Can we routinely measure patient involvement in treatment decision-making in chronic kidney care? A service evaluation in 27 renal units in the UK

Decision-Making Engagement Preferences among Older Adults with CKD

Key Points

Clinicians’ uncertainty about the degree to which older patients prefer to engage in decision making remains a key barrier to shared decision making. Most older adults with advanced CKD preferred a collaborative or active role in decision making.

Background

Older adults with kidney failure face preference-sensitive decisions regarding dialysis initiation. Despite recommendations, few older patients with kidney failure experience shared decision making. Clinician uncertainty about the degree to which older patients prefer to engage in decision making remains a key barrier.

Methods

This study follows a mixed-methods explanatory, longitudinal, sequential design at four diverse US centers with patients (English-fluent, aged ≥70 years, CKD stages 4–5, nondialysis) from 2018 to 2020. Patient preferences for engagement in decision making were assessed using the Control Preferences Scale, reflecting the degree to which patients want to be involved in their decision making: active (the patient prefers to make the final decision), collaborative (the patient wants to share decision making with the clinician), or passive (the patient wants the clinician to make the final decision) roles. Semistructured interviews about engagement and decision making were conducted in two waves (2019, 2020) with purposively sampled patients and clinicians. Descriptive statistics and ANOVA were used for quantitative analyses; thematic and narrative analyses were used for qualitative data.

Results

Among 363 patient participants, mean age was 78±6 years, 42% were female, and 21% had a high school education or less. Control Preferences Scale responses reflected that patients preferred to engage actively (48%) or collaboratively (43%) versus passively (8%). Preferred roles remained stable at 3-month follow-up. Seventy-six participants completed interviews (45 patients, 31 clinicians). Four themes emerged: control preference roles reflect levels of decisional engagement; clinicians control information flow, especially about prognosis; adapting a clinical approach to patient preferred roles; and clinicians' responsiveness to patient preferred roles supports patients' satisfaction with shared decision making.

Conclusions

Most older adults with advanced CKD preferred a collaborative or active role in decision making. Appropriately matched information flow with patient preferences was critical for satisfaction with shared decision making.

Clinical Trial registry name and registration number:

Decision Aid for Renal Therapy (DART), NCT03522740 .

Real-time monitoring and feedback to improve shared decision-making for surgery (the ALPACA Study): protocol for a mixed-methods study to inform co-development of an inclusive intervention

INTRODUCTION

High-quality shared decision-making (SDM) is a priority of health services, but only achieved in a minority of surgical consultations. Improving SDM for surgical patients may lead to more effective care and moderate the impact of treatment consequences. There is a need to establish effective ways to achieve sustained and large-scale improvements in SDM for all patients whatever their background. The ALPACA Study aims to develop, pilot and evaluate a decision support intervention that uses real-time feedback of patients' experience of SDM to change patients' and healthcare professionals' decision-making processes before adult elective surgery and to improve patient and health service outcomes.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

This protocol outlines a mixed-methods study, involving diverse stakeholders (adult patients, healthcare professionals, members of the community) and three National Health Service (NHS) trusts in England. Detailed methods for the assessment of the feasibility, usability and stakeholder views of implementing a novel system to monitor the SDM process for surgery automatically and in real time are described. The study will measure the SDM process using validated instruments (CollaboRATE, SDM-Q-9, SHARED-Q10) and will conduct semi-structured interviews and focus groups to examine (1) the feasibility of automated data collection, (2) the usability of the novel system and (3) the views of diverse stakeholders to inform the use of the system to improve SDM. Future phases of this work will complete the development and evaluation of the intervention.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

Ethical approval was granted by the NHS Health Research Authority North West-Liverpool Central Research Ethics Committee (reference: 21/PR/0345). Approval was also granted by North Bristol NHS Trust to undertake quality improvement work (reference: Q80008) overseen by the Consent and SDM Programme Board and reporting to an Executive Assurance Committee.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

ISRCTN17951423; Pre-results.

Decision aids to assist patients and professionals in choosing the right treatment for kidney failure

Background

Kidney services vary in the way they involve people with kidney failure (PwKF) in treatment decisions as management needs change. We discuss how decision-science applications support proactively PwKF to make informed decisions between treatment options with kidney professionals.

