Direct Delivery of Kidney Transplant Education to Black and Low-Income Patients Receiving Dialysis: A Randomized Controlled Trial

Neighborhood Segregation and Access to Live Donor Kidney Transplantation

Importance

Identifying the mechanisms of structural racism, such as racial and ethnic segregation, is a crucial first step in addressing the persistent disparities in access to live donor kidney transplantation (LDKT).

Objective

To assess whether segregation at the candidate's residential neighborhood and transplant center neighborhood is associated with access to LDKT.

Design, Setting, and Participants

In this cohort study spanning January 1995 to December 2021, participants included non-Hispanic Black or White adult candidates for first-time LDKT reported in the US national transplant registry. The median (IQR) follow-up time for each participant was 1.9 (0.6-3.0) years.

Main Outcome and Measures

Segregation, measured using the Theil H method to calculate segregation tertiles in zip code tabulation areas based on the American Community Survey 5-year estimates, reflects the heterogeneity in neighborhood racial and ethnic composition. To quantify the likelihood of LDKT by neighborhood segregation, cause-specific hazard models were adjusted for individual-level and neighborhood-level factors and included an interaction between segregation tertiles and race.

Results

Among 162 587 candidates for kidney transplant, the mean (SD) age was 51.6 (13.2) years, 65 141 (40.1%) were female, 80 023 (49.2%) were Black, and 82 564 (50.8%) were White. Among Black candidates, living in a high-segregation neighborhood was associated with 10% (adjusted hazard ratio [AHR], 0.90 [95% CI, 0.84-0.97]) lower access to LDKT relative to residence in low-segregation neighborhoods; no such association was observed among White candidates (P for interaction = .01). Both Black candidates (AHR, 0.94 [95% CI, 0.89-1.00]) and White candidates (AHR, 0.92 [95% CI, 0.88-0.97]) listed at transplant centers in high-segregation neighborhoods had lower access to LDKT relative to their counterparts listed at centers in low-segregation neighborhoods (P for interaction = .64). Within high-segregation transplant center neighborhoods, candidates listed at predominantly minority neighborhoods had 17% lower access to LDKT relative to candidates listed at predominantly White neighborhoods (AHR, 0.83 [95% CI, 0.75-0.92]). Black candidates residing in or listed at transplant centers in predominantly minority neighborhoods had significantly lower likelihood of LDKT relative to White candidates residing in or listed at transplant centers located in predominantly White neighborhoods (65% and 64%, respectively).

Conclusions

Segregated residential and transplant center neighborhoods likely serve as a mechanism of structural racism, contributing to persistent racial disparities in access to LDKT. To promote equitable access, studies should assess targeted interventions (eg, community outreach clinics) to improve support for potential candidates and donors and ultimately mitigate the effects of segregation.

Assessing knowledge of end-stage kidney disease and treatment options in hospitalized African American patients undergoing hemodialysis

OBJECTIVE

African Americans are more likely to develop end-stage kidney disease (ESKD) than whites and face multiple inequities regarding ESKD treatment, renal replacement therapy (RRT), and overall care. This study focused on determining gaps in participants' knowledge of their chronic kidney disease and barriers to RRT selection in an effort to identify how we can improve health care interventions and health outcomes among this population.

METHODS

African American participants undergoing hemodialysis were recruited from an ongoing research study of hospitalized patients at an urban Midwest academic medical center. Thirty-three patients were interviewed, and the transcribed interviews were entered into a software program. The qualitative data were coded using template analysis to analyze text and determine key themes. Medical records were used to obtain demographic and additional medical information.

RESULTS

Three major themes emerged from the analysis: patients have limited information on ESKD causes and treatments, patients did not feel they played an active role in selecting their initial dialysis unit, and interpersonal interactions with the dialysis staff play a large role in overall unit satisfaction.

DISCUSSION

Although more research is needed, this study provides information and suggestions to improve future interventions and care quality, specifically for this population.

Decision aids for people facing health treatment or screening decisions

BACKGROUND

Patient decision aids are interventions designed to support people making health decisions. At a minimum, patient decision aids make the decision explicit, provide evidence-based information about the options and associated benefits/harms, and help clarify personal values for features of options. This is an update of a Cochrane review that was first published in 2003 and last updated in 2017.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects of patient decision aids in adults considering treatment or screening decisions using an integrated knowledge translation approach.

SEARCH METHODS

We conducted the updated search for the period of 2015 (last search date) to March 2022 in CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO, EBSCO, and grey literature. The cumulative search covers database origins to March 2022.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included published randomized controlled trials comparing patient decision aids to usual care. Usual care was defined as general information, risk assessment, clinical practice guideline summaries for health consumers, placebo intervention (e.g. information on another topic), or no intervention.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two authors independently screened citations for inclusion, extracted intervention and outcome data, and assessed risk of bias using the Cochrane risk of bias tool. Primary outcomes, based on the International Patient Decision Aid Standards (IPDAS), were attributes related to the choice made (informed values-based choice congruence) and the decision-making process, such as knowledge, accurate risk perceptions, feeling informed, clear values, participation in decision-making, and adverse events. Secondary outcomes were choice, confidence in decision-making, adherence to the chosen option, preference-linked health outcomes, and impact on the healthcare system (e.g. consultation length). We pooled results using mean differences (MDs) and risk ratios (RRs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs), applying a random-effects model. We conducted a subgroup analysis of 105 studies that were included in the previous review version compared to those published since that update (n = 104 studies). We used Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) to assess the certainty of the evidence.

