Charting a Course for Smartphones and Wearables to Transform Population Health Research.

The use of data from smartphones and wearable devices has huge potential for population health research, given the high level of device ownership; the range of novel health-relevant data types available from consumer devices; and the frequency and duration with which data are, or could be, collected. Yet, the uptake and success of large-scale mobile health research in the last decade have not met this intensely promoted opportunity. We make the argument that digital person-generated health data are required and necessary to answer many top priority research questions, using illustrative examples taken from the James Lind Alliance Priority Setting Partnerships. We then summarize the findings from 2 UK initiatives that considered the challenges and possible solutions for what needs to be done and how such solutions can be implemented to realize the future opportunities of digital person-generated health data for clinically important population health research. Examples of important areas that must be addressed to advance the field include digital inequality and possible selection bias; easy access for researchers to the appropriate data collection tools, including how best to harmonize data items; analysis methodologies for time series data; patient and public involvement and engagement methods for optimizing recruitment, retention, and public trust; and methods for providing research participants with greater control over their data. There is also a major opportunity, provided through the linkage of digital person-generated health data to routinely collected data, to support novel population health research, bringing together clinician-reported and patient-reported measures. We recognize that well-conducted studies need a wide range of diverse challenges to be skillfully addressed in unison (eg, challenges regarding epidemiology, data science and biostatistics, psychometrics, behavioral and social science, software engineering, user interface design, information governance, data management, and patient and public involvement and engagement). Consequently, progress would be accelerated by the establishment of a new interdisciplinary community where all relevant and necessary skills are brought together to allow for excellence throughout the life cycle of a research study. This will require a partnership of diverse people, methods, and technologies. If done right, the synergy of such a partnership has the potential to transform many millions of people's lives for the better.

Charting a course for smartphones and wearables to transform population health research.

The use of data from smartphones and wearable devices has huge potential for population health research given high device ownership, the range of novel health-relevant data types available from consumer devices, and the frequency and duration over which data are, or could be, collected. Yet the uptake and success of large-scale mobile health research in the last decade has not matched the hyped opportunity. We make the argument that digital person-generated health data is required and necessary to answer many top priority research questions through illustrative examples taken from the James Lind Alliance Priority Setting Partnership. We then summarise the findings from two UK initiatives that considered the challenges and possible solutions for what needs to be done, and in what way, to realise the future opportunities of digital person-generated health data for clinically important population health research. Examples of important areas to be addressed to advance the field include digital inequality and addressing possible selection bias, easy access for researchers to the appropriate data collection tools including how best to harmonise data items, analysis methodology for time series data, methods for patient and public involvement and engagement to optimise recruitment, retention and public trust, and providing greater control of their data to research participants. There is also a major opportunity through the linkage of digital persongenerated health data to routinely-collected data to support novel population health research, bringing together clinician-reported and patient-reported measures. We recognise that well conducted studies need a wide range of diverse challenges to be skilfully addressed in unison: for example, epidemiology, data science and biostatistics, psychometrics, behavioural and social science, software engineering, user interface design, information governance, data management and patient and public involvement and engagement. Consequently, progress would be accelerated by the establishment of a new interdisciplinary community where all relevant and necessary skills are brought together to allow excellence throughout the lifecycle of a research study. This will require a partnership of diverse people, of methods and of technology. Get this right and the synergy has the potential to transform many millions of people's lives for the better.

The Complexity of Transferring Remote Monitoring and Virtual Care Technology Between Countries: Lessons From an International Workshop.

