Background: Impaired physical function due to muscle weakness and exercise intolerance reduces the ability to perform activities of daily living in patients with end-stage kidney disease, and by consequence, Health-Related Quality of Life (HRQoL). Furthermore, the risk of falls is an aggregate of physical function and, therefore, could be associated with HRQoL as well. The present study examined the associations between objective and subjective measures of physical function, risk of falls and HRQoL in haemodialysis patients. Methods: This cross-sectional multicentre study included patients on maintenance haemodialysis. Physical function (quadriceps force, handgrip force, Sit-to-Stand, and six-minute walking test), the risk of falls (Tinetti, FICSIT-4, and dialysis fall index) and HRQoL (PROMIS-29 and EQ-5D-3 L) were measured and analysed descriptively, by general linear models and logistic regression. Results: Of the 113 haemodialysis patients (mean age 67.5 ± 16.1, 57.5% male) enrolled, a majority had impaired quadriceps force (86.7%) and six-minute walking test (92%), and an increased risk of falls (73.5%). Whereas muscle strength and exercise capacity were associated with global HRQoL (R 2 = 0.32) and the risk of falls, the risk of falls itself was related to psycho-social domains (R 2 = 0.11) such as depression and social participation, rather than to the physical domains of HRQoL. Objective measures of physical function were not associated with subjective fatigue, nor with subjective appreciation of health status. Conclusions: More than muscle strength, lack of coordination and balance as witnessed by the risk of falls contribute to social isolation and HRQoL of haemodialysis patients. Mental fatigue was less common than expected, whereas, subjective and objective physical function were decreased.
Background Patient-centeredness, respect for patient autonomy, and shared decision-making have now made it to center stage in discussions on quality of care. Knowing what actually counts in care and how it should be accomplished from the patients’ and nurses’ perspective seems crucial. Aim To explore how patients and their nurses perceive the importance and enactment of values in their healthcare. Research design An observational, cross-sectional study using a self-developed questionnaire, consisting of 15 items related to seven values (e.g. uniqueness, autonomy, professionalism, compassion, responsiveness, partnership, and empowerment) as described in the taxonomy of Bastemeijer et al. Participants and research context The survey was completed by 384 patients and 81 nurses. Participants were recruited on eight internal medicine wards of a 1000-bed university hospital in Belgium. Ethical considerations This study was approved by the ethical committee of the Ghent University Hospital (B670201836799). Findings (1) Patients and nurses prioritize values of care differently; (2) nurses report not being able to enact the values they prioritize in actual practice as much as one would like to; and (3) there is a gap in experienced delivery of a comprehensible explanation of all treatment options, a conversation based on equality, making shared decisions, and being non-judgmental between nurses and patients. Discussion Our findings challenge nurses’ overemphasis on professional compassion and uniqueness while arguing for increased attention on authentic shared decision-making and empowerment. The first step to a patient-centered culture truly involving patients in their healthcare is communication and information provision, rather than focusing on tangible and normative constructs. Conclusion Our findings revealed differences in prioritization and actual enactment of values in care between patients and nurses. This was especially so for values related to communication, provision of complete unbiased information, and shared decision-making. Nurses should prioritize providing comprehensible information and using conversations based on equality to make decision together with patients.
BackgroundClinical trials are most informative for evidence-based decision-making when they consistently measure and report outcomes of relevance to stakeholders, especially patients, clinicians, and policy makers. However, sometimes terminology used is interpreted differently by different stakeholders, which might lead to confusion during shared decision making. The construct dialysis adequacy is frequently used, suggesting it is an important outcome both for health care professionals as for patients.ObjectiveTo assess the scope and consistency of the construct dialysis adequacy as reported in randomised controlled trials in hemodialysis, and evaluate whether these align to the insights and understanding of this construct by patients.MethodsTo assess scope and consistency of dialysis adequacy by professionals, we performed a systematic review searching the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) up to July 2017. We identified all randomised controlled trails (RCT) including patients on hemodialysis and reporting dialysis adequacy, adequacy or adequacy of dialysis and extracted and classified all reported outcomes. To explore interpretation and meaning of the construct of adequacy by patients, we conducted 11 semi-structured interviews with HD patients using thematic analysis. Belgian registration number B670201731001.FindingsFrom the 31 included trials, we extracted and classified 98 outcome measures defined by the authors as adequacy of dialysis, of which 94 (95%) were biochemical, 3 (3%) non-biochemical surrogate and 2 (2%) patient-relevant. The three most commonly reported measures were all biochemical. None of the studies defined adequacy of dialysis as a patient relevant outcome such as survival or quality of life. Patients had a substantially different understanding of the construct dialysis adequacy than the biochemical interpretation reported in the literature. Being alive, time spent while being on dialysis, fatigue and friendliness of staff were the most prominent themes that patients linked to the construct of dialysis adequacy.ConclusionAdequacy of dialysis as reported in the literature refers to biochemical outcome measures, most of which are not related with patient relevant outcomes. For patients, adequate dialysis is a dialysis that enables them to spend as much quality time in their life as possible.
Background: Different kidney replacement therapy modalities are available to manage end-stage kidney disease, such as home-based dialysis, in-center hemodialysis, and kidney transplantation. Although transitioning between modalities is common, data on how patients experience these transitions are scarce. This study explores patients’ perspectives of transitioning from a home-based to an in-center modality. Methods: Patients transitioning from peritoneal dialysis to in-center hemodialysis were purposively selected. Semi-structured interviews were performed, digitally recorded, and transcribed verbatim. Data analysis, consistent with Charmaz’ constructivist approach of grounded theory was performed. Results: Fifteen patients (10 males; mean age 62 years) participated. The conditions of the transitioning process impacted the participants’ experiences, resulting in divergent experiences and associated emotions. Some participants experienced a loss of control due to the therapy-related changes. Some felt tied down and having lost independence, whereas others stated they regained control as they felt relieved from responsibility. This paradox of control was related to the patient having or not having (1) experienced a fit of hemodialysis with their personal lifestyle, (2) a frame of reference, (3) higher care requirements, (4) insight into the underlying reasons for transitioning, and (5) trust in the healthcare providers. Conclusions: Care teams need to offer opportunities to elicit patients’ knowledge and fears, dispel myths, forge connections with other patients, and visit the dialysis unit before transition to alleviate anxiety. Interventions that facilitate a sense of control should be grounded in the meaning that the disorder has for the person and how it impacts their sense of self.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.