Stakeholder-Driven Intervention Development for Dialysis Trials Using a Design Sprint Methodology.

Rationale & Objective: Stigma contributes to ineffective treatment for pain among individuals with kidney failure on dialysis, particularly with buprenorphine pain treatment. To address stigma, we adapted a Design Sprint, an industry-developed structured exercise where an interdisciplinary group works over 5 days to clarify the problem, identify and choose a solution, and build and test a prototype. Study Design: Adapted Design Sprint which clarified the problem to be solved, proposed solutions, and created a blueprint for the selected solution. Settings & Participants: Five individuals with pain and kidney disease receiving dialysis, 5 physicians (nephrology, palliative care, and addiction medicine) and 4 large dialysis organization leaders recruited for specific expertise or experience. Conducted through online platform (Zoom) and virtual white board (Miro board). Analytical Approach: Descriptions of the Design Sprint adaptations and processes. Results: To facilitate patient comfort, a patient-only phase included four 90-minute sessions over 2-weeks, during which patient participants used a mapping process to define the critical problem and sketch out solutions. In a physician-only phase, consisting of two 120-minute sessions, participants accomplished the same tasks. During a combined phase of two 120-minute sessions, patients, physicians, and large dialysis organization representatives vetted and developed solutions from earlier phases, leading to an intervention blueprint. Videoconferencing technology allowed for geographically diverse representation and facilitated participation from patients experiencing medical illness. The electronic whiteboard permitted interactive written contributions and voting on priorities instead of only verbal discussion, which may privilege physician participants. A skilled qualitative researcher facilitated the sessions. Limitations: Challenges included the time commitment of the sessions, absences owing to illness or emergencies, and technical difficulties. Conclusions: An adapted Design Sprint is a novel method of efficiently and rapidly incorporating multiple stakeholders to develop solutions for clinical challenges in kidney disease. Plain Language Summary: Stigma contributes to ineffective treatment for pain among individuals with kidney failure on dialysis, particularly when using buprenorphine, an opioid pain medicine with a lower risk of sedation used to treat addiction. To develop a stigma intervention, we adapted a Design Sprint, an industry-developed structured exercise where an interdisciplinary group works over 5 days to clarify the problem, identify and choose a solution, and build and test a prototype. We conducted 3 sprints with (1) patients alone, (2) physicians alone, and (3) combined patients, physicians, and dialysis organization representatives. This paper describes the adaptations and products of sprints as a method for gathering diverse stakeholder voices to create an intervention blueprint efficiently and rapidly.

Development of a Patient Preference Survey for Wearable Kidney Replacement Therapy Devices.

Background: Recent innovations have the potential to disrupt the current paradigm for kidney failure treatment. The US Food and Drug Administration is committed to incorporating valid scientific evidence about how patients weigh the benefits and risks of new devices into their decision making, but to date, premarket submission of patient preference information (PPI) has been limited for kidney devices. With input from stakeholders, we developed a survey intended to yield valid PPI, capturing how patients trade off the potential benefits and risks of wearable dialysis devices and in-center hemodialysis. Methods: We conducted concept elicitation interviews with individuals receiving dialysis to inform instrument content. After instrument drafting, we conducted two rounds of pretest interviews to evaluate survey face validity, comprehensibility, and perceived relevance. We pilot tested the survey with in-center hemodialysis patients to assess comprehensibility and usability further. Throughout, we used participant input to guide survey refinements. Results: Thirty-six individuals receiving in-center or home dialysis participated in concept elicitation (N=20) and pretest (N=16) interviews. Participants identified reduced fatigue, lower treatment burden, and enhanced freedom as important benefits of a wearable device, and many expressed concerns about risks related to device disconnection-specifically bleeding and infection. We drafted a survey that included descriptions of the risks of serious bleeding and serious infection and an assessment of respondent willingness to wait for a safer device. Input from pretest interviewees led to various instrument modifications, including treatment descriptions, item wording, and risk-level explanations. Pilot testing of the updated survey among 24 in-center hemodialysis patients demonstrated acceptable survey comprehensibility and usability, although 50% of patients required some assistance. Conclusions: The final survey is a 54-item web-based instrument that will yield estimates of the maximal acceptable risk for the described wearable device and willingness to wait for wearable devices with lower risk.

Stakeholder-Guided Development of Dialysis Vascular Access Education Materials.

