Skip to main content

Main menu

  • Home
  • Content
    • Published Ahead of Print
    • Current Issue
    • Podcasts
    • Subject Collections
    • Archives
    • ASN Meeting Abstracts
    • Saved Searches
  • Authors
    • Submit a Manuscript
    • Author Resources
  • Trainees
    • Peer Review Program
    • Prize Competition
  • About CJASN
    • About CJASN
    • Editorial Team
    • CJASN Impact
    • CJASN Recognitions
  • More
    • Alerts
    • Advertising
    • Feedback
    • Reprint Information
    • Subscriptions
  • ASN Kidney News
  • Other
    • JASN
    • Kidney360
    • Kidney News Online
    • American Society of Nephrology

User menu

  • Subscribe
  • My alerts
  • Log in
  • My Cart

Search

  • Advanced search
American Society of Nephrology
  • Other
    • JASN
    • Kidney360
    • Kidney News Online
    • American Society of Nephrology
  • Subscribe
  • My alerts
  • Log in
  • My Cart
Advertisement
American Society of Nephrology

Advanced Search

  • Home
  • Content
    • Published Ahead of Print
    • Current Issue
    • Podcasts
    • Subject Collections
    • Archives
    • ASN Meeting Abstracts
    • Saved Searches
  • Authors
    • Submit a Manuscript
    • Author Resources
  • Trainees
    • Peer Review Program
    • Prize Competition
  • About CJASN
    • About CJASN
    • Editorial Team
    • CJASN Impact
    • CJASN Recognitions
  • More
    • Alerts
    • Advertising
    • Feedback
    • Reprint Information
    • Subscriptions
  • ASN Kidney News
  • Visit ASN on Facebook
  • Follow CJASN on Twitter
  • CJASN RSS
  • Community Forum
Original ArticlesESRD and Chronic Dialysis
You have accessRestricted Access

Patient and Health Care Professional Decision-Making to Commence and Withdraw from Renal Dialysis: A Systematic Review of Qualitative Research

Jamilla A. Hussain, Kate Flemming, Fliss E.M. Murtagh and Miriam J. Johnson
CJASN July 2015, 10 (7) 1201-1215; DOI: https://doi.org/10.2215/CJN.11091114
Jamilla A. Hussain
*Hull York Medical School, York, United Kingdom;
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Kate Flemming
†University of York, York, United Kingdom;
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Fliss E.M. Murtagh
‡King’s College London, London, United Kingdom; and
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Miriam J. Johnson
§University of Hull, Yorkshire, United Kingdom
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • Article
  • Figures & Data Supps
  • Info & Metrics
  • View PDF
Loading

Abstract

Background and objective To ensure that decisions to start and stop dialysis in ESRD are shared, the factors that affect patients and health care professionals in making such decisions must be understood. This systematic review sought to explore how and why different factors mediate the choices about dialysis treatment.

Design, setting, participants, & measurements MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, and PsychINFO were searched for qualitative studies of factors that affect patients’ or health care professionals’ decisions to commence or withdraw from dialysis. A thematic synthesis was conducted.

Results Of 494 articles screened, 12 studies (conducted from 1985 to 2014) were included. These involved 206 patients (most receiving hemodialysis) and 64 health care professionals (age ranges: patients, 26–93 years; professionals, 26–61 years). For commencing dialysis, patients based their choice on "gut instinct," as well as deliberating over the effect of treatment on quality of life and survival. How individuals coped with decision-making was influential: Some tried to take control of the problem of progressive renal failure, whereas others focused on controlling their emotions. Health care professionals weighed biomedical factors and were led by an instinct to prolong life. Both patients and health care professionals described feeling powerless. With regard to dialysis withdrawal, only after prolonged periods on dialysis were the realities of life on dialysis fully appreciated and past choices questioned. By this stage, however, patients were physically dependent on treatment. As was seen with commencing dialysis, individuals coped with treatment withdrawal in a problem- or emotion-controlling way. Families struggled to differentiate between choosing versus allowing death. Health care teams avoided and queried discussions regarding dialysis withdrawal. Patients, however, missed the dialogue they experienced during predialysis education.

