IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/wly/jocnur/v27y2018i1-2pe138-e146.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Conflict when making decisions about dialysis modality

Author

Listed:
  • Nien‐Hsin Chen
  • Yu‐Ping Lin
  • Shu‐Yuan Liang
  • Heng‐Hsin Tung
  • Shiow‐Luan Tsay
  • Tsae‐Jyy Wang

Abstract

Aims and objectives To explore decisional conflict and its influencing factors on choosing dialysis modality in patients with end‐stage renal diseases. The influencing factors investigated include demographics, predialysis education, dialysis knowledge, decision self‐efficacy and social support. Background Making dialysis modality decisions can be challenging for patients with end‐stage renal diseases; there are pros and cons to both haemodialysis and peritoneal dialysis. Patients are often uncertain as to which one will be the best alternative for them. This decisional conflict increases the likelihood of making a decision that is not based on the patient's values or preferences and may result in undesirable postdecisional consequences. Addressing factors predisposing patients to decisional conflict helps to facilitate informed decision‐making and then to improve healthcare quality. Design A predictive correlational cross‐sectional study design was used. Methods Seventy patients were recruited from the outpatient dialysis clinics of two general hospitals in Taiwan. Data were collected with study questionnaires, including questions on demographics, dialysis modality and predialysis education, the Dialysis Knowledge Scale, the Decision Self‐Efficacy scale, the Social Support Scale, and the Decisional Conflict Scale. Results The mean score on the Decisional Conflict Scale was 29.26 (SD = 22.18). Decision self‐efficacy, dialysis modality, predialysis education, professional support and dialysis knowledge together explained 76.4% of the variance in decisional conflict. Conclusions Individuals who had lower decision self‐efficacy, did not receive predialysis education on both haemodialysis and peritoneal dialysis, had lower dialysis knowledge and perceived lower professional support reported higher decisional conflict on choosing dialysis modality. Relevance to clinical practice When providing decisional support to predialysis stage patients, practitioners need to increase patients' decision self‐efficacy, provide both haemodialysis and peritoneal dialysis predialysis education, increase dialysis knowledge and provide professional support.

Suggested Citation

  • Nien‐Hsin Chen & Yu‐Ping Lin & Shu‐Yuan Liang & Heng‐Hsin Tung & Shiow‐Luan Tsay & Tsae‐Jyy Wang, 2018. "Conflict when making decisions about dialysis modality," Journal of Clinical Nursing, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 27(1-2), pages 138-146, January.
  • Handle: RePEc:wly:jocnur:v:27:y:2018:i:1-2:p:e138-e146
    DOI: 10.1111/jocn.13890
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1111/jocn.13890
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1111/jocn.13890?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. Chou‐Ping Chiou & Yun‐Chen Chung, 2012. "Effectiveness of multimedia interactive patient education on knowledge, uncertainty and decision‐making in patients with end‐stage renal disease," Journal of Clinical Nursing, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 21(9‐10), pages 1223-1231, May.
    2. Tsae‐Jyy Wang & Mei‐Yu Lin & Shu‐Yuan Liang & Shu‐Fang Vivienne Wu & Heng‐Hsin Tung & Shiow‐Luan Tsay, 2014. "Factors influencing peritoneal dialysis patients' psychosocial adjustment," Journal of Clinical Nursing, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 23(1-2), pages 82-90, January.
    3. Lori Harwood & Alexander M Clark, 2014. "Dialysis modality decision‐making for older adults with chronic kidney disease," Journal of Clinical Nursing, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 23(23-24), pages 3378-3390, December.
    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. Seung Hee Lee & Chul-Gyu Kim & Hye Sook Han & Jihyun Kwon & So Youen Roh & Beom Jin Shin, 2021. "Effects of Video-Based Information Provision Using a Smart Pad on Patients Undergoing Bone Marrow Biopsy," Clinical Nursing Research, , vol. 30(6), pages 724-733, July.
    2. Ding Yi Ng & Lorraine Tudor Car & Marcus Jia Ming Ng & Junde Lu & Joelle Leung & Tiong Thye Goo & Clement Luck Khng Chia, 2021. "Identifying barriers to early presentation in patients with locally advanced breast cancer (LABC) in Northern Singapore: Qualitative study," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 16(5), pages 1-10, May.
    3. Maria Margarita Becerra Pérez & Matthew Menear & Jamie C. Brehaut & France Légaré, 2016. "Extent and Predictors of Decision Regret about Health Care Decisions," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 36(6), pages 777-790, August.
    4. Leire Ambrosio & Mari Carmen Portillo & Carmen Rodriguez‐Blazquez & Jose Manuel Rojo & Pablo Martinez‐Martin & EC‐PC Validation Group, 2019. "Influencing factors when living with Parkinson’s disease: A cross‐sectional study," Journal of Clinical Nursing, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 28(17-18), pages 3168-3176, September.

    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:wly:jocnur:v:27:y:2018:i:1-2:p:e138-e146. 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: Wiley Content Delivery (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://doi.org/10.1111/(ISSN)1365-2702 .

    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.