Dataset Information

Decisional Regret Surrounding Dialysis Initiation: A Comparative Analysis.

ABSTRACT:

Rationale & objective

Dialysis comes with a substantial treatment burden, so patients must select care plans that align with their preferences. We aimed to deepen the understanding of decisional regret with dialysis choices.

Study design

This study had a mixed-methods explanatory sequential design.

Setting & participants

All patients from a single academic medical center prescribed maintenance in-center hemodialysis or presenting for home hemodialysis or peritoneal dialysis check-up during 3 weeks were approached for survey. A total of 78 patients agreed to participate. Patients with the highest (15 patients) and lowest decisional regret (20 patients) were invited to semistructured interviews.

Predictors

Decisional regret scale and illness intrusiveness scale were used in this study.

Analytical approach

Quantitatively, we examined correlations between the decision regret scale and illness intrusiveness scale and sorted patients into the highest and lowest decision regret scale quartiles for further interviews; then, we compared patient characteristics between those that consented to interview in high and low decisional regret. Qualitatively, we used an adapted grounded theory approach to examine differences between interviewed patients with high and low decisional regret.

Results

Of patients invited to participate in the interviews, 21 patients (8 high regret, 13 low regret) agreed. We observed that patients with high decisional regret displayed resignation toward dialysis, disruption of their sense of self and social roles, and self-blame, whereas patients with low decisional regret demonstrated positivity, integration of dialysis into their identity, and self-compassion.

Limitations

Patients with the highest levels of decisional regret may have already withdrawn from dialysis. Patients could complete interviews in any location (eg, home, dialysis unit, and clinical office), which may have influenced patient disclosure.

Conclusions

Although all patients experienced disruption after dialysis initiation, patients' approach to adversity differs between patients experiencing high versus low regret. This study identifies emotional responses to dialysis that may be modifiable through patient-support interventions.

SUBMITTER: Pawar AS

PROVIDER: S-EPMC10907211 | biostudies-literature | 2024 Mar

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Decisional Regret Surrounding Dialysis Initiation: A Comparative Analysis.

Pawar Aditya S AS Thorsteinsdottir Bjorg B Whitman Sam S Pine Katherine K Lee Alexander A Espinoza Suarez Nataly R NR Organick Lee Paige P Thota Anjali A Lorenz Elizabeth E Beck Annika A Albright Robert R Feely Molly M Williams Amy A Behnken Emma E Boehmer Kasey R KR

Kidney medicine 20231220 3

<h4>Rationale & objective</h4>Dialysis comes with a substantial treatment burden, so patients must select care plans that align with their preferences. We aimed to deepen the understanding of decisional regret with dialysis choices.<h4>Study design</h4>This study had a mixed-methods explanatory sequential design.<h4>Setting & participants</h4>All patients from a single academic medical center prescribed maintenance in-center hemodialysis or presenting for home hemodialysis or peritoneal dialysis ...[more]

PMID: 38435065

Similar Datasets

Project description:ImportanceHead and neck cancer (HNC) often requires treatment with a major impact on quality of life. Treatment decision-making is often challenging, as it involves balancing survival against the preservation of quality of life and choosing among treatments with comparable outcomes but variation in morbidity and adverse events; consequently, the potential for decisional conflict (DC) and decision regret (DR) is high.ObjectivesTo summarize the literature on DC and DR in HNC, to give an overview of its prevalence and extent, and to advise on clinical practice and future research.Data sourcesEmbase, Web of Science, MEDLINE, and PsycINFO were searched up to February 24, 2023, including all years of publication.Study selectionEligible studies addressed DC and/or DR as primary or secondary outcomes with any instrument in HNC, except cutaneous tumors. Two mutually blinded researchers conducted screening and inclusion with support of an artificial intelligence assistant and conducted risk of bias (ROB) assessment.Data extraction and synthesisThe Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analyses guidelines were followed for data extraction. ROB assessments were done using Critical Appraisal Skills Programme (qualitative) and CLARITY (quantitative). Meta-analysis with a random-effects model was used to obtain pooled prevalence estimates for DC and DR when at least 4 sufficiently clinically homogeneous studies were available.Main outcomes and measuresPrevalence of DC (qualitative, Decisional Conflict Scale, SURE questionnaire) and DR (qualitative, study-specific questionnaires, Decision Regret Scale, Shame and Stigma Scale).ResultsOverall, 28 studies were included, with 16 included in meta-analyses for DR prevalence. The pooled prevalence of clinically relevant DR above the cutoff score for validated questionnaires (11 studies; 2053 participants) was 71% (95% CI, 58%-82%; I2 = 94%), while for study-specific questionnaires (5 studies; 674 participants) it was 11% (95% CI, 5%-22%; I2 = 92%). Only 4 studies investigated DC, showing a prevalence of 22.6% to 47.5% above cutoff values. Derived overarching themes found in qualitative studies were preparation, shared decision-making roles, information, time pressure, stress of diagnosis, and consequences.Conclusions and relevanceAlthough limited data on DC and DR were available, the studies performed indicated that DC and DR are highly prevalent issues in HNC. Results suggest that study-specific questionnaires underestimated DR. The findings underscore the rationale to improve counseling and shared decision-making for this patient population.