Background: Initiating hemodialysis via an arteriovenous (AV) access is considered best practice for most patients. Despite the well-recognized advantages of AV access, 80% of US patients start hemodialysis with a catheter. Limited patient knowledge about vascular access, among other factors, may play a role in this high rate. We used iterative stakeholder input to develop novel, mixed media vascular access education materials and evaluated their preliminary acceptability. Methods: We conducted preliminary focus groups and interviews with key stakeholders to assess patient vascular access understanding and elicit perspectives on existing education materials. We then used stakeholder input to inform initial development and iterative updates to the content and design of an animated video and complementary brochure. Video development (scripting, storyboarding, animation) was guided by an evidence-based framework and two health behavior change models. We assessed acceptability of the completed materials with patients and medical providers/personnel via interviews. Results: Overall, 105 stakeholders participated in education materials development and review (80 patients/care partners, 25 medical providers/personnel). Preliminary qualitative work included 52 patients/care partners and 16 providers/personnel; video development included 28 patients/care partners and nine providers/personnel. The video script, storyboards, and animation underwent 14, four, and nine stakeholder-guided iterations, respectively. Responsive changes included aesthetic modifications, technical updates, and content additions (e.g., HD circuit, access self-monitoring, enhanced patient testimonials). The final 18-minute video and complementary brochure define vascular access types, describe care processes, outline potential complications, and address common patient concerns. Interviews with 28 patients/care partners and nine providers/personnel from diverse geographic regions revealed preliminary acceptability of, and enthusiasm for, the materials by patients and providers. Conclusions: In collaboration with key stakeholders, we developed mixed media vascular access education materials that were well-received by patients and providers. Preliminary findings suggest that the materials are promising to improve vascular access understanding among patients.

Telehealth for Home Dialysis in COVID-19 and Beyond: A Perspective From the American Society of Nephrology COVID-19 Home Dialysis Subcommittee.

The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, technological advancements, regulatory waivers, and user acceptance have converged to boost telehealth activities. Due to the state of emergency, regulatory waivers in the United States have made it possible for providers to deliver and bill for services across state lines for new and established patients through Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA)- and non-HIPAA-compliant platforms with home as the originating site and without geographic restrictions. Platforms have been developed or purchased to perform videoconferencing, and interdisciplinary dialysis teams have adapted to perform virtual visits. Telehealth experiences and challenges encountered by dialysis providers, clinicians, nurses, and patients have exposed health care disparities in areas such as access to care, bandwidth connectivity, availability of devices to perform telehealth, and socioeconomic and language barriers. Future directions in telehealth use, quality measures, and research in telehealth use need to be explored. Telehealth during the public health emergency has changed the practice of health care, with the post-COVID-19 world unlikely to resemble the prior era. The future impact of telehealth in patient care in the United States remains to be seen, especially in the context of the Advancing American Kidney Health Initiative.

Fostering Innovation in Symptom Management among Hemodialysis Patients: Paths Forward for Insomnia, Muscle Cramps, and Fatigue.

Individuals receiving in-center maintenance hemodialysis bear a high burden of both physical and mood symptoms. More than half of patients on hemodialysis report sleep disturbance, muscle cramps, and fatigue. Patients describe symptoms as having a deleterious effect on their quality of life, suggesting that symptom alleviation may meaningfully improve patient-reported outcomes. Moreover, patients on hemodialysis have identified symptom management as a key area for research and innovation, prioritizing symptom alleviation over other health outcomes such as mortality and biochemical indices. Despite the importance of symptoms to patients, there has been little research explicitly geared toward improving patient symptoms, and therefore minimal innovation in symptom management. In general, the physiologic underpinnings of symptoms are poorly understood, hampering the development of targeted therapies. In fact, there have been few drugs or devices approved by the US Food and Drug Administration for the indication of improving any patient-reported outcomes for patients on hemodialysis. Recognizing this gap in innovation, the Kidney Health Initiative, a public-private partnership between the American Society of Nephrology and US Food and Drug Administration, convened a workgroup to first prioritize symptoms for the development of therapeutic interventions, and then identify near-term actionable research goals for the prioritized physical symptoms of insomnia, muscle cramps, and fatigue. This paper summarizes the pathophysiology of the three prioritized symptoms, identifies key knowledge gaps, acknowledges factors that challenge development of new therapies, and offers the nephrology community actionable research goals for insomnia, muscle cramps, and fatigue.

Establishing a Core Outcome Measure for Fatigue in Patients on Hemodialysis: A Standardized Outcomes in Nephrology-Hemodialysis (SONG-HD) Consensus Workshop Report.

