IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pone00/0103914.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Patients’ Perceptions of Information and Education for Renal Replacement Therapy: An Independent Survey by the European Kidney Patients' Federation on Information and Support on Renal Replacement Therapy

Author

Listed:
  • Wim Van Biesen
  • Sabine N van der Veer
  • Mark Murphey
  • Olga Loblova
  • Simon Davies

Abstract

Background: Selection of an appropriate renal replacement modality is of utmost importance for patients with end stage renal disease. Previous studies showed provision of information to and free modality choice by patients to be suboptimal. Therefore, the European Kidney Patients’ Federation (CEAPIR) explored European patients’ perceptions regarding information, education and involvement on the modality selection process. Methods: CEAPIR developed a survey, which was disseminated by the national kidney patient organisations in Europe. Results: In total, 3867 patients from 36 countries completed the survey. Respondents were either on in-centre haemodialysis (53%) or had a functioning graft (38%) at the time of survey. The majority (78%) evaluated the general information about kidney disease and treatment as helpful, but 39% did not recall being told about alternative treatment options than their current one. Respondents were more often satisfied with information provided on in-centre haemodialysis (90%) and transplantation (87%) than with information provided on peritoneal dialysis (79%) or home haemodialysis (61%), and were more satisfied with information from health care professionals vs other sources such as social media. Most (75%) felt they had been involved in treatment selection, 29% perceived they had no free choice. Involvement in modality selection was associated with enhanced satisfaction with treatment (OR 3.13; 95% CI 2.72–3.60). Many respondents (64%) could not remember receiving education on how to manage their kidney disease in daily life. Perceptions on information seem to differ between countries. Conclusions: Kidney patients reported to be overall satisfied with the information they received on their disease and treatment, although information seemed mostly to have been focused on one modality. Patients involved in modality selection were more satisfied with their treatment. However, in the perception of the patients, the freedom to choose an alternative modality showed room for improvement.

Suggested Citation

  • Wim Van Biesen & Sabine N van der Veer & Mark Murphey & Olga Loblova & Simon Davies, 2014. "Patients’ Perceptions of Information and Education for Renal Replacement Therapy: An Independent Survey by the European Kidney Patients' Federation on Information and Support on Renal Replacement Ther," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 9(7), pages 1-8, July.
    • Handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0103914
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0103914
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0103914
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0103914&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pone.0103914?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Flynn, Kathryn E. & Smith, Maureen A. & Vanness, David, 2006. "A typology of preferences for participation in healthcare decision making," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 63(5), pages 1158-1169, September.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Julie P. W. Bynum & Laura Barre & Catherine Reed & Honor Passow, 2014. "Participation of Very Old Adults in Health Care Decisions," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 34(2), pages 216-230, February.
    2. Semra Özdemir & Ateesha F. Mohamed & F. Reed Johnson & A. Brett Hauber, 2010. "Who pays attention in stated‐choice surveys?," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 19(1), pages 111-118, January.
    3. Meinow, Bettina & Parker, Marti G. & Thorslund, Mats, 2011. "Consumers of eldercare in Sweden: The semblance of choice," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 73(9), pages 1285-1289.
    4. Anja K. Köther & Katharina U. Siebenhaar & Georg W. Alpers, 2021. "Shared Decision Making during the COVID-19 Pandemic," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 41(4), pages 430-438, May.
    5. Eric Reither & Robert Hauser & Karen Swallen, 2009. "Predicting adult health and mortality from adolescent facial characteristics in yearbook photographs," Demography, Springer;Population Association of America (PAA), vol. 46(1), pages 27-41, February.
    6. Rakibul Hasan & Samiha Mokarram & Jannatul Ferdous Muna & Umme Sumaiya Shampa, 2024. "Determinants of the Patient Choice of Health Care Provider in Bangladesh," International Journal of Research and Innovation in Social Science, International Journal of Research and Innovation in Social Science (IJRISS), vol. 8(8), pages 2864-2872, August.
    7. Rachael Gooberman-Hill, 2012. "Qualitative Approaches to Understanding Patient Preferences," The Patient: Patient-Centered Outcomes Research, Springer;International Academy of Health Preference Research, vol. 5(4), pages 215-223, December.
    8. Melanie Meyer, 2017. "Is Financial Literacy a Determinant of Health?," The Patient: Patient-Centered Outcomes Research, Springer;International Academy of Health Preference Research, vol. 10(4), pages 381-387, August.
    9. Sophia Fischer & Katja Soyez & Sebastian Gurtner, 2015. "Adapting Scott and Bruce’s General Decision-Making Style Inventory to Patient Decision Making in Provider Choice," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 35(4), pages 525-532, May.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0103914. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: plosone (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.