MAIN RESULTS

This update added 104 new studies for a total of 209 studies involving 107,698 participants. The patient decision aids focused on 71 different decisions. The most common decisions were about cardiovascular treatments (n = 22 studies), cancer screening (n = 17 studies colorectal, 15 prostate, 12 breast), cancer treatments (e.g. 15 breast, 11 prostate), mental health treatments (n = 10 studies), and joint replacement surgery (n = 9 studies). When assessing risk of bias in the included studies, we rated two items as mostly unclear (selective reporting: 100 studies; blinding of participants/personnel: 161 studies), due to inadequate reporting. Of the 209 included studies, 34 had at least one item rated as high risk of bias. There was moderate-certainty evidence that patient decision aids probably increase the congruence between informed values and care choices compared to usual care (RR 1.75, 95% CI 1.44 to 2.13; 21 studies, 9377 participants). Regarding attributes related to the decision-making process and compared to usual care, there was high-certainty evidence that patient decision aids result in improved participants' knowledge (MD 11.90/100, 95% CI 10.60 to 13.19; 107 studies, 25,492 participants), accuracy of risk perceptions (RR 1.94, 95% CI 1.61 to 2.34; 25 studies, 7796 participants), and decreased decisional conflict related to feeling uninformed (MD -10.02, 95% CI -12.31 to -7.74; 58 studies, 12,104 participants), indecision about personal values (MD -7.86, 95% CI -9.69 to -6.02; 55 studies, 11,880 participants), and proportion of people who were passive in decision-making (clinician-controlled) (RR 0.72, 95% CI 0.59 to 0.88; 21 studies, 4348 participants). For adverse outcomes, there was high-certainty evidence that there was no difference in decision regret between the patient decision aid and usual care groups (MD -1.23, 95% CI -3.05 to 0.59; 22 studies, 3707 participants). Of note, there was no difference in the length of consultation when patient decision aids were used in preparation for the consultation (MD -2.97 minutes, 95% CI -7.84 to 1.90; 5 studies, 420 participants). When patient decision aids were used during the consultation with the clinician, the length of consultation was 1.5 minutes longer (MD 1.50 minutes, 95% CI 0.79 to 2.20; 8 studies, 2702 participants). We found the same direction of effect when we compared results for patient decision aid studies reported in the previous update compared to studies conducted since 2015.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Compared to usual care, across a wide variety of decisions, patient decision aids probably helped more adults reach informed values-congruent choices. They led to large increases in knowledge, accurate risk perceptions, and an active role in decision-making. Our updated review also found that patient decision aids increased patients' feeling informed and clear about their personal values. There was no difference in decision regret between people using decision aids versus those receiving usual care. Further studies are needed to assess the impact of patient decision aids on adherence and downstream effects on cost and resource use.

Barriers to home dialysis and kidney transplantation for socially disadvantaged individuals

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

People with kidney disease facing social disadvantage have multiple barriers to quality kidney care. The aim of this review is to summarize the patient, clinician, and system wide factors that impact access to quality kidney care and discuss potential solutions to improve outcomes for socially disadvantaged people with kidney disease.

RECENT FINDINGS

Patient level factors such as poverty, insurance, and employment affect access to care, and low health literacy and kidney disease awareness can affect engagement with care. Clinician level factors include lack of early nephrology referral, limited education of clinicians in home dialysis and transplantation, and poor patient-physician communication. System-level factors such as lack of predialysis care and adequate health insurance can affect timely access to care. Neighborhood level socioeconomic factors, and lack of inclusion of these factors into public policy payment models, can affect ability to access care. Moreover, the effects of structural racism and discrimination nay negatively affect the kidney care experience for racially and ethnically minoritized individuals.

SUMMARY

Patient, clinician, and system level factors affect access to and engagement in quality kidney care. Multilevel solutions are critical to achieving equitable care for all affected by kidney disease.

Knowledge About Renal Transplantation Among African, Caribbean, and Black Canadian Patients With Advanced Kidney Failure

Introduction

Variable transplant-related knowledge may contribute to inequitable access to living donor kidney transplant (LDKT). We compared transplant-related knowledge between African, Caribbean, and Black (ACB) versus White Canadian patients with kidney failure using the Knowledge Assessment of Renal Transplantation (KART) questionnaire.

Methods

This was a cross-sectional cohort study. Data were collected from a cross-sectional convenience sample of adults with kidney failure in Toronto. Participants also answered an exploratory question about their distrust in the kidney allocation system. Clinical characteristics were abstracted from medical records. The potential contribution of distrust to differences in transplant knowledge was assessed in mediation analysis.

Results

Among 577 participants (mean [SD] age 57 [14] years, 63% male), 25% were ACB, and 43% were White Canadians. 45% of ACB versus 26% of White participants scored in the lowest tertile of the KART score. The relative risk ratio to be in the lowest tertile for ACB compared to White participants was 2.22 (95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.11, 4.43) after multivariable adjustment. About half of the difference in the knowledge score between ACB versus White patients was mediated by distrust in the kidney allocation system.

Conclusion

Participants with kidney failure from ACB communities have less transplant-related knowledge compared to White participants. Distrust is potentially contributing to this difference.

Race, Age, and Kidney Transplant Waitlisting Among Patients Receiving Incident Dialysis in the United States

Rationale & Objective

Patients with kidney failure from racial and ethnic minority groups and older patients have reduced access to the transplant waitlist relative to White and younger patients. Although racial disparities in the waitlisting group have declined after the 2014 kidney allocation system change, whether there is intersectionality of race and age in waitlisting access is unknown.

Study Design

Retrospective cohort study.

Setting & Participants

439,455 non-Hispanic White and non-Hispanic Black US adults initiating dialysis between 2015 and 2019 were identified from the United States Renal Data System, and followed through 2020.

Exposures

Patient race and ethnicity (non-Hispanic White and non-Hispanic Black) and age group (18-29, 30-49, 50-64, and 65-80 years).

Outcomes

Placement on the United Network for Organ Sharing deceased donor waitlist.

Analytical Approach

Age- and race-stratified waitlisting rates were compared. Multivariable Cox proportional hazards models, censored for death, examined the association between race and waitlisting, and included interaction term for race and age.

Results

Over a median follow-up period of 1 year, the proportion of non-Hispanic White and non-Hispanic Black patients waitlisted was 20.7% and 20.5%, respectively. In multivariable models, non-Hispanic Black patients were 14% less likely to be waitlisted (aHR, 0.86, 95% CI, 0.77-0.95). Relative differences between non-Hispanic Black and non-Hispanic White patients were different by age group. Non-Hispanic Black patients were 27%, 12%, and 20% less likely to be waitlisted than non-Hispanic White patients for ages 18-29 years (aHR, 0.73; 95% CI, 0.61-0.86), 50-64 (aHR, 0.88; 95% CI, 0.80-0.98), and 65-80 years (aHR, 0.80; 95% CI, 0.71-0.90), respectively, but differences were attenuated among patients aged 30-49 years (aHR, 0.89; 95% CI, 0.77-1.02).

Limitations

Race and ethnicity data is physician reported, residual confounding, and analysis is limited to non-Hispanic White and non-Hispanic Black patients.

Conclusions

Racial disparities in waitlisting exist between non-Hispanic Black and non-Hispanic White individuals and are most pronounced among younger patients with kidney failure. Results suggest that interventions to address inequalities in waitlisting may need to be targeted to younger patients with kidney failure.

Plain-Language Summary

Research has shown that patients from racial and ethnic minority groups and older patients have reduced access to transplant waitlisting relative to White and younger patients; nevertheless, how age impacts racial disparities in waitlisting is unknown. We compared waitlisting between non-Hispanic Black and non-Hispanic White patients with incident kidney failure, within age strata, using registry data for 439,455 US adults starting dialysis (18-80 years) during 2015-2019. Overall, non-Hispanic Black patients were less likely to be waitlisted and relative differences between the two racial groups differed by age. After adjusting for patient-level factors, the largest disparity in waitlisting was observed among adults aged 18-29 years. These results suggest that interventions should target younger adults to reduce disparities in access to kidney transplant waitlisting.

Do patient decision aids help people who are facing decisions about solid organ transplantation? A systematic review

BACKGROUND

Decisions about solid organ transplantation are complex. Patient decision aids (PDAs) enhance traditional education, by improving knowledge and supporting patients to align their values with treatments. There are increasing numbers of transplantation PDAs, however, it is unclear whether these are effective. We conducted a systematic review of studies assessing the impact of PDA use in transplantation.

METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Register of Controlled Trials, CINAHL, EMBASE, MEDLINE, and PsycINFO databases from database inception to October 26, 2020. We included primary studies of solid organ transplantation PDAs defined by the International Patient Decision Aids Standards. All comparators and reported outcomes were included. Mean difference in knowledge (before vs. after) was standardized on a 100-point scale. Pooled-effect for PDAs was calculated and compared to the standard of care for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and meta-analyzed using random effects. Analysis of all other outcomes was limited due to heterogeneity (PROSPERO registration, CRD42020215940).

RESULTS

Seven thousand four hundred and sixty-three studies were screened, 163 underwent full-text review, and 15 studies with 4278 participants were included. Nine studies were RCTs. Seven RCTs assessed knowledge; all demonstrated increased knowledge with PDA use (mean difference, 8.01;95%CI 4.69-11.34, p < .00001). There were many other outcomes, including behavior and acceptability, but these were too heterogenous and infrequently assessed for meaningful synthesis.

CONCLUSIONS

This review found that PDAs increase knowledge compared to standard education, though the effect size is small. PDAs are mostly considered acceptable; however, it is difficult to determine whether they improve other decision-making components due to the limited evidence about non-knowledge-based outcomes.

The ASCENT Intervention to Improve Access and Reduce Racial Inequalities in Kidney Waitlisting: A Randomized, Effectiveness-Implementation Trial

BACKGROUND

The US kidney allocation system (KAS) changed in 2014, but dialysis facility staff (including nephrologists, social workers, nurse managers, and facility administrators) had low awareness of how this policy change could affect their patients' access to transplant. We assessed the effectiveness of a multicomponent and multilevel educational and outreach intervention targeting US dialysis facilities with low waitlisting, with a goal of increasing waitlisting and reducing Black versus White racial disparities in waitlisting.

METHODS

The Allocation System Changes for Equity in Kidney Transplantation (ASCENT) study was a cluster-randomized, pragmatic, multilevel, effectiveness-implementation trial including 655 US dialysis facilities with low waitlisting, randomized to receive either the ASCENT intervention (a performance feedback report, a webinar, and staff and patient educational videos) or an educational brochure. Absolute and relative differences in coprimary outcomes (1-year waitlisting and racial differences in waitlisting) were reported among incident and prevalent patients.

RESULTS

Among 56,332 prevalent patients, 1-year waitlisting decreased for patients in control facilities (2.72%-2.56%) and remained the same for patients in intervention facilities (2.68%-2.75%). However, the proportion of prevalent Black patients waitlisted in the ASCENT interventions increased from baseline to 1 year (2.52%-2.78%), whereas it remained the same for White patients in the ASCENT intervention facilities (2.66%-2.69%). Among incident patients in ASCENT facilities, 1-year waitlisting increased among Black patients (from 0.87% to 1.07%) but declined among White patients (from 1.54% to 1.27%). Significant racial disparities in waitlisting were observed at baseline, with incident Black patients in ASCENT facilities less likely to waitlist compared with White patients (adjusted odds ratio [aOR], 0.56; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.35 to 0.92), but 1 year after the intervention, this racial disparity was attenuated (aOR, 0.84; 95% CI, 0.49 to 1.42).