International deployment of remote monitoring and virtual care (RMVC) technologies would efficiently harness their positive impact on outcomes. Since Canada and the United Kingdom have similar populations, health care systems, and digital health landscapes, transferring digital health innovations between them should be relatively straightforward. Yet examples of successful attempts are scarce. In a workshop, we identified 6 differences that may complicate RMVC transfer between Canada and the United Kingdom and provided recommendations for addressing them. These key differences include (1) minority groups, (2) physical geography, (3) clinical pathways, (4) value propositions, (5) governmental priorities and support for digital innovation, and (6) regulatory pathways. We detail 4 broad recommendations to plan for sustainability, including the need to formally consider how highlighted country-specific recommendations may impact RMVC and contingency planning to overcome challenges; the need to map which pathways are available as an innovator to support cross-country transfer; the need to report on and apply learnings from regulatory barriers and facilitators so that everyone may benefit; and the need to explore existing guidance to successfully transfer digital health solutions while developing further guidance (eg, extending the nonadoption, abandonment, scale-up, spread, sustainability framework for cross-country transfer). Finally, we present an ecosystem readiness checklist. Considering these recommendations will contribute to successful international deployment and an increased positive impact of RMVC technologies. Future directions should consider characterizing additional complexities associated with global transfer.

Prognostic value of patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) in adults with non-small cell Lung Cancer: a scoping review.

BACKGROUND: There is growing interest in the collection and use of patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) to support clinical decision making in patients with non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). However, an overview of research into the prognostic value of PROMs is currently lacking. AIM: To explore to what extent, how, and how robustly the value of PROMs for prognostic prediction has been investigated in adults diagnosed with NSCLC. METHODS: We systematically searched Medline, Embase, CINAHL Plus and Scopus for English-language articles published from 2011 to 2021 that report prognostic factor study, prognostic model development or validation study. Example data charting forms from the Cochrane Prognosis Methods Group guided our data charting on study characteristics, PROMs as predictors, predicted outcomes, and statistical methods. Two reviewers independently charted the data and critically appraised studies using the QUality In Prognosis Studies (QUIPS) tool for prognostic factor studies, and the risk of bias assessment section of the Prediction model Risk Of Bias ASsessment Tool (PROBAST) for prognostic model studies. RESULTS: Our search yielded 2,769 unique titles of which we included 31 studies, reporting the results of 33 unique analyses and models. Out of the 17 PROMs used for prediction, the EORTC QLQ-C30 was most frequently used (16/33); 12/33 analyses used PROM subdomain scores instead of the overall scores. PROMs data was mostly collected at baseline (24/33) and predominantly used to predict survival (32/33) but seldom other clinical outcomes (1/33). Almost all prognostic factor studies (26/27) had moderate to high risk of bias and all four prognostic model development studies had high risk of bias. CONCLUSION: There is an emerging body of research into the value of PROMs as a prognostic factor for survival in people with NSCLC but the methodological quality of this research is poor with significant bias. This warrants more robust studies into the prognostic value of PROMs, in particular for predicting outcomes other than survival. This will enable further development of PROM-based prediction models to support clinical decision making in NSCLC.

Measuring patients' experience with renal services in the UK: development and validation of the Kidney PREM.

BACKGROUND: Patient experience is a recognized aspect of quality of care for people with chronic kidney disease (CKD), but current patient-reported experience measures (PREMs) only focus on dialysis care. We developed and validated the Kidney PREM to assess patients' experience with renal services in secondary care for any CKD stage or treatment (transplant, haemodialysis and peritoneal dialysis). METHODS: We developed the Kidney PREM in two phases, informed by a multidisciplinary expert group to ensure face validity. We organized three national data collections (2016-8) to investigate item response profiles and to conduct exploratory and confirmatory analyses to assess internal consistency. We also explored content validity in cognitive interviews and evaluated test-retest reliability. Finally, we developed the Kidney PREM Short Form for more frequent measurement of patient experience to inform local service improvements. RESULTS: We analysed 32 959 responses across data collections, with the 2018 collection covering all 71 UK renal centres. The Kidney PREM final version consisted of 38 items grouped into 13 themes, all pertaining to one underlying dimension reflecting the construct of 'patient experience' with high internal consistency (Cronbach's α = 0.94). The Kidney PREM Short Form consisted of 15 items across the same 13 themes. CONCLUSIONS: The Kidney PREM supports the collection of reliable information on patient experience that people with CKD consider relevant, regardless of CKD stage or treatment modality. Kidney PREM data have the potential to guide local and national initiatives to improve patients' experiences with renal services in the UK and other countries.