Methods

A conceptual review of findings about decision making and use of decision aids in kidney services, synthesized with reference to: the Making Informed Decisions-Individually and Together (MIND-IT) multiple stakeholder decision makers framework; and the Medical Research Council-Complex Intervention Development and Evaluation research framework.

Results

This schema represents the different types of decision aids that support PwKF and professional reasoning as they manage kidney disease individually and together; adjustments at micro, meso and macro levels supports integration in practice.

Conclusion

Innovating services to meet clinical guidelines on enhancing shared decision making processes means enabling all stakeholders to use decision aids to meet their goals within kidney pathways at individual, service and organizational levels.

Shared decision making: a personal view from two kidney doctors and a patient

Shared decision making (SDM) combines the clinician's expertise in the treatment of disease with the patient's expertise in their lived experience and what is important to them. All decisions made in the care of patients with kidney disease can potentially be explored through SDM. Adoption of SDM in routine kidney care faces numerous institutional and practical barriers. Patients with chronic disease who have become accustomed to paternalistic care may need support to engage in SDM-even though most patients actively want more involvement in decisions about their care. Nephrologists often underestimate the risks and overestimate the benefits of investigations and treatments and often default to recommending burdensome treatments rather than discussing prognosis openly. Guideline bodies continue to issue recommendations written for healthcare professionals without providing patient decision aids. To mitigate health inequalities, care needs to be taken to provide SDM to all patients, not just the highly health-literate patients least likely to need additional support in decision making. Kidney doctors spend much of their time in the consulting room, and it is unjustifiable that so little attention is paid to the teaching, audit and maintenance of consultation skills. Writing letters to the patient to summarise the consultation rather than sending them a copy of a letter between health professionals sets the tone for a consultation in which the patient is an active partner. Adoption of SDM will require nephrologists to relinquish long-established paternalistic models of care and restructure care around the values and preferences of patients.

Measures used to assess interventions for increasing patient involvement in Danish healthcare setting: a rapid review

OBJECTIVE

To identify measures used within Denmark evaluating any type of intervention designed to facilitate patient involvement in healthcare.

DESIGN

Environmental scan employing rapid review methods.

DATA SOURCES

MEDLINE, PsycInfo and CINAHL were searched from 6-9 April 2021 from database inception up to the date of the search.

ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA

Quantitative, observational and mixed methods studies with empirical data on outcomes used to assess any type of intervention aiming to increase patient involvement with their healthcare. Language limitations were Danish and English.

DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS

Two independent reviewers extracted data from 10% of the included studies and, due to their agreement, the data from the rest were extracted by first author. Data were analysed with reference to existing categories of measuring person-centred care; findings were synthesised using narrative summaries. Adapted Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses 2020 guidelines were used to guide reporting.

RESULTS

Among 3767 records, 43 studies met the inclusion criteria, including 74 different measures used to evaluate interventions aimed at increasing patient involvement within healthcare in Danish hospital and community settings. Generic measures assessed: patient engagement (n=3); supporting self-management (n=8); supporting shared decision-making (n=9); patient satisfaction and experiences of care (n=11); health-related patient-reported outcome (n=20).

CONCLUSIONS

Across Denmark, complex interventions designed to improve patient involvement with healthcare vary in their goals and content. Some targeting healthcare professionals, some patient health literacy and some service infrastructure. A plethora of measures assess the impact of these interventions on patient, professional and service delivery outcomes. Few measures assessed patient involvement directly, and it is unclear which proxy measures capture indicators of perceived involvement. Lack of conceptual clarity between intervention goals, the components of change and measures makes it difficult to see what types of intervention can best support change in services to ensure patients are more effectively involved in their healthcare.

Haemodialysis patient's adherence to treatment: Relationships among nurse-patient-initiated participation and nurse's attitude towards patient participation

AIMS AND OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the relationship between nurse-patient-initiated participation, nurses' attitudes towards patient's participation, and patients' adherence to treatment. Specifically, to (1) explore nurse-patient participation during haemodialysis and quantify the information into measurable indices; (2) determine the haemodialysis patient's adherence to treatment; (3) describe nurses' attitudes towards patient participation; and (4) establish the relationships between nurse-patient-initiated participation, nurses' attitudes towards patient participation and patients' adherence to treatment.