CONCLUSIONS

The ASCENT intervention may have a small effect on extending the reach of the new KAS policy by attenuating racial disparities in waitlisting among a population of US dialysis facilities with low waitlisting.

CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRY NAME AND REGISTRATION NUMBER

National Institutes of Health ( NCT02879812 ).

PODCAST

This article contains a podcast at https://dts.podtrac.com/redirect.mp3/www.asn-online.org/media/podcast/CJASN/2023_03_08_CJN09760822.mp3.

Interventions for improving health literacy in people with chronic kidney disease

BACKGROUND

Low health literacy affects 25% of people with chronic kidney disease (CKD) and is associated with increased morbidity and death. Improving health literacy is a recognised priority, but effective interventions are not clear.

OBJECTIVES

This review looked the benefits and harms of interventions for improving health literacy in people with CKD.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Kidney and Transplant Register of Studies up to 12 July 2022 through contact with the Information Specialist using search terms relevant to this review. Studies in the Register are identified through searches of CENTRAL, MEDLINE, and EMBASE, conference proceedings, the International Clinical Trials Register (ICTRP) Search Portal and ClinicalTrials.gov. We also searched MEDLINE (OVID) and EMBASE (OVID) for non-randomised studies.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and non-randomised studies that assessed interventions aimed at improving health literacy in people with CKD.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two authors independently assessed studies for eligibility and performed risk of bias analysis. We classified studies as either interventions aimed at improving aspects of health literacy or interventions targeting a population of people with poor health literacy. The interventions were further sub-classified in terms of the type of intervention (educational, self-management training, or educational with self-management training). Results were expressed as mean difference (MD) or standardised mean difference (SMD) with 95% confidence intervals (CI) for continuous outcomes and risk ratios (RR) with 95% CI for dichotomous outcomes.

MAIN RESULTS

We identified 120 studies (21,149 participants) which aimed to improve health literacy. There were 107 RCTs and 13 non-randomised studies. No studies targeted low literacy populations. For the RCTs, selection bias was low or unclear in 94% of studies, performance bias was high in 86% of studies, detection bias was high in 86% of studies reporting subjective outcomes and low in 93% of studies reporting objective outcomes. Attrition and other biases were low or unclear in 86% and 78% of studies, respectively. Compared to usual care, low certainty evidence showed educational interventions may increase kidney-related knowledge (14 RCTs, 2632 participants: SMD 0.99, 95% CI 0.69 to 1.32; I² = 94%). Data for self-care, self-efficacy, quality of life (QoL), death, estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) and hospitalisations could not be pooled or was not reported. Compared to usual care, low-certainty evidence showed self-management interventions may improve self-efficacy (5 RCTs, 417 participants: SMD 0.58, 95% CI 0.13 to 1.03; I² = 74%) and QoL physical component score (3 RCTs, 131 participants: MD 4.02, 95% CI 1.09 to 6.94; I² = 0%). There was moderate-certainty evidence that self-management interventions probably did not slow the decline in eGFR after one year (3 RCTs, 855 participants: MD 1.53 mL/min/1.73 m², 95% CI -1.41 to 4.46; I² = 33%). Data for knowledge, self-care behaviour, death and hospitalisations could not be pooled or was not reported. Compared to usual care, low-certainty evidence showed educational with self-management interventions may increase knowledge (15 RCTs, 2185 participants: SMD 0.65, 95% CI 0.36 to 0.93; I² = 90%), improve self-care behaviour scores (4 RCTs, 913 participants: SMD 0.91, 95% CI 0.00 to 1.82; I² =97%), self-efficacy (8 RCTs, 687 participants: SMD 0.50, 95% CI 0.10 to 0.89; I² = 82%), improve QoL physical component score (3 RCTs, 2771 participants: MD 2.56, 95% CI 1.73 to 3.38; I² = 0%) and may make little or no difference to slowing the decline of eGFR (4 RCTs, 618 participants: MD 4.28 mL/min/1.73 m², 95% CI -0.03 to 8.85; I² = 43%). Moderate-certainty evidence shows educational with self-management interventions probably decreases the risk of death (any cause) (4 RCTs, 2801 participants: RR 0.73, 95% CI 0.53 to 1.02; I² = 0%). Data for hospitalisation could not be pooled.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Interventions to improve aspects of health literacy are a very broad category, including educational interventions, self-management interventions and educational with self-management interventions. Overall, this type of health literacy intervention is probably beneficial in this cohort however, due to methodological limitations and high heterogeneity in interventions and outcomes, the evidence is of low certainty.

Shared decision-making in advanced kidney disease: a scoping review

OBJECTIVES

To provide a comprehensive overview of interventions that support shared decision-making (SDM) for treatment modality decisions in advanced kidney disease (AKD). To provide summarised information on their content, use and reported results. To provide an overview of interventions currently under development or investigation.

DESIGN

The JBI methodology for scoping reviews was followed. This review conforms to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses Extension for Scoping Reviews (PRISMA-ScR) checklist.

DATA SOURCES

MEDLINE, Embase, Web of Science, Cochrane Library, Emcare, PsycINFO, PROSPERO and Academic Search Premier for peer-reviewed literature. Other online databases (eg, clinicaltrials.gov, OpenGrey) for grey literature.

ELIGIBILITY FOR INCLUSION

Records in English with a study population of patients >18 years of age with an estimated glomerular filtration rate <30 mL/min/1.73 m². Records had to be on the subject of SDM, or explicitly mention that the intervention reported on could be used to support SDM for treatment modality decisions in AKD.

DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS

Two reviewers independently screened and selected records for data extraction. Interventions were categorised as prognostic tools (PTs), educational programmes (EPs), patient decision aids (PtDAs) or multicomponent initiatives (MIs). Interventions were subsequently categorised based on the decisions they were developed to support.