Patient activation and its association with symptom burden and quality of life across the spectrum of chronic kidney disease stages in England.

BACKGROUND: The knowledge, skills, and confidence to manage one's own health is termed patient activation and can be assessed using the Patient Activation Measure (PAM). This measure is increasingly recommended for use in chronic kidney disease (CKD), but there is a need to better understand patient activation within this population. This work aimed to explore the association of PAM with patient-reported outcomes, namely symptom burden and health-related quality of life (HRQoL), to understand the relationship between patient activation and outcomes which are of importance to people with CKD. METHODS: Non-dialysis, dialysis, and kidney transplant patients from 14 renal units across England completed a survey comprising questionnaires assessing patient activation, symptom burden, and HRQoL. Latent class analysis (LCA) was used to determine HRQoL and symptom burden subgroups in the data. Multinomial logistic regression analyses were performed to investigate the associations between patient activation and symptom burden and HRQoL classes separately, adjusting for age, gender, ethnicity, deprivation and treatment modality. RESULTS: Three thousand thirteen participants (mean age 61.5 years, 61.8% males, and 47% haemodialysis) were included in the analysis. Patient activation was strongly associated with both the HRQoL and symptom burden classes identified, with highly activated patients more likely to report higher HRQoL (P = < 0.0001; OR 29.2, 95% CI 19.5-43.9) and fewer symptoms (P = < 0.0001; OR 25.9, 95% CI 16.8-40.2). CONCLUSION: Lower activation levels are associated with a higher symptom burden and reduced HRQoL across the trajectory of CKD stages and treatment modalities. Therefore, targeted and holistic self-management support focussing on improving activation may have the potential to improve aspects of health experience which are valued by individuals living with kidney disease.

Modeling Data Journeys to Inform the Digital Transformation of Kidney Transplant Services: Observational Study.

BACKGROUND: Data journey modeling is a methodology used to establish a high-level overview of information technology (IT) infrastructure in health care systems. It allows a better understanding of sociotechnical barriers and thus informs meaningful digital transformation. Kidney transplantation is a complex clinical service involving multiple specialists and providers. The referral pathway for a transplant requires the centralization of patient data across multiple IT solutions and health care organizations. At present, there is a poor understanding of the role of IT in this process, specifically regarding the management of patient data, clinical communication, and workflow support. OBJECTIVE: To apply data journey modeling to better understand interoperability, data access, and workflow requirements of a regional multicenter kidney transplant service. METHODS: An incremental methodology was used to develop the data journey model. This included review of service documents, domain expert interviews, and iterative modeling sessions. Results were analyzed based on the LOAD (landscape, organizations, actors, and data) framework to provide a meaningful assessment of current data management challenges and inform ways for IT to overcome these challenges. RESULTS: Results were presented as a diagram of the organizations (n=4), IT systems (n>9), actors (n>4), and data journeys (n=0) involved in the transplant referral pathway. The diagram revealed that all movement of data was dependent on actor interaction with IT systems and manual transcription of data into Microsoft Word (Microsoft, Inc) documents. Each actor had between 2 and 5 interactions with IT systems to capture all relevant data, a process that was reported to be time consuming and error prone. There was no interoperability within or across organizations, which led to delays as clinical teams manually transferred data, such as medical history and test results, via post or email. CONCLUSIONS: Overall, data journey modeling demonstrated that human actors, rather than IT systems, formed the central focus of data movement. The IT landscape did not complement this workflow and exerted a significant administrative burden on clinical teams. Based on this study, future solutions must consider regional interoperability and specialty-specific views of data to support multi-organizational clinical services such as transplantation.

Understanding How the Design and Implementation of Online Consultations Affect Primary Care Quality: Systematic Review of Evidence With Recommendations for Designers, Providers, and Researchers.