BACKGROUND

To improve haemodialysis patients' health, it is crucial to identify nurses' and patients' factors facilitating adherence to treatment.

DESIGN

An exploratory-sequential mixed-methods (quantitative and qualitative) design.

METHODS

All nurses working at a dialysis ward (n = 30) and their randomly selected patients (n = 102) participated. Qualitative data on nurse-patient-initiated participation were derived from transcribed nurse-patient conversations and quantified for further analyses. Nurses' attitudes towards patient participation were collected via questionnaire, and adherence to treatment via observed reduction in prescribed haemodialysis time. [CONSORT-SPI guidelines].

RESULTS

Content analysis of the conversations indicated that nurse-initiated participation focused on patient's medical condition, treatment plan and education; while patients initiated more small talk. Non-adherence to treatment was significant (Mean = 0.19 h; SD = 0.33). Regression analyses indicated that nurses' attitude towards participation was negatively linked to patient adherence, while patient-nurse-initiated participation was unrelated. Nurses' attitudes towards patient participation moderated the relationship between nurse-patient-initiated participation and patient adherence: the more positive the attitude towards inclusion the more negative the link between patient or nurse-initiated participation and patient adherence.

CONCLUSIONS

The findings provided paradoxical insights: Nurses' positive attitudes towards participation lead them to accept the patient's position for shortening haemodialysis treatment, so that adherence to care decreases.

RELEVANCE TO CLINICAL PRACTICE

Nurses require education on negotiating methods to help achieve patient adherence while respecting the patient's opinion. Patients should be educated how to approach nurses, seeking the information they need.

Patient-reported factors influencing the choice of their kidney replacement treatment modality

Background

Access to various kidney replacement therapy (KRT) modalities for patients with end-stage kidney disease differs substantially within Europe.

Methods

European adults on KRT filled out an online or paper-based survey about factors influencing and experiences with modality choice (e.g. information provision, decision-making and reasons for choice) between November 2017 and January 2019. We compared countries with low, middle and high gross domestic product (GDP).

Results

In total, 7820 patients [mean age 59 years, 56% male, 63% on centre haemodialysis (CHD)] from 38 countries participated. Twenty-five percent had received no information on the different modalities, and only 23% received information >12 months before KRT initiation. Patients were not informed about home haemodialysis (HHD) (42%) and comprehensive conservative management (33%). Besides nephrologists, nurses more frequently provided information in high-GDP countries, whereas physicians other than nephrologists did so in low-GDP countries. Patients from low-GDP countries reported later information provision, less information about other modalities than CHD and lower satisfaction with information. The majority of modality decisions were made involving both patient and nephrologist. Patients reported subjective (e.g. quality of life and fears) and objective reasons (e.g. costs and availability of treatments) for modality choice. Patients had good experiences with all modalities, but experiences were better for HHD and kidney transplantation and in middle- and high-GDP countries.

Conclusion

Our results suggest European differences in patient-reported factors influencing KRT modality choice, possibly caused by disparities in availability of KRT modalities, different healthcare systems and varying patient preferences. Availability of home dialysis and kidney transplantation should be optimized.

Comparison of shared decision making in patients undergoing hemodialysis and peritoneal dialysis for choosing a dialysis modality

Background

Shared decision making (SDM) is recognized as the gold standard for patient-centered care. This study aimed to assess and compare the SDM among patients undergoing hemodialysis and peritoneal dialysis for choosing a dialysis modality.

Methods

This is a cross-sectional study that was performed on 300 dialysis patients (218 HD and 82 PD) referred to two Dialysis Centers. Data were collected using demographic information and a 9-item Shared Decision Making Questionnaire (SDM-Q-9). The data were analyzed using ANOVA and independent t-test by SPSS software.

Results

The mean SDM-Q-9 score in all samples (PD and HD) was 21.94 ± 15.08 (in a possible range of 0 to 45). Results of the independent t-test showed that the mean SDM-Q-9 score in PD patients (33.11 ± 10.08) was higher than HD patients (17.14 ± 74.24) (p < 0.001). The results showed a statistically significant difference in mean SDM-Q-9 score based on patients’ age, educational level, and income (p < 0.05).