RESULTS

One hundred forty-five interventions were identified in a total of 158 included records: 52 PTs, 51 EPs, 29 PtDAs and 13 MIs. Sixteen (n=16, 11%) were novel interventions currently under investigation. Forty-six (n=46, 35.7%) were reported to have been implemented in clinical practice. Sixty-seven (n=67, 51.9%) were evaluated for their effects on outcomes in the intended users.

CONCLUSION

There is no conclusive evidence on which intervention is the most efficacious in supporting SDM for treatment modality decisions in AKD. There is a lot of variation in selected outcomes, and the body of evidence is largely based on observational research. In addition, the effects of these interventions on SDM are under-reported.

Receipt and Sharing of Information to Improve Knowledge About Living Donor Kidney Transplant among Transplant Candidates with Advanced Chronic Kidney Disease

Introduction: Knowledge about living donor kidney transplant (LDKT) is associated with greater access. Yet, little is known about factors associated with high living donor transplant knowledge. Research Questions: Is receipt of LDKT information from health professionals or sharing information with family and friends associated with higher knowledge? Design: We conducted a cross-sectional analysis of data from preemptive LDKT candidates, which assessed knowledge, receipt of information about living donation from health professionals, and history of having shared living donor information with family members or friends. In multivariable logistic regression models adjusting for participants' age, race, and total household income, we quantified the association of high knowledge with receipt of living donation information from health professionals and sharing of this information with family/friends. Results: Among 130 participants, the median (IQR) age was 59.5 (52.0-65.0) years, 60% were female, 47.7% were Black, and 49.2% had a high school education or less. Over half (55.4%) had high LDKT knowledge. Nearly one third reported having received living donor information (33.1%) or sharing the information with family/friends (28.5%). After adjustment, those who received (vs. did not receive information) and shared information with family/friends had 3-fold higher odds of high LDKT knowledge (3.05 [1.24, 8.08]). Individuals who received LDKT information (vs. did not) from health professionals had 4-fold higher odds of high LDKT knowledge (adjusted OR [95% CI]: 4.01 [1.49, 12.18]. Conclusions: Receipt of living donation information from health professionals and sharing this information with family/friends were associated with high LDKT knowledge.

The Knowledge Assessment of Renal Transplantation (KART) 2.0: Development and Validation of CKD and Transplant Knowledge Scales

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES

Many individuals with kidney disease, particularly those belonging to racial and ethnic minority groups and whose primary language is not English, lack knowledge related to kidney disease symptoms, physiologic functions of the kidney, and benefits and risks of kidney transplantation. Valid instruments to assess patients' knowledge of CKD and kidney transplantation are needed.

DESIGN, SETTING, PARTICIPANTS, & MEASUREMENTS

Using a sample of 977 patients with stages 3-5 CKD in the Kaiser Permanente health system, we developed the Knowledge Assessment of Renal Transplantation (KART) 2.0 instrument. We conducted cognitive interviews followed by item response theory (IRT) to reduce 48 candidate items. Construct validity was tested by examining differences in scores between patients who spent <1 and ≥1 hour receiving CKD and transplant education.

RESULTS

Cognitive interviews modified four items and omitted 11. IRT analyses resulted in two scales: the KART 2.0-Transplant Knowledge Scale (16 items; Cronbach's α=0.8) and the KART 2.0-CKD Knowledge Scale (nine items; Cronbach's α=0.79). Differential item functioning showed that the scales were unbiased to capture knowledge across self-identified race, primary language, CKD stage, and sex. Both scales distinguished patients who had spent <1 and ≥1 hour speaking with health professionals (effect size [ES]=0.33 [transplant], 0.54 [CKD]; P<0.001 for both), reading about kidney disease (ES=0.45 [transplant], 0.62 [CKD]; P<0.001), reading about kidney transplantation (ES=0.67 [transplant], 0.69 [CKD]; P<0.001), and reading about living donor kidney transplant (ES=0.76 [transplant], 0.62 [CKD]; P<0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

The KART 2.0 is a valid tool to assess patients' knowledge of CKD and kidney transplantation.

Pretransplant Patient Education in Solid-organ Transplant: A Narrative Review

Education for pretransplant, solid-organ recipient candidates aims to improve knowledge and understanding about the transplant process, outcomes, and potential complications to support informed, shared decision-making to reduce fears and anxieties about transplant, inform expectations, and facilitate adjustment to posttransplant life. In this review, we summarize novel pretransplant initiatives and approaches to educate solid-organ transplant recipient candidates. First, we review approaches that may be common to all solid-organ transplants, then we summarize interventions specific to kidney, liver, lung, and heart transplant. We describe evidence that emphasizes the need for multidisciplinary approaches to transplant education. We also summarize initiatives that consider online (eHealth) and mobile (mHealth) solutions. Finally, we highlight education initiatives that support racialized or otherwise marginalized communities to improve equitable access to solid-organ transplant. A considerable amount of work has been done in solid-organ transplant since the early 2000s with promising results. However, many studies on education for pretransplant recipient candidates involve relatively small samples and nonrandomized designs and focus on short-term surrogate outcomes. Overall, many of these studies have a high risk of bias. Frequently, interventions assessed are not well characterized or they are combined with administrative and data-driven initiatives into multifaceted interventions, which makes it difficult to assess the impact of the education component on outcomes. In the future, well-designed studies rigorously assessing well-defined surrogate and clinical outcomes will be needed to evaluate the impact of many promising initiatives.

A scoping review of inequities in access to organ transplant in the United States

Background

Organ transplant is the preferred treatment for end-stage organ disease, yet the majority of patients with end-stage organ disease are never placed on the transplant waiting list. Limited access to the transplant waiting list combined with the scarcity of the organ pool result in over 100,000 deaths annually in the United States. Patients face unique barriers to referral and acceptance for organ transplant based on social determinants of health, and patients from disenfranchised groups suffer from disproportionately lower rates of transplantation. Our objective was to review the literature describing disparities in access to organ transplantation based on social determinants of health to integrate the existing knowledge and guide future research.

Methods

We conducted a scoping review of the literature reporting disparities in access to heart, lung, liver, pancreas and kidney transplantation based on social determinants of health (race, income, education, geography, insurance status, health literacy and engagement). Included studies were categorized based on steps along the transplant care continuum: referral for transplant, transplant evaluation and selection, living donor identification/evaluation, and waitlist outcomes.

Results

Our search generated 16,643 studies, of which 227 were included in our final review. Of these, 34 focused on disparities in referral for transplantation among patients with chronic organ disease, 82 on transplant selection processes, 50 on living donors, and 61 on waitlist management. In total, 15 studies involved the thoracic organs (heart, lung), 209 involved the abdominal organs (kidney, liver, pancreas), and three involved multiple organs. Racial and ethnic minorities, women, and patients in lower socioeconomic status groups were less likely to be referred, evaluated, and added to the waiting list for organ transplant. The quality of the data describing these disparities across the transplant literature was variable and overwhelmingly focused on kidney transplant.

Conclusions

This review contextualizes the quality of the data, identifies seminal work by organ, and reports gaps in the literature where future research on disparities in organ transplantation should focus. Future work should investigate the association of social determinants of health with access to the organ transplant waiting list, with a focus on prospective analyses that assess interventions to improve health equity.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12939-021-01616-x.

A Dialysis Center Educational Video Intervention Increases Patient Self-Efficacy and Kidney Transplant Evaluations

Introduction: The optimal treatment for end-stage kidney disease is renal transplant. However, only 1 in 5 (21.5%) patients nationwide receiving dialysis are on a transplant waitlist. Factors associated with patients not initiating a transplant evaluation are complex and include patient specific factors such as transplant knowledge and self-efficacy. Research Question: Can a dialysis center-based educational video intervention increase dialysis patients' transplant knowledge, self-efficacy, and transplant evaluations initiated? Design: Dialysis patients who had not yet completed a transplant evaluation were provided a transplant educational video while receiving hemodialysis. Patients' transplant knowledge, self-efficacy to initiate an evaluation, and dialysis center rates of transplant referral and evaluation were assessed before and after this intervention. Results: Of 340 patients approached at 14 centers, 252 (74%) completed the intervention. The intervention increased transplant knowledge (Likert scale 1 to 5: 2.53 [0.10] vs 4.62 [0.05], P < .001) and transplant self-efficacy (2.55 [0.10] to 4.33 [0.07], P < .001. The incidence rate per 100 patient years of transplant evaluations increased 85% (IRR 1.85 [95% CI: 1.02, 3.35], P = .0422) following the intervention. The incidence rates of referrals also increased 56% (IRR 1.56 [95% CI: 1.03, 2.37], P = .0352), while there was a nonsignificant 47% increase in incidence rates of waitlist entries (IRR 1.47 [95% CI: 0.45, 4.74], P = .5210). Conclusion: This dialysis center-based video intervention provides promising preliminary evidence to conduct a large-scale randomized controlled trial to test its effectiveness in increasing self-efficacy of dialysis patients to initiate a transplant evaluation.

Racial disparities in living donor kidney transplantation in the United States

Living donor kidney transplant (LDKT) is the best treatment for end-stage kidney disease, but there are racial disparities in LDKT rates. To study putative mechanisms of these disparities, we identified 58 752 adult kidney transplant candidates first activated on the United States kidney transplant waitlist 2015-2016 and defined four exposure groups by race/primary payer: African American/Medicaid, African American/NonMedicaid, Non-African American/Medicaid, Non-African American/NonMedicaid. We performed competing risk regression to compare risk of LDKT between groups. Among included candidates, 30% had African American race and 9% had Medicaid primary payer. By the end of follow up, 16% underwent LDKT. The cumulative incidence of LDKT was lowest for African American candidates regardless of payer. Compared to African American/Non-Medicaid candidates, the adjusted likelihood of LDKT was higher for both Non-African American/Medicaid (HR 1.60, 95%CI 1.43-1.78) and Non-African American/Non-Medicaid candidates (HR 2.66, 95%CI 2.50-2.83). Results were similar when analyzing only candidates still waitlisted > 2 years after initial activation or candidates with type O blood. Among 9639 candidates who received LDKT, only 13% were African American. Donor-recipient relationships were similar for African American and Non-African American recipients. These findings indicate African American candidates have a lower incidence of LDKT than candidates of other races, regardless of primary payer.

The beneficial effect of providing kidney transplantation information on transplantation status differs between for-profit and nonprofit dialysis centers

Informing end-stage kidney disease patients about kidney transplantation options increases the likelihood of kidney transplant waiting list (WL) enrollment and live donor kidney transplant (LDKT) receipt. Patients in for-profit dialysis centers have lower rates of WL enrollment and LDKT receipt. This study examined if the ownership status of dialysis centers modified the association between informing patients about transplantation options and patients' transplantation status. Multilevel analysis using mixed-effect multinomial logistic regression was performed using the United States Renal Data System (USRDS) data (January 2005 to December 2017). The study showed that informing patients improved the odds of WL enrollment and LDKT receipt. However, the effect of informing patients on transplantation status was less pronounced at for-profit as compared with nonprofit centers (Nonprofit: WL enrollment OR: 2.23 [95% CI: 2.07-2.40], and LDKT receipt OR: 3.35 [95% CI: 2.65-4.25]. For-profit: WL enrollment OR: 1.73 [95% CI: 1.66-1.79], and LDKT receipt OR: 2.35 [95% CI: 2.08-2.66]), although the odds of informing patients was higher for for-profit centers, and type of patients informed were similar across both types of centers. Information provided by for-profit centers was potentially less effective than those provided by nonprofit centers. Standardized guidelines for transplantation information provision are needed in order to ensure similar informational quality across centers.

A Cascade of Structural Barriers Contributing to Racial Kidney Transplant Inequities

Stark racial disparities in access to and receipt of kidney transplantation, especially living donor and pre-emptive transplantation, have persisted despite decades of investigation and intervention. The causes of these disparities are complex, are inter-related, and result from a cascade of structural barriers to transplantation which disproportionately impact minoritized individuals and communities. Structural barriers contributing to racial transplant inequities have been acknowledged but are often not fully explored with regard to transplant equity. We describe longstanding racial disparities in transplantation, and we discuss contributing structural barriers which occur along the transplant pathway including pretransplant health care, evaluation, referral processes, and the evaluation of transplant candidates. We also consider the role of multilevel socio-contextual influences on these processes. We believe focused efforts which apply an equity lens to key transplant processes and systems are required to achieve greater structural competency and, ultimately, racial transplant equity.

Elucidating measures of systemic racism to mitigate racial disparities in kidney transplantation

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Given recent national attention to the role of racism in perpetuating racial inequities in society and health, this review provides a timely and relevant summary of key measures of systemic racism in kidney transplantation. More specifically, the review identifies current and promising interventions, whereas highlighting the need for more sustainable and impactful interventions.

RECENT FINDINGS

Racial disparities persist in kidney transplantation. Black and Hispanic individuals are less likely to receive a kidney transplant than non-Hispanic Whites despite disproportionately higher rates of kidney failure. Studies demonstrate that socioeconomic factors do not fully explain existing racial disparities in transplantation. Systemic racism at all levels, individual, interpersonal, institutional, and structural, is at the core of racial disparities, and current interventions are insufficient in mitigating their effects. Thus, targeted and sustainable interventions must be implemented to mitigate systemic racism in kidney transplantation.

SUMMARY

Systemic racism in all its forms continues to influence disparities at all stages of kidney transplantation. This paper highlights recent findings that shed light on how racism contributes to racial disparities in kidney transplantation. Using these findings to identify targets and strategies for mitigation, relevant interventions and policies that show promise are detailed.

A Randomized Controlled Trial of a Pretransplant Educational Intervention in Kidney Patients

Supplemental Digital Content is available in the text.

Poor patient knowledge about transplantation is a significant problem following kidney transplant. A video-based educational intervention was developed to supplement standard education provided by transplant teams.

Interventions for increasing solid organ donor registration

BACKGROUND

A solution for increasing the number of available organs for transplantation is to encourage more individuals to register a commitment for deceased organ donation. However, the percentage of the population registered for organ donation remains low in many countries.

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the benefits and harms of various interventions used to increase deceased organ donor registration.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Kidney and Transplant Register of Studies up to 11 August 2020 through contact with an Information Specialist using search terms relevant to this review. Studies in the Register are identified through searches of CENTRAL, MEDLINE, and EMBASE, conference proceedings, the International Clinical Trials Register Search Portal and ClinicalTrials.gov.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included all randomised controlled trials (RCTs), cluster RCTs and quasi-RCTs of interventions to promote deceased organ donor registration. We included studies if they measured self-reported or verified donor registration, intention to donate, intention to register a decision or number of individuals signing donor cards as outcomes.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two authors independently assessed retrieved studies and extracted data from included studies. We assessed studies for risk of bias. We obtained summary estimates of effect using a random-effects model and expressed results as risk ratios (RR) (95% confidence intervals; CI) for dichotomous outcomes and mean difference (MD; 95% CI) or standardised mean difference (SMD; 95% CI) for continuous outcomes. In multi-arm trials, data were pooled to create single pair-wise comparisons. Analyses were stratified by specific intervention setting where available.

MAIN RESULTS

Our search strategy identified 46 studies (47 primary articles, including one abstract) comprising 24 parallel RCTs, 19 cluster RCTs and 3 quasi-RCTs. Sample sizes ranged from 138 to 1,085,292 (median = 514). A total of 16 studies measured registration behaviour, 27 measured intention to register/donate and three studies measured both registration behaviour and intention to register. Interventions were delivered in a variety of different settings: schools (14 studies), driver's motor vehicle (DMV) centres (5), mail-outs (4), primary care centres (3), workplaces (1), community settings (7) and general public (12). Interventions were highly varied in terms of their content and included strategies such as educational sessions and videos, leveraging peer leaders, staff training, message framing, and priming. Most studies were rated as having high or unclear risk of bias for random sequence generation and allocation concealment and low risk for the remainder of the domains. Data from 34/46 studies (74%) were available for meta-analysis. Low certainty evidence showed organ donation registration interventions had a small overall effect on improving registration behaviour (16 studies, 1,294,065 participants: RR 1.30, 95% CI 1.19 to 1.43, I2 = 84%), intention to register/donate (dichotomous) (10 studies, 10,838 participants: RR 1.21, 95% CI 1.03 to 1.42, I2 = 91%) and intention to register/donate (continuous) (9 studies, 3572 participants: SMD 0.23, 95% CI 0.11 to 0.36, I2 = 67%). Classroom-based interventions delivered in a lecture format by individuals from the transplant community may be effective at increasing intention to register/donate (3 studies, 675 participants: RR 1.33, 95% CI 1.15 to 1.55, I² = 0%). Community interventions targeting specific ethnic groups were generally effective at increasing registration rates (k = 5, n = 4186; RR 2.14, 95% CI 1.35 to 3.40, I² = 85%), although heterogeneity was high. In particular, interventions delivered in the community by trained peer-leaders appear to be effective (3 studies, 3819 participant: RR 2.09, 95% CI 1.08 to 4.06, I² = 87%), although again, the data lacked robustness. There was some evidence that framing messages (e.g. anticipated regret) and priming individuals (e.g. reciprocity) in a certain way may increase intention to register/donate, however, few studies measured this effect on actual registration. Overall, the studies varied significantly in terms of design, setting, content and delivery. Selection bias was evident and a quarter of the studies could not be included in the meta-analysis due to incomplete outcome data reporting. No adverse events were reported.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