BACKGROUND: Online consultations (OCs) allow patients to contact their care providers on the web. Worldwide, OCs have been rolled out in primary care rapidly owing to policy initiatives and COVID-19. There is a lack of evidence regarding how OC design and implementation influence care quality. OBJECTIVE: We aimed to synthesize research on the impacts of OCs on primary care quality, and how these are influenced by system design and implementation. METHODS: We searched databases from January 2010 to February 2022. We included quantitative and qualitative studies of real-world OC use in primary care. Quantitative data were transformed into qualitative themes. We used thematic synthesis informed by the Institute of Medicine domains of health care quality, and framework analysis informed by the nonadoption, abandonment, scale-up, spread, and sustainability framework. Strength of evidence was judged using the GRADE-CERQual approach. RESULTS: We synthesized 63 studies from 9 countries covering 31 OC systems, 14 (22%) of which used artificial intelligence; 41% (26/63) of studies were published from 2020 onward, and 17% (11/63) were published after the COVID-19 pandemic. There was no quantitative evidence for negative impacts of OCs on patient safety, and qualitative studies suggested varied perceptions of their safety. Some participants believed OCs improved safety, particularly when patients could describe their queries using free text. Staff workload decreased when sufficient resources were allocated to implement OCs and patients used them for simple problems or could describe their queries using free text. Staff workload increased when OCs were not integrated with other software or organizational workflows and patients used them for complex queries. OC systems that required patients to describe their queries using multiple-choice questionnaires increased workload for patients and staff. Health costs decreased when patients used OCs for simple queries and increased when patients used them for complex queries. Patients using OCs were more likely to be female, younger, and native speakers, with higher socioeconomic status. OCs increased primary care access for patients with mental health conditions, verbal communication difficulties, and barriers to attending in-person appointments. Access also increased by providing a timely response to patients' queries. Patient satisfaction increased when using OCs owing to better primary care access, although it decreased when using multiple-choice questionnaire formats. CONCLUSIONS: This is the first theoretically informed synthesis of research on OCs in primary care and includes studies conducted during the COVID-19 pandemic. It contributes new knowledge that, in addition to having positive impacts on care quality such as increased access, OCs also have negative impacts such as increased workload. Negative impacts can be mitigated through appropriate OC system design (eg, free text format), incorporation of advanced technologies (eg, artificial intelligence), and integration into technical infrastructure (eg, software) and organizational workflows (eg, timely responses). TRIAL REGISTRATION: PROSPERO CRD42020191802; https://tinyurl.com/2p84ezjy.

Providing 'the bigger picture': benefits and feasibility of integrating remote monitoring from smartphones into the electronic health record.

OBJECTIVES: To establish the acceptability and feasibility of collecting daily patient-generated health data (PGHD) using smartphones and integrating PGHD into the electronic health record, using the example of RA. METHODS: The Remote Monitoring of RA smartphone app was co-designed with patients, clinicians and researchers using qualitative semi-structured interviews and focus groups, including selection of question sets for symptoms and disease impact. PGHD were integrated into the electronic health record of one hospital and available in graphical form during consultations. Acceptability and feasibility were assessed with 20 RA patients and two clinicians over 3 months. A qualitative evaluation included semi-structured interviews with patients and clinicians before and after using the app, and audio-recordings of consultations to explore impact on the consultation. PGHD completeness was summarized descriptively, and qualitative data were analysed thematically. RESULTS: Patients submitted data on a median of 91% days over 3 months. Qualitative analysis generated three themes: RA as an invisible disease; providing the bigger picture of RA; and enabling person-centred consultations. The themes demonstrated that the system helped render patients' RA more visible by providing the 'bigger picture', identifying real-time changes in disease activity and capturing symptoms that would otherwise have been missed. Graphical summaries during consultations enabled a more person-centred approach whereby patients felt better able to participate in consultations and treatment plans. CONCLUSION: Remote Monitoring of RA has uniquely integrated daily PGHD from smartphones into the electronic health record. It has delivered proof-of-concept that such integrated remote monitoring systems are feasible and can transform consultations for clinician and patient benefit.

