the 362 trials, we extracted and classified 10,713 outcome measures (a median of 21 [IQR, 10-39] per trial) into 81 different outcome domains, of which 42 (52%) were surrogate; 25 (31%), clinical; and 14 (17%), patient reported. The number of outcome measures reported significantly changed over time. The 5 most commonly reported domains were all surrogates: phosphate (125 [35%] trials), dialysis adequacy (120 [33%]), anemia (115 [32%]), inflammatory markers (114 [31%]), and calcium (109 [30%]). Mortality, cardiovascular diseases, and quality of life were reported very infrequently (73 [20%], 44 [12%], and 32 [9%], respectively). LIMITATIONS: For feasibility, we included a sampling frame that included only trials identified in Cochrane systematic reviews or ClinicalTrials.gov. CONCLUSIONS: Outcomes reported in clinical trials involving adults receiving hemodialysis are focused on surrogate outcomes, rather than clinical and patient-centered outcomes. There is also extreme multiplicity and heterogeneity at every level: domain, measure, metric, and time point. Estimates of the comparative effectiveness of available interventions are unreliable and improvements over time have been inconsistent.

Establishing Core Outcome Domains in Hemodialysis: Report of the Standardized Outcomes in Nephrology-Hemodialysis (SONG-HD) Consensus Workshop.

Evidence-informed decision making in clinical care and policy in nephrology is undermined by trials that selectively report a large number of heterogeneous outcomes, many of which are not patient centered. The Standardized Outcomes in Nephrology-Hemodialysis (SONG-HD) Initiative convened an international consensus workshop on November 7, 2015, to discuss the identification and implementation of a potential core outcome set for all trials in hemodialysis. The purpose of this article is to report qualitative analyses of the workshop discussions, describing the key aspects to consider when establishing core outcomes in trials involving patients on hemodialysis therapy. Key stakeholders including 8 patients/caregivers and 47 health professionals (nephrologists, policymakers, industry, and researchers) attended the workshop. Attendees suggested that identifying core outcomes required equitable stakeholder engagement to ensure relevance across patient populations, flexibility to consider evolving priorities over time, deconstruction of language and meaning for conceptual consistency and clarity, understanding of potential overlap and associations between outcomes, and an assessment of applicability to the range of interventions in hemodialysis. For implementation, they proposed that core outcomes must have simple, inexpensive, and validated outcome measures that could be used in clinical care (quality indicators) and trials (including pragmatic trials) and endorsement by regulatory agencies. Integrating these recommendations may foster acceptance and optimize the uptake and translation of core outcomes in hemodialysis, leading to more informative research, for better treatment and improved patient outcomes.

Developing a Set of Core Outcomes for Trials in Hemodialysis: An International Delphi Survey.

BACKGROUND: Survival and quality of life for patients on hemodialysis therapy remain poor despite substantial research efforts. Existing trials often report surrogate outcomes that may not be relevant to patients and clinicians. The aim of this project was to generate a consensus-based prioritized list of core outcomes for trials in hemodialysis. STUDY DESIGN: In a Delphi survey, participants rated the importance of outcomes using a 9-point Likert scale in round 1 and then re-rated outcomes in rounds 2 and 3 after reviewing other respondents' scores. For each outcome, the median, mean, and proportion rating as 7 to 9 (critically important) were calculated. SETTING & PARTICIPANTS: 1,181 participants (202 [17%] patients/caregivers, 979 health professionals) from 73 countries completed round 1, with 838 (71%) completing round 3. OUTCOMES & MEASUREMENTS: Outcomes included in the potential core outcome set met the following criteria for both patients/caregivers and health professionals: median score ≥ 8, mean score ≥ 7.5, proportion rating the outcome as critically important ≥ 75%, and median score in the forced ranking question < 10. RESULTS: Patients/caregivers rated 4 outcomes higher than health professionals: ability to travel, dialysis-free time, dialysis adequacy, and washed out after dialysis (mean differences of 0.9, 0.5, 0.3, and 0.2, respectively). Health professionals gave a higher rating for mortality, hospitalization, decrease in blood pressure, vascular access complications, depression, cardiovascular disease, target weight, infection, and potassium (mean differences of 1.0, 1.0, 1.0, 0.9, 0.9, 0.8, 0.7, 0.4, and 0.4, respectively). LIMITATIONS: The Delphi survey was conducted online in English and excludes participants without access to a computer and internet connection. CONCLUSIONS: Patients/caregivers gave higher priority to lifestyle-related outcomes than health professionals. The prioritized outcomes for both groups were vascular access problems, dialysis adequacy, fatigue, cardiovascular disease, and mortality. This process will inform a core outcome set that in turn will improve the relevance, efficiency, and comparability of trial evidence to facilitate treatment decisions.