Conclusion

Implementing shared decision making and providing information on RRT should be started in the early stage of CKD. The health care providers should involve patients with CKD and their families in dialysis-related decisions and it should be started in the early stage of CKD.

Choice of dialysis modality: patients' experiences and quality of decision after shared decision-making

BACKGROUND

Patients with kidney failure experience a complex decision on dialysis modality performed either at home or in hospital. The options have different levels of impact on their physical and psychological condition and social life. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the implementation of an intervention designed to achieve shared decision-making for dialysis choice. Specific objectives were: 1) to measure decision quality as indicated by patients' knowledge, readiness and achieved preferences; and 2) to determine if patients experienced shared decision-making.

METHOD

A mixed methods descriptive study was conducted using both questionnaires and semi-structured interviews. Eligible participants were adults with kidney failure considering dialysis modality. The intervention, based on the Three-Talk model, consisted of a patient decision aid and decision coaching meetings provided by trained dialysis coordinators. The intervention was delivered to 349 patients as part of their clinical pathway of care. After the intervention, 148 participants completed the Shared Decision-Making Questionnaire and the Decision Quality Measurement, and 29 participants were interviewed. Concordance between knowledge, decision and preference was calculated to measure decision quality. Interview transcripts were analysed qualitatively.

RESULTS

The participants obtained a mean score for shared decision-making of 86 out of 100. There was no significant difference between those choosing home- or hospital-based treatment (97 versus 83; p = 0.627). The participants obtained a knowledge score of 82% and a readiness score of 86%. Those choosing home-based treatment had higher knowledge score than those choosing hospital-based treatment (84% versus 75%; p = 0.006) but no significant difference on the readiness score (87% versus 84%; p = 0.908). Considering the chosen option and the knowledge score, 83% of the participants achieved a high-quality decision. No significant difference was found for decision quality between those choosing home- or hospital-based treatment (83% versus 83%; p = 0.935). Interview data informed the interpretation of these results.

CONCLUSIONS

Although there was no control group, over 80% of participants exposed to the intervention and responded to the surveys experienced shared decision-making and reached a high-quality decision. Both participants who chose home- and hospital-based treatment experienced the intervention as shared decision-making and made a high-quality decision. Qualitative findings supported the quantitative results.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

The full trial protocol is available at ClinicalTrials. Gov ( NCT03868800 ). The study has been registered retrospectively.

Patients' confidence in treatment decisions for early stage non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC)

Background

In early-stage Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer (NSCLC) patients, little is known about how to measure patient participation in Shared-Decision Making (SDM). We examined the psychometric properties and clinical acceptability of the Decision Self-Efficacy scale (DSE) in a cohort of patients undergoing to Stereotactic Ablative Radiotherapy (SABR) or Video-assisted Thoracoscopic Surgery (VATS) to capture patient involvement in treatment decisions.

Methods

In the context of a prospective longitudinal study (Life after Lung Cancer-LiLAC) involving 244 patients with early-stage NSCLC, 158 (64.7%) patients completed the DSE either on paper or electronically online prior to treatment with SABR or VATS pulmonary resection. DSE psychometric properties were examined using: principal components analysis of item properties and internal structure, and internal construct validity; we also performed a sensitivity analysis according to Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group Performance Status (ECOG PS), gender, age and treatment received (VATS or SABR) difference.

Results

Exploratory factor analysis using polychoric correlations substantiated that the 11 item DSE is one scale accounting for 81% of the variance. We calculated a value of 0.96 for Cronbach’s alpha for the total DSE score.

DSE scores did not differ by gender (p = 0.37), between the two treatment groups (p = 0.09) and between younger and older patients (p = 0.4). However, patients with an ECOG PS > 1 have a DSE mean of 73.8 (SD 26) compared to patients with a PS 0–1 who have a DSE mean of 85.8 (SD 20.3 p = 0.002).

Conclusion

Findings provide preliminary evidence for the reliability and validity of the DSE questionnaire in this population. However, future studies are warranted to identify the most appropriate SDM tool for clinical practice in the lung cancer treatment field.

