老年晚期CKD患者及其护理人员姑息治疗干预的可行性和可接受性。

IF 3.2 Q1 UROLOGY & NEPHROLOGY
Kidney360 Pub Date : 2025-02-01 Epub Date: 2024-10-24 DOI:10.34067/KID.0000000622
Fahad Saeed, Robert K Horowitz, Rebecca J Allen, Peggy Auinger, Ronald M Epstein, Kevin A Fiscella, Peter J Veazie, Paul R Duberstein
{"title":"老年晚期CKD患者及其护理人员姑息治疗干预的可行性和可接受性。","authors":"Fahad Saeed, Robert K Horowitz, Rebecca J Allen, Peggy Auinger, Ronald M Epstein, Kevin A Fiscella, Peter J Veazie, Paul R Duberstein","doi":"10.34067/KID.0000000622","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>In non-nephrology settings, specialty palliative care (PC) improves decision making, patient's quality of life (QoL), advance care planning, and certain indicators of the quality of end-of-life (EoL) care. This pilot randomized control trial (RCT) explored the feasibility and acceptability of a PC intervention, CKD-EDU, for adults aged 75 years and older with eGFR ≤25 ml/min and their caregivers.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Participants randomized to the control group received standard nephrology care and routine kidney therapy education, whereas those randomized to CKD-EDU received a decision aid and met with a PC clinician up to three times to discuss kidney therapy decisions and EoL planning. Patients were assessed at baseline, 4–6, 12–14, and 24–26 weeks. Main outcomes included intervention feasibility and acceptability, decision conflict, and patient QoL. The mediating effects of reduced decision conflict on improved QoL were explored, as were the effects of CKD-EDU on advance care planning, EoL treatment intensity, and 6-month hospitalization. Statistical analyses encompassed descriptive analyses, adjusted repeated-measure models, mediation analyses, and logistic regression models.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Among the 127 eligible patients screened, 58 (46%) consented: 30 were randomized to CKD-EDU and 28 to the control arm. All patients completed baseline assessments and 89% completed at least 1 intervention session (n=26/29), underscoring intervention adherence and feasibility. Similarly, assessment completion rates at 4 (83%, n=45/54), 12 (93%, n=42/45), and 24 (95%, n=40/42) weeks were high. The intervention received over 85% acceptability ratings for all questions. Patients exposed to CKD-EDU exhibited significant improvement in Decisional Conflict Scale scores (P = 0.003) at 4–6 weeks and improvements in QoL at 24–26 weeks (P = 0.02). Exploratory analyses were not statistically significant in this pilot study, but all effect sizes were in the predicted direction.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>This study demonstrates the feasibility and acceptability of CKD-EDU. A larger scale trial is warranted to assess its effectiveness in improving key outcomes important to patients and families.</p>","PeriodicalId":17882,"journal":{"name":"Kidney360","volume":"6 2","pages":"236-246"},"PeriodicalIF":3.2000,"publicationDate":"2025-02-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11882250/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Feasibility and Acceptability of a Palliative Care Intervention among Older Adults with Advanced CKD and Their Caregivers.\",\"authors\":\"Fahad Saeed, Robert K Horowitz, Rebecca J Allen, Peggy Auinger, Ronald M Epstein, Kevin A Fiscella, Peter J Veazie, Paul R Duberstein\",\"doi\":\"10.34067/KID.0000000622\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>In non-nephrology settings, specialty palliative care (PC) improves decision making, patient's quality of life (QoL), advance care planning, and certain indicators of the quality of end-of-life (EoL) care. This pilot randomized control trial (RCT) explored the feasibility and acceptability of a PC intervention, CKD-EDU, for adults aged 75 years and older with eGFR ≤25 ml/min and their caregivers.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Participants randomized to the control group received standard nephrology care and routine kidney therapy education, whereas those randomized to CKD-EDU received a decision aid and met with a PC clinician up to three times to discuss kidney therapy decisions and EoL planning. Patients were assessed at baseline, 4–6, 12–14, and 24–26 weeks. Main outcomes included intervention feasibility and acceptability, decision conflict, and patient QoL. The mediating effects of reduced decision conflict on improved QoL were explored, as were the effects of CKD-EDU on advance care planning, EoL treatment intensity, and 6-month hospitalization. Statistical analyses encompassed descriptive analyses, adjusted repeated-measure models, mediation analyses, and logistic regression models.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Among the 127 eligible patients screened, 58 (46%) consented: 30 were randomized to CKD-EDU and 28 to the control arm. All patients completed baseline assessments and 89% completed at least 1 intervention session (n=26/29), underscoring intervention adherence and feasibility. Similarly, assessment completion rates at 4 (83%, n=45/54), 12 (93%, n=42/45), and 24 (95%, n=40/42) weeks were high. The intervention received over 85% acceptability ratings for all questions. Patients exposed to CKD-EDU exhibited significant improvement in Decisional Conflict Scale scores (P = 0.003) at 4–6 weeks and improvements in QoL at 24–26 weeks (P = 0.02). Exploratory analyses were not statistically significant in this pilot study, but all effect sizes were in the predicted direction.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>This study demonstrates the feasibility and acceptability of CKD-EDU. A larger scale trial is warranted to assess its effectiveness in improving key outcomes important to patients and families.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":17882,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Kidney360\",\"volume\":\"6 2\",\"pages\":\"236-246\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":3.2000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-02-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11882250/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Kidney360\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.34067/KID.0000000622\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2024/10/24 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"Epub\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"UROLOGY & NEPHROLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Kidney360","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.34067/KID.0000000622","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/10/24 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"UROLOGY & NEPHROLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