In our review, we identified a variety of approaches used to increase organ donor registration including school-based educational sessions and videos, leveraging peer leaders in the community, DMV staff training, targeted messaging and priming. The variability in outcome measures used and incompleteness in reporting meant that most data could not be combined for analysis. When data were combined, overall effect sizes were small in favour of intervention groups over controls, however, there was significant variability in the data. There was some evidence that leveraging peer-leaders in the community to deliver organ donation education may improve registration rates and classroom-based education from credible individuals (i.e. members of the transplant community) may improve intention to register/donate, however, there is no clear evidence favouring any particular approach. There was mixed evidence for simple, low-intensity interventions utilising message framing and priming. However, it is likely that interest in these strategies will persist due to their reach and scalability. Further research is therefore required to adequately address the question of the most effective interventions for increasing deceased organ donor registration.

Failure to Advance Access to Kidney Transplantation over Two Decades in the United States

BACKGROUND

Extensive research and policies have been developed to improve access to kidney transplantation among patients with ESKD. Despite this, wide variation in transplant referral rates exists between dialysis facilities.

METHODS

To evaluate the longitudinal pattern of access to kidney transplantation over the past two decades, we conducted a retrospective cohort study of adult patients with ESKD initiating ESKD or placed on a transplant waiting list from 1997 to 2016 in the United States Renal Data System. We used cumulative incidence models accounting for competing risks and multivariable Cox models to evaluate time to waiting list placement or transplantation (WLT) from ESKD onset.

RESULTS

Among the study population of 1,309,998 adult patients, cumulative 4-year WLT was 29.7%, which was unchanged over five eras. Preemptive WLT (prior to dialysis) increased by era (5.2% in 1997-2000 to 9.8% in 2013-2016), as did 4-year WLT incidence among patients aged 60-70 (13.4% in 1997-2000 to 19.8% in 2013-2016). Four-year WLT incidence diminished among patients aged 18-39 (55.8%-48.8%). Incidence of WLT was substantially lower among patients in lower-income communities, with no improvement over time. Likelihood of WLT after dialysis significantly declined over time (adjusted hazard ratio, 0.80; 95% confidence interval, 0.79 to 0.82) in 2013-2016 relative to 1997-2000.

CONCLUSIONS

Despite wide recognition, policy reforms, and extensive research, rates of WLT following ESKD onset did not seem to improve in more than two decades and were consistently reduced among vulnerable populations. Improving access to transplantation may require more substantial interventions.

The impact of religiously tailored and ethically balanced education on intention for living organ donation among Muslim Americans

We tested the efficacy of religiously tailored and ethically balanced education upon living kidney organ donation intent among Muslim Americans. Pre-post changes in participant stage of change, preparedness, and likelihood judged efficacy. Among 137 participants, mean stage of change toward donation appeared to improve (0.59; SD ± 1.07, P < .0001), as did the group's preparedness to make a donation decision (0.55; SD ± 0.86, P < .0001), and likelihood to donate a kidney (0.39; SD ± 0.85, P < .0001). Mean change in likelihood to encourage a loved one, a co-worker, or a mosque community member with ESRD to seek a living donor also increased (0.22; SD ± 0.84, P = .0035, 0.23; SD ± 0.82, P = .0021, 0.33; SD ± 0.79, P < .0001 respectively). Multivariate ordered logistic regression models revealed that gains in biomedical knowledge regarding organ donation increased odds for positive change in preparedness (OR = 1.20; 95% CI 1.01-1.41, P = .03), while increasing age associated with lower odds of positive change in stage of change (OR = 0.98, 95% CI 0.96-0.998, P = .03), and prior registration as an organ donor lowered odds for an increase in likelihood to donate a kidney (OR = 0.22; 95% CI 0.08-0.60, P = .003). Our intervention appears to enhance living kidney donation-related intent among Muslim Americans [Clinicaltrials.gov number: NCT04443114].

Use of a Supportive Kidney Care Video Decision Aid in Older Patients: A Randomized Controlled Trial

BACKGROUND

There are few studies of patient-facing decision aids that include supportive kidney care as an option. We tested the efficacy of a video decision aid on knowledge of supportive kidney care among older patients with advanced CKD.

METHODS

Participants (age ≥ 65 years with advanced CKD) were randomized to receive verbal or video education. Primary outcome was knowledge of supportive kidney care (score range 0-3). Secondary outcomes included preference for supportive kidney care, and satisfaction and acceptability of the video.

RESULTS

Among all participants (n = 100), knowledge of supportive kidney care increased significantly after receiving education (p < 0.01); however, there was no difference between study arms (p = 0.68). There was no difference in preference for supportive kidney care between study arms (p = 0.49). In adjusted analyses, total health literacy score (aOR 1.08 [95% CI: 1.003-1.165]) and nephrologists' answer of "No" to the Surprise Question (aOR 4.87 [95% CI: 1.22-19.43]) were associated with preference for supportive kidney care. Most felt comfortable watching the video (96%), felt the content was helpful (96%), and would recommend the video to others (96%).

CONCLUSIONS

Among older patients with advanced CKD, we did not detect a significant difference between an educational verbal script and a video decision aid in improving knowledge of supportive kidney care or preferences. However, patients who received video education reported high satisfaction and acceptability ratings. Future research will determine the effectiveness of a supportive kidney care video decision aid on real-world patient outcomes.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

NCT02698722 (ClinicalTrials.gov).