IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pone00/0125606.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Self-Cannulation for Haemodialysis: Patient Attributes, Clinical Correlates and Self-Cannulation Predilection Models

Author

Listed:
  • Anuradha Jayanti
  • Philip Foden
  • Alison Wearden
  • Julie Morris
  • Paul Brenchley
  • Sandip Mitra
  • on behalf of the BASIC-HHD study group

Abstract

Background and Objectives: With emerging evidence in support of home haemodialysis (HHD), patient factors which determine uptake of the modality need to be better understood. Self-cannulation (SC) is a major step towards enabling self-care ‘in-centre’ and at home and remains the foremost barrier to its uptake. Human factors governing this aspect of HD practice are poorly understood. The aim of this study is to better understand self-cannulation preferences and factors which define them in end stage renal disease (ESRD). Design: In this multicentre study, 508 of 535 patients from predialysis (Group A: n = 222), in-centre (Group B: n = 213), and home HD (Group C: n = 100) responded to a questionnaire with 3 self-cannulation questions. Simultaneously, data on clinical, cognitive and psychosocial variables were ascertained. The primary outcome measure was ‘perceived ability to self-cannulate AV access’. Predictive models were developed using logistic regression analysis. Results: 36.6% of predialysis patients (A) and 29.1% of the ‘in-centre’ haemodialysis patients (B) felt able to consider SC for HD. Technical-skills related apprehension was highest in Group B (14.4%) patients. Response to routine venepuncture and the types of SC concerns were significant predictors of perceived ability to self-cannulate. There was no significant difference in concern for pain across the groups. In multivariable regression analysis, age, education level, 3MS score, hypoalbuminemia in Groups B & C and additionally, attitude to routine phlebotomy and the nature of specific concern for self-cannulation in Groups A, B and C, are significant predictors of SC preference. The unadjusted c-statistics of models 1 (derived from Group A and validated on A) and 2 (derived from B+C and validated on B), are 0.76(95% CI 0.69, 0.83) and 0.80 (95% CI 0.74, 0.87) respectively. Conclusions: There is high prevalence of perceived ability to self-cannulate. Modifiable SC concerns exist in ESRD. The use of predictive models to objectively define and target education and training strategies could potentially impact on HD self-management and future uptake of home HD.

Suggested Citation

  • Anuradha Jayanti & Philip Foden & Alison Wearden & Julie Morris & Paul Brenchley & Sandip Mitra & on behalf of the BASIC-HHD study group, 2015. "Self-Cannulation for Haemodialysis: Patient Attributes, Clinical Correlates and Self-Cannulation Predilection Models," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 10(5), pages 1-17, May.
  • Handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0125606
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0125606
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0125606
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0125606&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pone.0125606?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
    ---><---

    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:pone00:0125606. 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.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using 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.