4.6 Article Proceedings Paper

Direct Delivery of Kidney Transplant Education to Black and Low-Income Patients Receiving Dialysis: A Randomized Controlled Trial

Journal

AMERICAN JOURNAL OF KIDNEY DISEASES
Volume 74, Issue 5, Pages 640-649

Publisher

W B SAUNDERS CO-ELSEVIER INC
DOI: 10.1053/j.ajkd.2019.03.430

Keywords

-

Funding

  1. National Institutes of Health National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences UCLA Clinical and Translational Science Institute [UL1TR001881]
  2. Health Resources and Services Administration [R39OT25725]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Rationale & Objective: Compared with others, black and low-income patients receiving dialysis are less likely to receive kidney transplantation (KT) education within dialysis centers. We examined the efficacy of 2 supplementary KT education approaches delivered directly to patients. Study Design: Prospective, 3-arm parallel-group, randomized, controlled trial. Settings & Participants: Adult, black, and white low-income patients receiving dialysis in Missouri. Intervention: Patients were randomly assigned to 1 of 3 educational conditions: (1) standard of care, usual KT education provided in dialysis centers (control); (2) Explore Transplant @ Home patient-guided, 4 modules of KT education sent directly to patients using print, video, and text messages; and (3) Explore Transplant @ Home educator-guided, the patient-guided intervention plus 4 telephonic discussions with an educator. Outcomes: Primary: patient knowledge of living (LDKT) and deceased donor KT (DDKT). Secondary: informed decision making, change in attitudes in favor of LDKT and DDKT, and change in the number of new steps taken toward KT. Results: In intent-to-treat analyses, patients randomly assigned to educator- and patient-guided interventions had greater knowledge gains (1.4 point increase) than control patients (0.8 point increase; P = 0.02 and P = 0.01, respectively). Compared with control patients, more patients randomly assigned to educator- and patient-guided interventions were able to make informed decisions about starting KT evaluation (82% vs 91% and 95%; P = 0.003), pursuing DDKT (70% vs 84% and 84%; P = 0.003), and pursuing LDKT (73% vs 91% and 92%; P < 0.001). Limitations: Potential contamination because of patient-level randomization; no assessment of clinical end points. Conclusions: Education presented directly to dialysis patients, with or without coaching by telephone, increased dialysis patients' KT knowledge and informed decision making without increasing educational burden on providers.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available