Fatigue is one of the most highly prioritized outcomes for patients and clinicians, but remains infrequently and inconsistently reported across trials in hemodialysis. We convened an international Standardized Outcomes in Nephrology-Hemodialysis (SONG-HD) consensus workshop with stakeholders to discuss the development and implementation of a core outcome measure for fatigue. 15 patients/caregivers and 42 health professionals (clinicians, researchers, policy makers, and industry representatives) from 9 countries participated in breakout discussions. Transcripts were analyzed thematically. 4 themes for a core outcome measure emerged. Drawing attention to a distinct and all-encompassing symptom was explicitly recognizing fatigue as a multifaceted symptom unique to hemodialysis. Emphasizing the pervasive impact of fatigue on life participation justified the focus on how fatigue severely impaired the patient's ability to do usual activities. Ensuring relevance and accuracy in measuring fatigue would facilitate shared decision making about treatment. Minimizing burden of administration meant avoiding the cognitive burden, additional time, and resources required to use the measure. A core outcome measure that is simple, is short, and includes a focus on the severity of the impact of fatigue on life participation may facilitate consistent and meaningful measurement of fatigue in all trials to inform decision making and care of patients receiving hemodialysis.

Symptom Prioritization among Adults Receiving In-Center Hemodialysis: A Mixed Methods Study.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Individuals receiving in-center hemodialysis experience a high symptom burden that detrimentally affects their quality of life. There are few evidence-based interventions for symptom relief in this population. To stimulate innovation in symptom management, data on patient symptom prioritization and treatment preferences are needed. We undertook this study to (1) identify patient-prioritized symptoms for the development of symptom relief therapies and (2) elicit preferences for treatments among individuals receiving hemodialysis. DESIGN, SETTING, PARTICIPANTS, & MEASUREMENTS: We conducted a mixed methods study that included focus groups in Carrboro, North Carolina; Tucson, Arizona; and Seattle, Washington and a nationally distributed online survey. Focus group transcripts were analyzed for patterns, and the highest priority symptoms were determined on the basis of frequency and report severity. We used focus group findings to inform survey items. Focus group and survey results were crossvalidated and synthesized for final symptom prioritization. RESULTS: There were 32 participants across three focus groups and 87 survey respondents from 27 states in the United States. The physical symptoms of insomnia, fatigue, muscle cramping, and nausea/vomiting and the mood symptoms of anxiety and depressed mood were reported by participants in all focus groups. Among survey respondents, fatigue (94%), cramping (79%), and body aches (76%) were the most common physical symptoms, and feeling depressed (66%), worried (64%), and frustrated (63%) were the most common mood symptoms. The top-prioritized symptoms were consistent across focus group and survey participants and included the physical symptoms insomnia, fatigue, and cramping and the mood symptoms anxiety, depression, and frustration. Participants indicated that symptom frequency, duration, unpredictability, and social and financial effects factored most heavily into symptom prioritization. CONCLUSIONS: Patients prioritized the physical symptoms of insomnia, fatigue, and cramping and the mood symptoms of anxiety, depression, and frustration as the top symptoms for which to find new therapies.

Perspectives on Research Participation and Facilitation Among Dialysis Patients, Clinic Personnel, and Medical Providers: A Focus Group Study.

BACKGROUND: Most prospective studies involving individuals receiving maintenance dialysis have been small, and many have had poor clinical translatability. Research relevance can be enhanced through stakeholder engagement. However, little is known about dialysis clinic stakeholders' perceptions of research participation and facilitation. The objective of this study was to characterize the perspectives of dialysis clinic stakeholders (patients, clinic personnel, and medical providers) on: (1) research participation by patients and (2) research facilitation by clinic personnel and medical providers. We also sought to elucidate stakeholder preferences for research communication. STUDY DESIGN: Qualitative study. SETTING & PARTICIPANTS: 7 focus groups (59 participants: 8 clinic managers, 14 nurses/patient care technicians, 8 social workers/dietitians, 11 nephrologists/advanced practice providers, and 18 patients/care partners) from 7 North Carolina dialysis clinics. METHODOLOGY: Clinics and participants were purposively sampled. Focus groups were recorded and transcribed. ANALYTICAL APPROACH: Thematic analysis. RESULTS: We identified 11 themes that captured barriers to and facilitators of research participation by patients and research facilitation by clinic personnel and medical providers. We collapsed these themes into 4 categories to create an organizational framework for considering stakeholder (narrow research understanding, competing personal priorities, and low patient literacy and education levels), relationship (trust, buy-in, and altruistic motivations), research design (convenience, follow-up, and patient incentives), and dialysis clinic (professional demands, teamwork, and communication) aspects that may affect stakeholder interest in participating in or facilitating research. These themes appear to shape the degree of research readiness of a dialysis clinic environment. Participants preferred short research communications delivered in multiple formats. LIMITATIONS: Potential selection bias and inclusion of English-speaking participants only. CONCLUSIONS: Our findings revealed patient interest in participating in research and clinical personnel and medical provider interest in facilitating research. Overall, our results suggest that dialysis clinic research readiness may be enhanced through increased stakeholder research knowledge and alignment of clinical and research activities.