Patient and Caregiver Priorities for Outcomes in Hemodialysis: An International Nominal Group Technique Study.

BACKGROUND: In the context of clinical research, investigators have historically selected the outcomes that they consider to be important, but these are often discordant with patients' priorities. Efforts to define and report patient-centered outcomes are gaining momentum, though little work has been done in nephrology. We aimed to identify patient and caregiver priorities for outcomes in hemodialysis. STUDY DESIGN: Nominal group technique. SETTING & PARTICIPANTS: Patients on hemodialysis therapy and their caregivers were purposively sampled from 4 dialysis units in Australia (Sydney and Melbourne) and 7 dialysis units in Canada (Calgary). METHODOLOGY: Identification and ranking of outcomes. ANALYTICAL APPROACH: Mean rank score (of 10) for top 10 outcomes and thematic analysis. RESULTS: 82 participants (58 patients, 24 caregivers) aged 24 to 87 (mean, 58.4) years in 12 nominal groups identified 68 outcomes. The 10 top-ranked outcomes were fatigue/energy (mean rank score, 4.5), survival (defined by patients as resilience and coping; 3.7), ability to travel (3.6), dialysis-free time (3.3), impact on family (3.2), ability to work (2.5), sleep (2.3), anxiety/stress (2.1), decrease in blood pressure (2.0), and lack of appetite/taste (1.9). Mortality ranked only 14th and was not regarded as the complement of survival. Caregivers ranked mortality, anxiety, and depression higher than patients, whereas patients ranked ability to work higher. Four themes underpinned their rankings: living well, ability to control outcomes, tangible and experiential relevance, and severity and intrusiveness. LIMITATIONS: Only English-speaking participants were eligible. CONCLUSIONS: Although trials in hemodialysis have typically focused on outcomes such as death, adverse events, and biological markers, patients tend to prioritize outcomes that are more relevant to their daily living and well-being. Researchers need to consider interventions that are likely to improve these outcomes and measure and report patient-relevant outcomes in trials, and clinicians may become more patient-orientated by using these outcomes in their clinical encounters.

Australian Workshops on Patients' Perspectives on Hemodialysis and Incremental Start.

Introduction: Most patients with kidney failure commence and continue hemodialysis (HD) thrice weekly. Incremental initiation (defined as HD less than thrice weekly) is increasingly considered to be safe and less burdensome, but little is known about patients' perspectives. We aimed to describe patients' priorities and concerns regarding incremental HD. Methods: Patients currently, previously, or soon to be receiving HD in Australia participated in two 90-minute online workshops to discuss views about HD focusing on incremental start and priorities for trial outcomes. Transcripts were analyzed using thematic analysis. Outcomes were ranked on the basis of the sum of participants' priority scores (i.e., single allocation of 3 points for most important, 2 for second, and 1 for third most important outcome). Results: All 26 participants (1 caregiver and 25 patients) preferred an incremental HD approach. The top prioritized outcomes were quality of life (QOL) (56 points), residual kidney function (RKF) (27 points), and mortality (16 points). The following 4 themes underpinning outcome priorities, experience, and safety concerns were identified: (i) unpreparedness and pressure to adapt, (ii) disruption to daily living, (iii) threats to safety, and (iv) hope and future planning. Conclusion: Patients with kidney failure preferred an incremental start to HD to minimize disruption to daily living and reduce the negative impacts on their education, ability to work, and family life. QOL was the most critically important outcome, followed by RKF and survival.

Perspectives on ability to work from patients' receiving dialysis and caregivers: analysis of data from the global SONG initiative.

BACKGROUND: Patients receiving dialysis have low employment rates, which compounds poorer health and socioeconomic outcomes. Reasons for under- and unemployment remain underexplored. We aimed to describe the perspectives of patients receiving hemodialysis (HD) or peritoneal dialysis (PD) and their caregivers on ability to work. METHODS: Data was derived from adult patients' and caregivers' responses from 26 focus groups, two international Delphi surveys and two consensus workshops conducted through the Standardized Outcomes in Nephrology (SONG-HD) and SONG-PD programs. Our secondary thematic analysis identified concepts around ability to work. RESULTS: Five hundred four patients and 146 caregivers from 86 countries were included. We identified five themes: financial pressures and instability (with subthemes of rationing the budget with increased expenditure, losing financial independence and threatened job security); struggling to meet expectations (burdened by sociocultural norms and striving to protect independence); contending with upheaval of roles and responsibilities (forced to establish a new routine to accommodate work, symptoms disrupting work, prioritizing work and other duties, and adjusting to altered capacity to work); enabling flexibility and control (employment driving decisions about dialysis modality and schedule, workplace providing occupational safety and adaptability, requiring organizational support and planning for a future career); and finding purpose and value (accepting and redefining identity, pride and fulfillment, and protecting mental well-being). CONCLUSIONS: Employment enabled patients to maintain their identity, independence, financial security and mental health. Symptom burden, workplace inflexibility and juggling roles are major challenges. Interventions addressing motivation, workplace flexibility and safety, and establishing goals and routines could support patients' capacities to work, thereby improving overall well-being and productivity.

Nephrologists' Perspectives on Gender Disparities in CKD and Dialysis.

Introduction: Globally, there are more women with chronic kidney disease (CKD), yet they comprise only 40% of patients receiving kidney replacement therapy by dialysis. We aimed to describe the perspectives of nephrologists on gender disparities in access to care and outcomes in CKD and dialysis. Methods: We conducted semistructured interviews with 51 nephrologists (28, 55% women) from 22 countries from October 2019 to April 2020. Transcripts were analyzed thematically. Results: We identified 6 themes. Related to women were primary commitment to caregiving (with subthemes of coordinating care, taking charge of health management, deprioritizing own health, centrality of family in decision-making); vigilance and self-reliance (diligence and conscientiousness, stoicism and tolerating symptoms, avoiding burden on family, isolation and coping alone); and stereotyping, stigma, and judgment (body image, dismissed as anxiety, shame and embarrassment, weakness and frailty). Related to men was protecting masculinity (safeguarding the provider role, clinging to control, self-regard, and entitled). Decisional power and ownership included men's dominance in decision-making and women's analytical approach in treatment decisions. Inequities compounded by social disadvantage (financial and transport barriers, without social security, limited literacy, entrenched discrimination, vulnerability) were barriers to care for women, particularly in socioeconomically disadvantaged communities. Conclusion: Nephrologists perceived that women with CKD faced many challenges in accessing care related to social norms and roles of caregiving responsibilities, disempowerment, lack of support, stereotyping by clinicians, and entrenched social and economic disadvantage. Addressing power differences, challenging systemic patriarchy, and managing unconscious bias may help to improve equitable care and outcomes for all people with CKD.

Establishing a core outcome measure for pain in patients with autosomal dominant polycystic kidney disease: a consensus workshop report.

BACKGROUND: Pain is the highest prioritized patient-reported outcome in people with autosomal dominant polycystic kidney disease (ADPKD) but remains infrequently and inconsistently measured in clinical trials and poorly managed in clinical settings. A recently completed systematic review of pain in ADPKD identified 26 different outcome measures. None of these measures were considered appropriate as a core outcome measure due to the lack of patient-important dimensions, inadequate content, relatively long duration of completion time and limited evidence to support psychometric robustness. METHODS: We convened an international Standardized Outcomes in Nephrology-Polycystic Kidney Disease consensus workshop involving 21 patients/caregivers and 40 health professionals (clinicians, nurses, researchers, policy makers and industry representatives) from 18 countries to discuss the identification or development of a core outcome measure for pain. RESULTS: Four themes were identified highlighting fundamental issues for the measurement of pain in ADPKD: distressing and disrupting life participation; variability and ambiguity in defining pain; stigma, frustration and adaptation to pain; and ensuring validity and feasibility of pain measures. CONCLUSIONS: Existing measures were found to be insufficient in capturing pain as a core outcome and there was consensus on the need for a new validated measure that is simple, succinct and addresses the impact of pain on life participation. This measure will facilitate the appropriate prioritization of pain in all trials and guide clinical decision making in people with ADPKD.