4.6 Article

Patient-Perceived Barriers to the Adoption of Nocturnal Home Hemodialysis

Journal

Publisher

AMER SOC NEPHROLOGY
DOI: 10.2215/CJN.05501008

Keywords

-

Funding

  1. Bell University Labs at the University of Toronto [87285]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Background and objectives: Nocturnal home hemodialysis (NHHD) has been shown to improve clinical outcomes, although adoption has been limited. Given the known benefits, an understanding of the barriers to adoption is needed. Design, setting, participants, & measurements: Patient-perceived barriers were studied through a cross-sectional survey of prevalent hemodialysis patients using validated instruments, study-specific questions, and ethnographic interviews. Fifty-six of 66 NHHD patients and 153 of 199 conventional hemodialysis (CHD) patients were included in the survey. Twenty interviews were conducted with NHHD, CHD, and predialysis patients. Results: Compared with CHD patients, NHHD patients had higher perceived physical health scores (Short Form 12 [SF-12]: 41.47 +/- 0.9 versus 34.73 +/- 10.6, P < 0.0001), but had similar mental health scores (47.30 +/- 11.1[NHHD] versus 45.27 +/- 11.3[CHD]), P = 0.25). Despite having similar measures of education and perceived social support as NHHD patients, CHD patients had a low interest (1.68 [out of 5] +/- 1.26) in adopting NHHD. The major barriers perceived by CHD patients were lack of self-efficacy in performing the therapy, lack of confidence in self-cannulation, and length of time on current therapy. Similar themes emerged from the qualitative analysis as well as: burden on family members and fear of a catastrophic event. Conclusions: Patient-perceived barriers are primarily fears of self-cannulation, a catastrophic event, and the burden on family. These findings should form the basis of screening patients for interest in NHHD and serve to mitigate these concerns.

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