Incorporating patient generated health data into pharmacoepidemiological research.

Epidemiology and pharmacoepidemiology frequently employ Real-World Data (RWD) from healthcare teams to inform research. These data sources usually include signs, symptoms, tests, and treatments, but may lack important information such as the patient's diet or adherence or quality of life. By harnessing digital tools a new fount of evidence, Patient (or Citizen/Person) Generated Health Data (PGHD), is becoming more readily available. This review focusses on the advantages and considerations in using PGHD for pharmacoepidemiological research. New and corroborative types of data can be collected directly from patients using digital devices, both passively and actively. Practical issues such as patient engagement, data linking, validation, and analysis are among important considerations in the use of PGHD. In our ever increasingly patient-centric world, PGHD incorporated into more traditional Real-Word data sources offers innovative opportunities to expand our understanding of the complex factors involved in health and the safety and effectiveness of disease treatments. Pharmacoepidemiologists have a unique role in realizing the potential of PGHD by ensuring that robust methodology, governance, and analytical techniques underpin its use to generate meaningful research results.

Assessing life-space mobility for a more holistic view on wellbeing in geriatric research and clinical practice.

Life-space mobility (LSM) is a holistic measure of resilience to physical decline and social isolation in later life. To promote its use as an outcome in geriatric studies and in clinical practice, this review paper explains the concept of LSM; outlines available questionnaires for LSM assessment, provides an overview of associations between LSM and other outcomes, and discusses emerging methods to measure LSM using wearable sensors. Based on performed activity around a central geographical anchor, LSM aims to quantify the observed contraction of daily activities associated with ageing. Several questionnaires are available to assess LSM in different contexts: the University of Alabama Life-Space Assessment and the Life-Space Questionnaire (community settings), the Nursing Home Life-Space Diameter (nursing home settings) and Life Space at Home (for house-bound populations). Some studies using GPS trackers to calculate life-space parameters reported promising results. Although these techniques reduce data collection burden, battery life and older people's willingness to wear a tracker require further improvement before they can be used more widely. Regardless of the assessment method used, LSM was associated with measures of functional and cognitive abilities, nursing home admission and mortality. The current availability of instruments, the ongoing development of less burdensome data collection techniques, and evidence of construct validity support a case for promoting integration of LSM assessments into geriatric research studies and clinical practice. Ultimately, this will provide a more holistic view on older people's health and wellbeing.

Potential prognostic factors for delayed healing of common, non-traumatic skin ulcers: A scoping review.

Healing of non-traumatic skin ulcers is often suboptimal. Prognostic tools that identify people at high risk of delayed healing within the context of routine ulcer assessments may improve this, but robust evidence on which factors to include is lacking. Therefore, we scoped the literature to identify which potentially prognostic factors may warrant future systematic reviews and meta-analyses. We conducted electronic searches in MEDLINE and Embase to identify studies in English published between 1997 and 2017 that tested the association between healing of the three most common non-traumatic skin ulcers encountered by health care professionals (venous leg, diabetic foot, and pressure ulcers) and patient characteristics, ulcer characteristics, and results from clinical investigations. We included 42 studies that investigated factors which may be associated with the healing of venous leg ulcers (n = 17), diabetic foot ulcers (n = 15), and pressure ulcers (n = 10). Across ulcer types, ulcer characteristics were most commonly reported as potential prognostic factors for healing (n = 37), including the size of the ulcer area (n = 29) and ulcer duration at first assessment (n = 16). A total of 35 studies investigated the prognostic value of patient characteristics (n = 35), including age (n = 31), gender (n = 30), diabetes (n = 22), smoking status (n = 15), and history of deep vein thrombosis (DVT) (n = 13). Of these studies, 23 reported results from clinical investigations as potential prognostic factors, with the majority regarding vessel quality. Age, gender, diabetes, smoking status, history of DVT, ulcer area, and ulcer duration at time of first assessment warrant a systematic review and meta-analysis to quantify their prognostic value for delayed ulcer healing.