Project description:ImportanceAlopecia areata (AA) is an autoimmune disorder of hair loss with a complex and evolving treatment landscape, making it an ideal setting for shared decision-making (SDM) between patients and physicians. Given the varying efficacy, experience, and risks of treatments for AA, we sought to evaluate patient preferences for SDM and the association of SDM with decisional regret.ObjectiveTo evaluate patient preferences for SDM and the association of SDM with decisional regret.Design, setting, and participantsA cross-sectional online survey using the validated SDMQ9 scale for shared decision-making and Decisional Regret Scale (DRS) was distributed using the National Alopecia Areata Foundation (NAAF) with the aim of assessing (1) patient preferences in SDM when making treatment decisions, (2) how patients perceived the last decision to have been made, (3) which components of SDM were incorporated into the last decision, and (4) decisional regret related to their last treatment decision. The survey was distributed from July 12, 2021, to August 2, 2021, and data analysis occurred from October 2021 to March 2022.Main outcomes and measuresPrimary outcomes included (1) patient preferences in incorporation of SDM, (2) how patients made their most recent treatment decision, (3) which components of SDM were incorporated into their most recent treatment decision measured with the validated SDMQ9, and (4) an assessment of decisional regret in relation to SDM components and the most recent treatment modality used by the patient as measured by the validated DRS.ResultsOf 1387 individuals who initiated the survey, 1074 completed it and were included in the analysis (77.4% completion rate). Overall, 917 respondents were women (85.4%). There were 5 American Indian or Alaska Native respondents (0.5%), 33 were Asian (3.1%), 112 Black or African American (10.4%), 836 White (77.8%), and 36 were multiracial (3.4%) or other (36 [3.4%]). The mean age (SD) was 49.3 (15.4) years. Most respondents preferred making the final treatment decision themselves after considering their physician's opinion (503 [46.8%]). Of those who preferred to make treatment decisions using SDM, most made the last AA treatment decision with their physician (596 [55%]; 95% CI, 53%-58%; P < .001). The components of SDM implemented by the patients' dermatologists most identified were the physician "explained the advantages and disadvantages of treatment options" (472 [44%]), and the physician "asked me which treatment option I prefer" (494 [45.9%]). Incorporation of SDM by physicians was generally associated with decreased decisional regret (all ORs with 95% CIs greater than 1.1; P < .01). The treatments associated with the lowest decisional regret were Janus kinase (JAK) inhibitors, followed by biologics, and deciding not to treat; whereas, the highest decisional regret was reported with anthralin and minoxidil.Conclusions and relevanceThe findings of this cross-sectional survey study suggest that patients with AA prefer to make treatment decisions with their dermatologist using SDM. When SDM is used, patients report less decisional regret, indicating that SDM may help improve the patient-reported quality of treatment decisions. Newer, more efficacious therapies such as JAK inhibitors may be related to lower decisional regret. Future studies should seek to devise solutions to implement SDM as the AA treatment landscape continues to evolve.

Project description:PurposeOlder women with nonmetastatic breast cancer can often choose from several surgery and radiation treatment options. Little is known regarding how these choices contribute to decisional regret, which is a negative emotion reflecting the idea that another surgery or radiation decision might have been preferable. We sought to characterize the burden of and examine potential risk factors for local therapy decisional regret among a population-based cohort of older breast cancer survivors.Methods and materialsNational Medicare claims for age ≥67 female breast cancer incident in 2009 identified patients treated with lumpectomy plus whole-breast irradiation, brachytherapy, or endocrine therapy or mastectomy with or without radiation. We sampled 330 patients per treatment group (N = 1650), of whom 1253 agreed to receive a paper survey including the Decisional Regret Scale and EQ-5D-3L Health-Utility Scale. Local therapy regret was defined as neutral or worse response to questions regarding surgery- or radiation-related decisional regret. Local therapy regret risk factors were evaluated using a multivariable generalized linear model. Association of local therapy regret with health utility was modeled using multivariable linear regression.ResultsThe response rate was 30.2% (n = 498 of 1650); 421 surveys were included in this analysis. Median diagnosis age was 72 years, and surveys were completed 6 years after diagnosis. Overall, 23.8% of respondents (n = 100) reported experiencing local therapy decisional regret. Type of local therapy was not associated with local therapy regret. Predictors of increased regret included black race (risk ratio [RR], 2.09; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.33-3.29), high school education or less (RR, 1.87; 95% CI, 1.27-2.75), and axillary nodal dissection (RR, 2.13; 95% CI, 1.33-3.41). Local therapy regret was not associated with health utility (P = .37).ConclusionsLocal therapy regret afflicts nearly one quarter of our cohort of older breast cancer survivors, and it is associated with black race, less education, and more extensive nodal dissection, but not breast surgery. Regret is distinct from health utility, suggesting that it is a unique psychosocial construct that merits further study and mitigation strategies.

Dataset Information

Decisional Regret Surrounding Dialysis Initiation: A Comparative Analysis.

Rationale & objective

Study design

Setting & participants

Predictors

Analytical approach

Results

Limitations

Conclusions

Publications

Decisional Regret Surrounding Dialysis Initiation: A Comparative Analysis.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets