CKD Knowledge and CKD Report Card Use During a Nephrology Encounter: A Randomized Trial

IF 3.2 Q1 UROLOGY & NEPHROLOGY
Jillian Bowman , Christina Zhou , Lindsay Zasadzinski , Mengqi Zhu , Milda R. Saunders
{"title":"CKD Knowledge and CKD Report Card Use During a Nephrology Encounter: A Randomized Trial","authors":"Jillian Bowman ,&nbsp;Christina Zhou ,&nbsp;Lindsay Zasadzinski ,&nbsp;Mengqi Zhu ,&nbsp;Milda R. Saunders","doi":"10.1016/j.xkme.2025.100991","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Rationale &amp; Objective</h3><div>Higher chronic kidney disease (CKD) knowledge and health literacy (HL) are associated with improved CKD outcomes. We sought to determine if the CKD Report Card intervention increased CKD knowledge in patients regardless of HL level.</div></div><div><h3>Study Design</h3><div>A block-randomized trial by clinic session.</div></div><div><h3>Setting &amp; Participants</h3><div>Patients with CKD 3 or above in an urban academic nephrology clinic.</div></div><div><h3>Intervention</h3><div>The intervention group received the CKD Report Card, a 2-sided information sheet, before the clinic visit.</div></div><div><h3>Outcomes</h3><div>Kidney Knowledge Survey pre–post-visit score change.</div></div><div><h3>Results</h3><div>Of 91 participants, the average age was 66.2 years, 64.8% identified as African American, 41.8% were male, and 11.0% had inadequate HL. The control group’s (n<!--> <!-->=<!--> <!-->53) mean pre-visit knowledge score was 55.8% with a post–pre-score change of 0.9 (95% confidence intervals [CI], −1.3 to 3.2). The intervention group’s (n<!--> <!-->=<!--> <!-->38) mean pre-visit score was 60.2% with a score change of 19.2 (95% CI, 15.2-23.3). The difference in score change between the control group and intervention group was<!--> <!-->−18.4 (95% CI, −22.6 to<!--> <!-->−14.1). In addition, there was no significant difference in knowledge gained by adequate and inadequate HL for the control group (<em>P</em> <!-->=<!--> <!-->0.6) or the intervention group (<em>P</em> <!-->=<!--> <!-->0.6). In the fully adjusted multivariable model, the HL ×<!--> <!-->group interaction term was not significant (β = −6.1; <em>P</em> <!-->=<!--> <!-->0.4). Pre-visit score (β = −0.2; <em>P</em> <!-->&lt;<!--> <!-->0.01) and intervention group (β<!--> <!-->=<!--> <!-->19.0; <em>P</em> <!-->&lt;<!--> <!-->0.001) were significant.</div></div><div><h3>Limitations</h3><div>Limited generalizability because the study took place at 1 academic medical center and there were only a small proportion of patients with inadequate HL.</div></div><div><h3>Conclusions</h3><div>The CKD Report Card is a low-touch, low-cost intervention that improved CKD knowledge for all patients in our urban nephrology clinic regardless of HL level.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":17885,"journal":{"name":"Kidney Medicine","volume":"7 5","pages":"Article 100991"},"PeriodicalIF":3.2000,"publicationDate":"2025-03-12","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Kidney Medicine","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2590059525000275","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"UROLOGY & NEPHROLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Rationale & Objective

Higher chronic kidney disease (CKD) knowledge and health literacy (HL) are associated with improved CKD outcomes. We sought to determine if the CKD Report Card intervention increased CKD knowledge in patients regardless of HL level.

Study Design

A block-randomized trial by clinic session.

Setting & Participants

Patients with CKD 3 or above in an urban academic nephrology clinic.

Intervention

The intervention group received the CKD Report Card, a 2-sided information sheet, before the clinic visit.

Outcomes

Kidney Knowledge Survey pre–post-visit score change.

Results

Of 91 participants, the average age was 66.2 years, 64.8% identified as African American, 41.8% were male, and 11.0% had inadequate HL. The control group’s (n = 53) mean pre-visit knowledge score was 55.8% with a post–pre-score change of 0.9 (95% confidence intervals [CI], −1.3 to 3.2). The intervention group’s (n = 38) mean pre-visit score was 60.2% with a score change of 19.2 (95% CI, 15.2-23.3). The difference in score change between the control group and intervention group was −18.4 (95% CI, −22.6 to −14.1). In addition, there was no significant difference in knowledge gained by adequate and inadequate HL for the control group (P = 0.6) or the intervention group (P = 0.6). In the fully adjusted multivariable model, the HL × group interaction term was not significant (β = −6.1; P = 0.4). Pre-visit score (β = −0.2; P < 0.01) and intervention group (β = 19.0; P < 0.001) were significant.

Limitations

Limited generalizability because the study took place at 1 academic medical center and there were only a small proportion of patients with inadequate HL.

Conclusions

The CKD Report Card is a low-touch, low-cost intervention that improved CKD knowledge for all patients in our urban nephrology clinic regardless of HL level.
肾病学就诊时CKD知识和CKD报告卡的使用:一项随机试验
基本原理及目的提高慢性肾脏疾病(CKD)知识和健康素养(HL)与改善CKD预后相关。我们试图确定CKD报告卡干预是否增加了患者对CKD的认识,而不考虑HL水平。研究设计:按临床时段分组随机试验。设置,参与者:在城市学术肾脏病诊所的CKD 3或以上患者。干预组在就诊前收到CKD报告卡,一张双面信息表。结果:肾知识调查访前、访后评分变化。结果91名参与者的平均年龄为66.2岁,64.8%为非洲裔美国人,41.8%为男性,11.0%患有HL不足。对照组(n = 53)的平均访前知识得分为55.8%,评分后的变化为0.9(95%置信区间[CI],−1.3至3.2)。干预组(n = 38)的平均访前评分为60.2%,评分变化为19.2 (95% CI, 15.2-23.3)。对照组与干预组的评分变化差异为−18.4 (95% CI,−22.6 ~−14.1)。此外,对照组(P = 0.6)和干预组(P = 0.6)在充分和不充分HL所获得的知识方面没有显著差异。在完全调整的多变量模型中,HL ×组相互作用项不显著(β =−6.1;p = 0.4)。访前评分(β =−0.2;P & lt;0.01)和干预组(β = 19.0;P & lt;0.001)显著。局限性:由于该研究仅在1个学术医疗中心进行,并且只有一小部分患者患有不适当的HL。结论CKD报告卡是一种低接触、低成本的干预措施,提高了我们城市肾脏病诊所所有患者的CKD知识,无论其HL水平如何。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Kidney Medicine
Kidney Medicine Medicine-Internal Medicine
CiteScore
4.80
自引率
5.10%
发文量
176
审稿时长
12 weeks
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信