Presentation of laboratory test results in patient portals: influence of interface design on risk interpretation and visual search behaviour.

BACKGROUND: Patient portals are considered valuable instruments for self-management of long term conditions, however, there are concerns over how patients might interpret and act on the clinical information they access. We hypothesized that visual cues improve patients' abilities to correctly interpret laboratory test results presented through patient portals. We also assessed, by applying eye-tracking methods, the relationship between risk interpretation and visual search behaviour. METHODS: We conducted a controlled study with 20 kidney transplant patients. Participants viewed three different graphical presentations in each of low, medium, and high risk clinical scenarios composed of results for 28 laboratory tests. After viewing each clinical scenario, patients were asked how they would have acted in real life if the results were their own, as a proxy of their risk interpretation. They could choose between: 1) Calling their doctor immediately (high interpreted risk); 2) Trying to arrange an appointment within the next 4 weeks (medium interpreted risk); 3) Waiting for the next appointment in 3 months (low interpreted risk). For each presentation, we assessed accuracy of patients' risk interpretation, and employed eye tracking to assess and compare visual search behaviour. RESULTS: Misinterpretation of risk was common, with 65% of participants underestimating the need for action across all presentations at least once. Participants found it particularly difficult to interpret medium risk clinical scenarios. Participants who consistently understood when action was needed showed a higher visual search efficiency, suggesting a better strategy to cope with information overload that helped them to focus on the laboratory tests most relevant to their condition. CONCLUSIONS: This study confirms patients' difficulties in interpreting laboratories test results, with many patients underestimating the need for action, even when abnormal values were highlighted or grouped together. Our findings raise patient safety concerns and may limit the potential of patient portals to actively involve patients in their own healthcare.

Why creating standardized core outcome sets for chronic kidney disease will improve clinical practice.

Chronic kidney disease (CKD) is common and is associated with increased mortality, morbidity and cost. However, insufficient high-quality trial data are available to answer many relevant clinical questions in this field. In addition, a wide range of variable outcomes are used in studies, and often they are incompletely reported. Furthermore, there is a lack of patient-relevant outcomes, such as mortality, morbidity, quality of life, pain, need for dialysis or costs. Common problems with outcome reporting are as follows: choosing the wrong domains to measure; within domains, choosing the wrong measures (invalid surrogates, composite, non-patient relevant); within measures, choosing the wrong/variable metrics; and within metrics, choosing variable presentation methods. With this article, we aim to underline why standardized outcome reporting is key to achieving evidence-based guidance and improving clinical care for patients; highlight the frameworks available for achieving core outcome sets; and starting from these frameworks, we propose steps needed to develop a core outcome set in the field of CKD. We hope that standardized core outcome sets for nephrology will lead to the most important outcome of guideline production, improving outcomes for our patients.

Clinical Practice Guideline on management of older patients with chronic kidney disease stage 3b or higher (eGFR<45 mL/min/1.73 m2): a summary document from the European Renal Best Practice Group.

The population of patients with moderate and severe CKD is growing. Frail and older patients comprise an increasing proportion. Many studies still exclude this group, so the evidence base is limited. In 2013 the advisory board of ERBP initiated, in collaboration with European Union of Geriatric Medicine Societies (EUGMS), the development of a guideline on the management of older patients with CKD stage 3b or higher (eGFR >45 mL/min/1.73 m2). The full guideline has recently been published and is freely available online and on the website of ERBP (www.european-renal-best-practice.org). This paper summarises main recommendations of the guideline and their underlying rationales.

An external validation of models to predict the onset of chronic kidney disease using population-based electronic health records from Salford, UK.