背景:在非肾脏病设置,专业姑息治疗(PC)改善决策,患者的生活质量(QoL),提前护理计划,以及生命末期(EoL)护理质量的某些指标。这项随机对照试验(RCT)探讨了75岁及以上eGFR≤25ml /min的成人及其护理人员进行PC干预的可行性和可接受性。方法:随机分配到对照组的参与者接受标准的肾脏学护理和常规的肾脏治疗教育,而随机分配到CKD-EDU组的参与者接受决策辅助,并与PC临床医生会面最多三次,讨论肾脏治疗决策和EoL计划。在基线、4-6周、12-14周和24-26周对患者进行评估。主要观察指标包括干预的可行性和可接受性、决策冲突和患者生活质量。探讨决策冲突减少对改善生活质量的中介作用,以及CKD-EDU对预先护理计划、生活质量治疗强度和6个月住院的影响。统计分析包括描述性分析、调整重复测量模型、中介分析和逻辑回归模型。结果:在筛选的127例符合条件的患者中,58例(46%)同意:30例随机分配到CKD-EDU组,28例随机分配到对照组。所有患者均完成了基线评估,89%完成了至少1次干预(n=26/29),强调了干预的依从性和可行性。同样,第4周(83%,n=45/54)、第12周(93%,n=42/45)和第24周(95%,n=40/42)的评估完成率也很高。所有问题的可接受度都超过85%。暴露于CKD-EDU的患者在4-6周时的决策冲突量表评分(P = 0.003)和24-26周时的生活质量(P = 0.02)均有显著改善。本初步研究的探索性分析无统计学意义,但所有效应量均符合预测方向。结论:本研究证明了CKD-EDU的可行性和可接受性。有必要进行更大规模的试验,以评估其在改善对患者和家庭重要的关键结果方面的有效性。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Feasibility and Acceptability of a Palliative Care Intervention among Older Adults with Advanced CKD and Their Caregivers.

Background: In non-nephrology settings, specialty palliative care (PC) improves decision making, patient's quality of life (QoL), advance care planning, and certain indicators of the quality of end-of-life (EoL) care. This pilot randomized control trial (RCT) explored the feasibility and acceptability of a PC intervention, CKD-EDU, for adults aged 75 years and older with eGFR ≤25 ml/min and their caregivers.

Methods: Participants randomized to the control group received standard nephrology care and routine kidney therapy education, whereas those randomized to CKD-EDU received a decision aid and met with a PC clinician up to three times to discuss kidney therapy decisions and EoL planning. Patients were assessed at baseline, 4–6, 12–14, and 24–26 weeks. Main outcomes included intervention feasibility and acceptability, decision conflict, and patient QoL. The mediating effects of reduced decision conflict on improved QoL were explored, as were the effects of CKD-EDU on advance care planning, EoL treatment intensity, and 6-month hospitalization. Statistical analyses encompassed descriptive analyses, adjusted repeated-measure models, mediation analyses, and logistic regression models.

Results: Among the 127 eligible patients screened, 58 (46%) consented: 30 were randomized to CKD-EDU and 28 to the control arm. All patients completed baseline assessments and 89% completed at least 1 intervention session (n=26/29), underscoring intervention adherence and feasibility. Similarly, assessment completion rates at 4 (83%, n=45/54), 12 (93%, n=42/45), and 24 (95%, n=40/42) weeks were high. The intervention received over 85% acceptability ratings for all questions. Patients exposed to CKD-EDU exhibited significant improvement in Decisional Conflict Scale scores (P = 0.003) at 4–6 weeks and improvements in QoL at 24–26 weeks (P = 0.02). Exploratory analyses were not statistically significant in this pilot study, but all effect sizes were in the predicted direction.

Conclusions: This study demonstrates the feasibility and acceptability of CKD-EDU. A larger scale trial is warranted to assess its effectiveness in improving key outcomes important to patients and families.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Kidney360
Kidney360 UROLOGY & NEPHROLOGY-
CiteScore
3.90
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
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