Conclusions Decision-making in ESRD is complex and dynamic and evolves over time and toward death. The factors at work are multifaceted and operate differently for patients and health professionals. More training and research on open communication and shared decision-making are needed.

  • CKD
  • dialysis
  • dialysis withholding
  • end-stage kidney disease
  • quality of life

Introduction

Dialysis brings high treatment burden to patients and families, considerable costs to health services, and high mortality. Sixty-five percent of patients die within 5 years (1). Over three quarters of those with ESRD are treated with dialysis (2); however, decisions on whether to start, continue, or stop dialysis remain poorly informed by evidence and rely predominantly on observational studies, with all their inherent limitations (3–5).

To help patients, families, and health care professionals make joint decisions about dialysis treatment, clinical practice guidelines were developed by the Renal Physicians Association (RPA) for shared decision-making in the appropriate initiation of and withdrawal from dialysis (6). These support patient preferences while acknowledging the limitations in the evidence. A large number of quantitative studies have looked at physiologic (7–10), social (8,10–14), educational (15–17), and geographic factors (18) that influence the decision to commence and withdraw from dialysis (15–22). These studies have provided insights into influential factors, but their largely survey-based methods do not further our understanding of why and how different factors operate.

Qualitative research provides an in-depth and interpreted understanding of the factors that affect decision-making, with a focus on how and why patients and health care professional make sense of their experiences and perspectives (23). An inductive approach can help determine new hypotheses and theories for subsequent empirical testing (23). Two systematic reviews (24,25) of qualitative studies in this area have examined factors that influence patient decisions, but factors that affect health care professionals and their interactions with patients in the decision-making process are still largely unexplored. Because health care professionals and patients are partners in the shared decision model advocated by the RPA (6) and National Service Framework (2005) (26), this is an important gap in the current evidence-base.

To address this gap, this systematic review aimed to identify and synthesize existing qualitative research in order to explore how and why different factors influence patients and health care professionals in the decision to commence and withdraw dialysis as ESRD progresses. The synthesis of primary qualitative studies creates a cumulative body of evidence that builds and develops theory for practice in ways that individual studies cannot (27). This will therefore further our understanding of how decisions are made in this context and how effective shared decision-making can be facilitated.

Materials and Methods

Selection Criteria

Participants included in the studies were adult patients with CKD who had decided for or against dialysis. Studies that explored health care professionals’ views of caring for such patients during the decision-making process were also included. This group included physicians, dialysis nurses, student nurses, and social workers.

Literature Search

Medical Subject Heading terms and text words for ESRD, dialysis, conservative kidney management and decision-making were combined with validated terms for qualitative studies (Supplemental Material) (28).The search was performed in MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, and PsychINFO and was last updated in May 2014. Reference lists of relevant papers and contents pages of relevant journals were searched. Two researchers independently assessed titles, abstracts, and full text against the inclusion criteria.

Quality Appraisal

All papers were assessed against Hawker and colleagues' appraisal checklist (29). Inter-rater agreement was assessed on a purposive selection of five studies with a range of scores (κ=0.9).

Synthesis of Findings

The papers were synthesized systematically using thematic synthesis (30), an established and widely used method of analyzing qualitative research. This synthesis was approached from a realist perspective and aimed to provide recommendations for clinical practice. This school of thought considers reality to exist independent of those observing it but recognizes the importance of understanding the participants’ own interpretation of events (31). Because thematic analysis is not restricted theoretically and enables both inductive and deductive analysis, it provides an appropriate method for such a synthesis. The analysis was managed using ATLAS.ti (version 7) and reported in accordance with the Enhancing Transparency in REporting the synthesis of Qualitative research (ENTREQ) guidance (32).

