17
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Why take the chance? A qualitative grounded theory study of nocturnal haemodialysis recipients who decline kidney transplantation

      research-article

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Objective

          The objective of this study was to examine the factors that influence decision-making to forgo transplantation in favour of remaining on nocturnal haemodialysis (NHD).

          Design

          A grounded theory approach using in-depth telephone interviewing was used.

          Setting

          Participants were identified from 2 tertiary care renal programmes in Canada.

          Participants

          The study participants were otherwise eligible patients with end-stage renal disease who have opted to remain off of the transplant list. A total of 7 eligible participants were interviewed. 5 were male. The mean age was 46 years.

          Analysis

          A constant comparative method of analysis was used to identify a core category and factors influencing the decision-making process.

          Results

          In this grounded theory study of people receiving NHD who refused kidney transplantation, the core category of ‘why take a chance when things are going well?’ was identified, along with 4 factors that influenced the decision including ‘negative past experience’, ‘feeling well on NHD’, ‘gaining autonomy’ and ‘responsibility’.

          Conclusions

          This study provides insight into patients' thought processes surrounding an important treatment decision. Such insights might help the renal team to better understand, and thereby respect, patient choice in a patient-centred care paradigm. Findings may also be useful in the development of education programmes addressing the specific concerns of this population of patients.

          Related collections

          Most cited references15

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          Is there a bias against telephone interviews in qualitative research?

          Telephone interviews are largely neglected in the qualitative research literature and, when discussed, they are often depicted as a less attractive alternative to face-to-face interviewing. The absence of visual cues via telephone is thought to result in loss of contextual and nonverbal data and to compromise rapport, probing, and interpretation of responses. Yet, telephones may allow respondents to feel relaxed and able to disclose sensitive information, and evidence is lacking that they produce lower quality data. This apparent bias against telephone interviews contrasts with a growing interest in electronic qualitative interviews. Research is needed comparing these modalities, and examining their impact on data quality and their use for studying varying topics and populations. Such studies could contribute evidence-based guidelines for optimizing interview data. 2008 Wiley Periodicals, Inc
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: found
            Is Open Access

            The views of patients and carers in treatment decision making for chronic kidney disease: systematic review and thematic synthesis of qualitative studies

            Objective To synthesise the views of patients and carers in decision making regarding treatment for chronic kidney disease, and to determine which factors influence those decisions. Design Systematic review of qualitative studies of decision making and choice for dialysis, transplantation, or palliative care, and thematic synthesis of qualitative studies. Data sources Medline, PsycINFO, CINAHL, Embase, social work abstracts, and digital theses (database inception to week 3 October 2008) to identify literature using qualitative methods (focus groups, interviews, or case studies). Review methods Thematic synthesis involved line by line coding of the findings of the primary studies and development of descriptive and analytical themes. Results 18 studies that reported the experiences of 375 patients and 87 carers were included. 14 studies focused on preferences for dialysis modality, three on transplantation, and one on palliative management. Four major themes were identified as being central to treatment choices: confronting mortality (choosing life or death, being a burden, living in limbo), lack of choice (medical decision, lack of information, constraints on resources), gaining knowledge of options (peer influence, timing of information), and weighing alternatives (maintaining lifestyle, family influences, maintaining the status quo). Conclusions The experiences of other patients greatly influenced the decision making of patients and carers. The problematic timing of information about treatment options and synchronous creation of vascular access seemed to predetermine haemodialysis and inhibit choice of other treatments, including palliative care. A preference to maintain the status quo may explain why patients often remain on their initial therapy.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              Comparison of survival probabilities for dialysis patients vs cadaveric renal transplant recipients.

              To compare mortality risk among cadaveric renal transplant recipients vs transplant candidates on dialysis in the cyclosporine era. Patient mortality risk was analyzed by treatment modality for a completed statewide patient population. All Michigan residents younger than age 65 years who started endstage renal disease (ESRD) therapy between January 1, 1984, and December 31, 1989, were included. Patients were followed up from ESRD onset (n = 5020), to wait-listing for renal transplant (n = 1569), to receiving a cadaveric first transplant (n = 799), and to December 31, 1989. Mortality rates. Using a time-dependent variable based on the waiting time from date of wait-listing to transplantation and adjusting for age, sex, race, and primary cause of ESRD, the relative risk (RR) of dying was increased early after transplantation and then decreased to a beneficial long-term effect, given survival to 365 days after transplantation (RR, 0.36; P .05). Overall, the estimated times from transplantation to equal mortality risk was 117 +/- 28 days and to equal cumulative mortality was 325 +/- 91 days. The overall mortality risk following renal transplantation was initially increased, but there was a long-term survival benefit compared with similar patients on dialysis. These analyses allow improved description of comparative mortality risks for dialysis and transplant patients and allow advising patients regarding comparative survival outcomes.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Journal
                BMJ Open
                BMJ Open
                bmjopen
                bmjopen
                BMJ Open
                BMJ Publishing Group (BMA House, Tavistock Square, London, WC1H 9JR )
                2044-6055
                2016
                18 May 2016
                : 6
                : 5
                : e011951
                Affiliations
                [1 ]Department of Pharmacy Administration, University of Mississippi , Oxford, Mississippi, USA
                [2 ]Faculty of Nursing, University of Alberta , Edmonton, Alberta , Canada
                [3 ]Division of Nephrology, University Health Network, University of Toronto , Toronto, Ontario, Canada
                [4 ]Division of Nephrology, University of Alberta , Edmonton, Alberta , Canada
                Author notes
                [Correspondence to ] Dr Robert P Pauly; rpauly@ 123456ualberta.ca
                Article
                bmjopen-2016-011951
                10.1136/bmjopen-2016-011951
                4874163
                27194322
                332c2541-7f0a-477f-9bb8-1140f2bf06a8
                Published by the BMJ Publishing Group Limited. For permission to use (where not already granted under a licence) please go to http://www.bmj.com/company/products-services/rights-and-licensing/

                This is an Open Access article distributed in accordance with the Creative Commons Attribution Non Commercial (CC BY-NC 4.0) license, which permits others to distribute, remix, adapt, build upon this work non-commercially, and license their derivative works on different terms, provided the original work is properly cited and the use is non-commercial. See: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/

                History
                : 17 March 2016
                : 18 April 2016
                : 22 April 2016
                Funding
                Funded by: University of Alberta, http://dx.doi.org/10.13039/501100000190;
                Categories
                Qualitative Research
                Research
                1506
                1725
                1722
                1728

                Medicine
                decision-making,grounded theory,nocturnal hemodialysis
                Medicine
                decision-making, grounded theory, nocturnal hemodialysis

                Comments

                Comment on this article