BACKGROUND: Chronic kidney disease (CKD) is a major and increasing constituent of disease burdens worldwide. Early identification of patients at increased risk of developing CKD can guide interventions to slow disease progression, initiate timely referral to appropriate kidney care services, and support targeting of care resources. Risk prediction models can extend laboratory-based CKD screening to earlier stages of disease; however, to date, only a few of them have been externally validated or directly compared outside development populations. Our objective was to validate published CKD prediction models applicable in primary care. METHODS: We synthesised two recent systematic reviews of CKD risk prediction models and externally validated selected models for a 5-year horizon of disease onset. We used linked, anonymised, structured (coded) primary and secondary care data from patients resident in Salford (population ~234 k), UK. All adult patients with at least one record in 2009 were followed-up until the end of 2014, death, or CKD onset (n = 178,399). CKD onset was defined as repeated impaired eGFR measures over a period of at least 3 months, or physician diagnosis of CKD Stage 3-5. For each model, we assessed discrimination, calibration, and decision curve analysis. RESULTS: Seven relevant CKD risk prediction models were identified. Five models also had an associated simplified scoring system. All models discriminated well between patients developing CKD or not, with c-statistics around 0.90. Most of the models were poorly calibrated to our population, substantially over-predicting risk. The two models that did not require recalibration were also the ones that had the best performance in the decision curve analysis. CONCLUSIONS: Included CKD prediction models showed good discriminative ability but over-predicted the actual 5-year CKD risk in English primary care patients. QKidney, the only UK-developed model, outperformed the others. Clinical prediction models should be (re)calibrated for their intended uses.

A survey on the methodological processes and policies of renal guideline groups as a first step to harmonize renal guidelines.

BACKGROUND: Worldwide, several bodies produce renal guidelines, potentially leading to duplication of effort while other topics may remain uncovered. A collaborative work plan could improve efficiency and impact, but requires a common approved methodology. The aim of this study was to identify organizational and methodological similarities and differences among seven major renal guideline bodies to identify methodological barriers to a collaborative effort. METHODS: An electronic 62-item survey with questions based on the Institute of Medicine standards for guidelines was completed by representatives of seven major organizations producing renal guidelines: the Canadian Society of Nephrology (CSN), European Renal Best Practice (ERBP), Kidney Disease Improving Global Outcome (KDIGO), Kidney Health Australia-Caring for Australians with Renal Insufficiency (KHA-CARI), Kidney Disease Outcome Quality Initiative (KDOQI), Sociedad Latino-Americano de Nefrologia e Hipertension (SLANH) and United Kingdom Renal Association (UK-RA). RESULTS: Five of the seven groups conduct systematic searches for evidence, two include detailed critical appraisal and all use the GRADE framework. Five have public review of the guideline draft. Guidelines are updated as new evidence comes up in all, and/or after a specified time frame has passed (N = 3). Commentaries or position statements on guidelines published by other groups are produced by five, with the ADAPTE framework (N = 1) and the AGREEII (N = 2) used by some. Funding is from their parent organizations (N = 5) or directly from industry (N = 2). None allow funders to influence topic selection or guideline content. The budgets to develop a full guideline vary from $2000 to $500 000. Guideline development groups vary in size from <5 (N = 1) to 13-20 persons (N = 3). Three explicitly seek patient perspectives, for example, by involving patients in the scoping process, and four incorporate health economic considerations. All provide training in methodology for guideline development groups and six make their methods public. All try to avoid overlapping topics already planned or published by others. There is no common conflict of interest policy. CONCLUSIONS: Overall, there is considerable commonality in methods and approaches in renal guideline development by the different organizations, although some procedural differences remain. As the financial and human resource costs of guideline production are high, a collaborative approach is required to maximize impact and develop a sustainable work plan. Coming to consensus on methods and procedures is the first step and appears feasible.

Nephrologists' perceptions regarding dialysis withdrawal and palliative care in Europe: lessons from a European Renal Best Practice survey.

