Rational & Objective A key aspect of smooth transition to dialysis is the timely creation of a permanent access. Despite early referral to kidney care, initiation onto dialysis is still suboptimal for many patients, which has clinical and cost implications. This study aimed to explore perspectives of various stakeholders on barriers to timely access creation. Study Design Qualitative study. Setting & Participants Semi-structured interviews with 96 participants (response rate, 67%), including patients with stage 4 chronic kidney disease (n = 30), new hemodialysis patients with (n = 18) and without (n = 20) permanent access (arteriovenous fistula), family members (n = 19), and kidney health care providers (n = 9). Analytical Approach Thematic analysis. Results Patients reported differential levels of behavioral activation toward access creation: avoidance/denial, wait and see, or active intention. 6 core themes were identified: (1) lack of symptoms, (2) dialysis fears and practical concerns (exaggerated fear, pain, cost, lifestyle disruptions, work-related concerns, burdening their families), (3) evaluating value against costs/risks of access creation (benefits, threat of operation, viability, prompt for early initiation), (4) preference for alternatives, (5) social influences (hearsay, family involvement, experiences of others), and (6) health care provider interactions (mistrust, interpersonal tension, lack of clarity in information). Themes were common to all groups, whereas nuanced perspectives of family members and health care providers were noted in some subthemes. Limitations Response bias. Conclusions Individual, interpersonal, and psychosocial factors compromise dialysis preparation and contribute to suboptimal dialysis initiation. Our findings support the need for interventions to improve patient and family engagement and address emotional concerns and misperceptions about preparing for dialysis.

Background. In advanced chronic kidney disease (CKD), patients face complex decisions related to renal replacement modality that can cause decisional conflict and delay. This study aimed to evaluate the prevalence of severe decisional conflict across decision types and to identify the psychosocial and clinical factors associated with decisional conflict in this population.Design. Observational cross-sectional study.Methods. Patients with CKD in renal care were recruited. The Decisional Conflict Scale (DCS), Functional, Communicative, and Critical Health Literacy (FCCHL), Health Literacy Questionnaire (HLQ), Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale (HADS), Brief Illness Perception Questionnaire (BIPQ), and the Kidney-disease Quality of Life (KDQOL) questionnaires were used. Clinical data were obtained from medical records. Bivariate and multivariable logistic regression models were used to identify predictors of severe decisional conflict (DCS score ≥ 37.5).Results. Participants (N = 190; response rate = 56.7%; mean age = 62.8 AE 10.8) reported moderate levels of decisional conflict (29.7 AE 14.5). The overall prevalence of severe decisional conflict was 27.5% (n = 46) with no significant differences across decision types (dialysis, modality, access). Ethnicity (Chinese), marital status (married), BIPQ treatment control, coherence, KDQOL staff encouragement, and all health literacy domains, except functional health literacy, were significant predictors of decisional conflict in the unadjusted models. In the multivariable model, only the health literacy domains of FCCHL Communicative, and HLQ Active Engagement remained significant. Conclusion.Even after pre-dialysis education, many CKD patients in this study still report severe decisional conflict, with rates remaining substantial across decision junctures. The associations of decisional conflict and health literacy skills related to communication and engagement with healthcare providers indicate that more collaborative and patientcentric pre-dialysis programs may support patient activation and resolve decisional conflict.

No abstract