Deprivation and kidney disease-a predictor of poor outcomes

There is a growing body of evidence for the role of deprivation in a broad spectrum of diseases including renal disease. Deprivation has been demonstrated to be associated with poorer outcomes across a range of renal diseases including acute kidney injury (AKI), chronic kidney disease and transplantation. In this issue of Clinical Kidney Journal, Hounkpatin et al. describe the association of socioeconomic deprivation with incidence, mortality and resolution of AKI in a large UK cohort. Investigating deprivation as a factor influencing either incidence or outcome of disease is challenging due to variations in measures of deprivation used and other confounding factors that may be contributing to the observed differences. In this editorial, we review the current literature examining the role of deprivation in renal disease.

Evaluation of a shared decision-making intervention for dialysis choice at four Danish hospitals: a qualitative study of patient perspective

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the 'Shared Decision-making and Dialysis Choice' (SDM-DC) intervention with regard to patients' experience and involvement.

DESIGN

Semistructured individual interviews and systematic text condensation for data analysis.

SETTING

The SDM-DC intervention was implemented and evaluated at four different hospitals in Denmark.

PARTICIPANTS

A total of 348 patients had received the SDM-DC intervention, and of these 29 patients were interviewed.

INTERVENTIONS

SDM-DC was designed for patients facing a choice of dialysis modality. The available modalities were haemodialysis and peritoneal dialysis, either performed by patients on their own or with help from a healthcare professional. The intervention was tailored to individual patients and consisted of three meetings with a dialysis coordinator who introduced a patient decision aid named 'Dialysis Choice' to the patient.

FINDINGS

The following were the four main findings: the decision was experienced as being the patient's own; the meetings contributed to the decision process; 'Dialysis Choice' contributed to the decision process; and the decision process was experienced as being iterative.

CONCLUSIONS

The patients experienced SDM-DC as involving them in their choice of dialysis modality. Due to the iterative properties of the decision-making process, a shared decision-making intervention for dialysis choice has to be adapted to the needs of individual patients. The active mechanisms of the meetings with the dialysis coordinator were (1) questions to and from the patient, and (2) the dialysis coordinator providing accurate information about the options. The overview of options and the value clarification tool in the decision aid were particularly helpful in establishing a decision-making process based on informed preferences.

Ability of observer and self-report measures to capture shared decision-making in clinical practice in the UK: a mixed-methods study

OBJECTIVES

To examine how observer and self-report measures of shared decision-making (SDM) evaluate the decision-making activities that patients and clinicians undertake in routine consultations.

DESIGN

Multi-method study using observational and self-reported measures of SDM and qualitative analysis.

SETTING

Breast care and predialysis teams who had already implemented SDM.

PARTICIPANTS

Breast care consultants, clinical nurse specialists and patients who were making decisions about treatment for early-stage breast cancer. Predialysis clinical nurse specialists and patients who needed to make dialysis treatment decisions.

METHODS

Consultations were audio recorded, transcribed and thematically analysed. SDM was measured using Observer OPTION-5 and a dyadic SureScore self-reported measure.

RESULTS

Twenty-two breast and 21 renal consultations were analysed. SureScore indicated that clinicians and patients felt SDM was occurring, but scores showed ceiling effects for most participants, making differentiation difficult. There was mismatch between SureScore and OPTION-5 score data, the latter showing that each consultation lacked at least some elements of SDM. Highest scoring items using OPTION-5 were 'incorporating patient preferences into decisions' for the breast team (mean 18.5, range 12.5-20, SD 2.39) and 'eliciting patient preferences to options' for the renal team (mean 16.15, range 10-20, SD 3.48). Thematic analysis identified that the SDM encounter is difficult to measure because decision-making is often distributed across encounters and time, with multiple people, it is contextually adapted and can involve multiple decisions.

CONCLUSIONS

Self-reported measures can broadly indicate satisfaction with SDM, but do not tell us about the quality of the interaction and are unlikely to capture the multi-staged nature of the SDM process. Observational measures provide an indication of the extent to which elements of SDM are present in the observed consultation, but cannot explain why some elements might not be present or scored lower. Findings are important when considering measuring SDM in practice.

Socio-economic differences in patient participation behaviours in doctor-patient interactions-A systematic mapping review of the literature

Background

The degree to which patients participate in their care can have a positive impact on health outcomes. This review aimed to map the current literature on patient participation behaviours in interactions with physicians and the extent to which differences in these behaviours can be explained by socio‐economic status (SES).