BACKGROUND: There is a variation in dialysis withdrawal rates, but reasons for this variation across European countries are largely unknown. We therefore surveyed nephrologists' perceptions of factors concerning dialysis withdrawal and palliative care and explored relationships between these perceptions and reports of whether withdrawal actually occurred in practice. METHODS: We developed a 33-item electronic survey, disseminated via an email blast to all European Renal Association-European Dialysis and Transplant Association (ERA-EDTA) members. In our data analyses, we distinguished those respondents who reported occurrence from those reporting no dialysis withdrawal in their unit. With multilevel logistic regression, we investigated the association between respondents' characteristics and perceptions and whether they reported occurrence of dialysis withdrawal or not. RESULTS: Five hundred and twenty-eight nephrologists from 45 countries completed the questionnaire; 42% reported occurrence of withdrawal in their unit in the past year, and 56% perceived that stopping life-prolonging treatment in terminally ill patients was allowed. Few respondents reported presence in their unit of protocols on withdrawal decision making (7%) or palliative care (10%) or the common involvement of a geriatrician in withdrawal decisions (10%). The majority stated that palliative care had not been part of their core curriculum (74%) and that they had not recently attended continuous medical education sessions on this topic (73%). Respondents from Eastern and Southern Europe had a 42 and 40% lower probability, respectively, of reporting withdrawal compared with those from North European countries. Working in a public centre [odds ratio (OR), 2.41; 95% confidence interval (CI), 1.36-4.25] and respondents' perception that stopping life-prolonging treatment in terminally ill patients was allowed (OR, 1.96; 95% CI, 1.23-3.12), that withdrawal decisions were commonly shared between doctor and patient (OR, 1.97; 95% CI, 1.26-3.08) and that palliative care was reimbursed (OR, 1.81; 95% CI, 1.16-2.83) increased the odds of reporting occurrence of withdrawal. CONCLUSION: Reports of dialysis withdrawal occurrence varied between European countries. Occurrence reports were more likely if respondents worked in a public centre, if stopping life-prolonging treatments was perceived as allowed, if withdrawal decisions were considered shared between doctors and patients and if reimbursement of palliative care was believed to be in place. There is room for improvement regarding protocols on withdrawal and palliative care processes and regarding nephrologists' training and education on end-of-life care.

How to routinely collect data on patient-reported outcome and experience measures in renal registries in Europe: an expert consensus meeting.

Despite the potential for patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) and experience measures (PREMs) to enhance understanding of patient experiences and outcomes they have not, to date, been widely incorporated into renal registry datasets. This report summarizes the main points learned from an ERA-EDTA QUEST-funded consensus meeting on how to routinely collect PROMs and PREMs in renal registries in Europe. In preparation for the meeting, we surveyed all European renal registries to establish current or planned efforts to collect PROMs/PREMs. A systematic review of the literature was performed. Publications reporting barriers and/or facilitators to PROMs/PREMs collection by registries were identified and a narrative synthesis undertaken. A group of renal registry representatives, PROMs/PREMs experts and patient representatives then met to (i) share any experience renal registries in Europe have in this area; (ii) establish how patient-reported data might be collected by understanding how registries currently collect routine data and how patient-reported data is collected in other settings; (iii) harmonize the future collection of patient-reported data by renal registries in Europe by agreeing upon preferred instruments and (iv) to identify the barriers to routine collection of patient-reported data in renal registries in Europe. In total, 23 of the 45 European renal registries responded to the survey. Two reported experience in collecting PROMs and three stated that they were actively exploring ways to do so. The systematic review identified 157 potentially relevant articles of which 9 met the inclusion criteria and were analysed for barriers and facilitators to routine PROM/PREM collection. Thirteen themes were identified and mapped to a three-stage framework around establishing the need, setting up and maintaining the routine collection of PROMs/PREMs. At the consensus meeting some PROMs instruments were agreed for routine renal registry collection (the generic SF-12, the disease-specific KDQOL™-36 and EQ-5D-5L to be able to derive quality-adjusted life years), but further work was felt to be needed before recommending PREMs. Routinely collecting PROMs and PREMs in renal registries is important if we are to better understand what matters to patients but it is likely to be challenging; close international collaboration will be beneficial.