Search strategy

Four electronic databases were searched from 1980 onwards using key words related to socio‐economic status and patient participation behaviours.

Study selection

Titles, abstracts and full texts were screened by two reviewers, with the second reviewer screening 20% of all entries.

Data extraction

Data on year of publication, country, patient population, setting, patient participation behaviour studied, and SES measure used were extracted.

Main results

Forty‐nine studies were included in the review. Most studies were conducted in the United States, and the most commonly studied patient participation behaviour was involvement in decision making. Most studies measured SES using education as an indicator, with very few studies using occupation as a measure. Many studies did not report on participants’ medical condition or study setting. Patient participation in their health‐care appointment increased with increasing SES in 24 studies, although in 27 studies no significant association was found.

Discussion and conclusions

Current literature was found to be mainly US‐centric. Many studies did not specify participants’ medical condition or in what setting the study was undertaken. More studies are needed on less commonly studied patient participation behaviours. It would be helpful for further studies to also include a wider range of SES indicators.

Perceptions about the dialysis modality decision process among peritoneal dialysis and in-center hemodialysis patients

BACKGROUND

Patients reaching end-stage renal disease must make a difficult decision regarding renal replacement therapy (RRT) options. Because the choice between dialysis modalities should include patient preferences, it is critical that patients are engaged in the dialysis modality decision. As part of the Empowering Patients on Choices for RRT (EPOCH-RRT) study, we assessed dialysis patients' perceptions of their dialysis modality decision-making process and the impact of their chosen modality on their lives.

METHODS

A 39-question survey was developed in collaboration with a multi-stakeholder advisory panel to assess perceptions of patients on either peritoneal dialysis (PD) or in-center hemodialysis (HD). The survey was disseminated to participants in the large US cohorts of the Dialysis Outcomes and Practice Patterns Study (DOPPS) and the Peritoneal DOPPS (PDOPPS). Survey responses were compared between PD and in-center HD patients using descriptive statistics, adjusted logistic generalized estimating equation models, and linear mixed regression models.

RESULTS

Six hundred fourteen PD and 1346 in-center HD participants responded. Compared with in-center HD participants, PD participants more frequently reported that they were engaged in the decision-making process, were provided enough information, understood differences between dialysis modalities, and felt satisfied with their modality choice. PD participants also reported more frequently than in-center HD participants that partners or spouses (79% vs. 70%), physician assistants (80% vs. 66%), and nursing staff (78% vs. 60%) had at least some involvement in the dialysis modality decision. Over 35% of PD and in-center HD participants did not know another dialysis patient at the time of their modality decision and over 60% did not know the disadvantages of their modality type. Participants using either dialysis modality perceived a moderate to high impact of dialysis on their lives.

CONCLUSIONS

PD participants were more engaged in the modality decision process compared to in-center HD participants. For both modalities, there is room for improvement in patient education and other support for patients choosing a dialysis modality.

Developing and pilot testing a shared decision-making intervention for dialysis choice

BACKGROUND

Evidence is inconclusive on how best to guide the patient in decision-making around haemodialysis and peritoneal dialysis choice. International guidelines recommend involvement of the patient in the decision to choose the dialysis modality most suitable for the individual patient. Nevertheless, studies have shown lack of involvement of the patient in decision-making.

OBJECTIVES

To develop and pilot test an intervention for shared decision-making targeting the choice of dialysis modality.

METHODS

This study reflects the first two phases of a complex intervention design: phase 1, the development process and phase 2, feasibility and piloting. Because decision aids were a part of the intervention, the International Patient Decision Aid Standards were considered. The pilot test included both the intervention and the feasibility of the validated shared decision-making questionnaire (SDM Q9) and the Decision Quality Measure (DQM) applied to evaluate the intervention.

RESULTS

A total of 137 patients tested the intervention. After the intervention, 80% of the patients chose dialysis at home reflecting an increase of 23% in starting dialysis at home prior to the study. The SDM Q9 showed the majority of the patients experienced this intervention as shared decision-making.

CONCLUSION

An intervention based on shared decision-making supported by decision aids seemed to increase the number of patients choosing home dialysis. The SDM Q9 and DQM were feasible evaluation tools. Further research is needed to gain insight into the patients' experiences of involvement and the implications for their choice of dialysis modality.