Results

Literature Search and Study Descriptions

Of the 494 articles screened, 12 studies involving 206 patients and 64 health care professionals were included in the synthesis (Figure 1). Table 1 summarizes the studies included in the review, and Table 2 illustrates how many codes, items of evidence, and papers contributed to each theme. Most studies were conducted between 1997 and 2014 and in Europe (n=5) (33–37) and the United States (n=5) (38–42). The remainder were performed in Australia (43) and Taiwan (44). Five studies were conducted in single-payer health care systems (33,34,36,37,44), two in two-tier systems (35,43), and five in a country with an insurance mandate (38–42). Researchers, independent of the health care team and patient, conducted all interviews, focus groups, and observations.

Figure 1.
  • Download figure
  • Open in new tab
  • Download powerpoint
Figure 1.

Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) 2009 flow diagram.

View this table:
  • View inline
  • View popup
Table 1.

Summary of studies included in the review

View this table:
  • View inline
  • View popup
Table 2.

Formation of themes

Quality Appraisal

Hawker and colleagues' (29) quality assessment scores ranged from 21 to 33 (Table 3), which indicated fair to good quality of all studies.

View this table:
  • View inline
  • View popup
Table 3.

Summary of Hawker and colleagues' quality assessment scores for included studies (28)

Synthesis

The decision-making process evolved as patients progressed along their disease trajectory. The factors and how they influence choice are presented according to the decision whether to start dialysis and withdraw from treatment. These are presented as patient factors, health care professional factors, and their interaction (see Table 4 for exemplars).

View this table:
  • View inline
  • View popup
Table 4.

Factors affecting decision-making themes and exemplars

Commencing or Withholding Dialysis: Patient-Level Factors.

Deliberation of Factors

Patients considered a variety of factors when deciding whether to start dialysis, and these were different for each individual. Figure 2 illustrates the categories that contributed to this theme. Patients deliberated about the influence of the treatment choice on their quality of life (QoL) (33,34,36,37,40,41,43,44), which was then weighed against the survival benefits (33,34,36,37,41,43,44). Whether the effect on QoL outweighed survival advantage, or vice versa, was a personal judgment, and not something health care professionals and family members could predict (41). For many patients, the effect of treatment on QoL was more important than medical effectiveness (40), and maintaining a good QoL outweighed having a "long life" (33).

Figure 2.
  • Download figure
  • Open in new tab
  • Download powerpoint
Figure 2.

Categories that contribute to the theme "deliberation of factors."

Gut Instinct

Patients also based the decision to start dialysis on their intuition on whether to opt for the life-prolonging treatment, regardless of the personal cost, or accept dying as a natural course, given the "loss of self-identity … source of great hardship and suffering, and a fragmentation of lifestyle" (44) associated with dialysis.

Some individuals did not have a strong instinct for either of these, and they described the choice as one between "two evils" (37,42,44). These patients considered dialysis to be the "lesser of two evils" (37), given their significant predialysis symptom burden and the inevitability of death without treatment. Nonetheless, it was not a decision these individuals wanted to make but one they were forced to make as their renal function deteriorated (37).

Coping Mechanisms

How individuals coped with the decision-making process was important. Two types of coping responses were evident (33,36,37,39–41,44): (1) control the problem and (2) control emotions. Problem-controlling patients aimed to gain command of the situation and sought information, advice, and opinions (37,39–41). Emotion-controllers instead focused on how to handle the negative emotions associated with the situation (38). These emotions ranged from "shock" (42,44), to "anger" (36), "fear" (42,44), and "torture" (44). They used a variety of methods to minimize emotions, including false hope (42), avoidance (38,42), dependence on others to make decisions, and passive acceptance of treatment (33).

Commencing or Withholding Dialysis: Health Care Professional Factors.

Biomedical Criteria

The health care professionals’ decision on whether to start dialysis was predominantly influenced by medical criteria and clinical experience (34) rather than patient preference. Patients perceived that maintenance of "physiologic balance" was the health care professional’s aim (33). The medical criteria weighed by physicians were primarily age, comorbidities, physical function, prognosis, and cognitive impairment (34,35). Because of the unpredictable and asymptomatic nature of disease progression, blood tests were often relied upon to predict and educate patients about when dialysis may be required (42); however, patients often "lacked understanding of the blood test value’s meaning relative to their own experience" (42).

Ethical Dilemma

Physicians also recognized when it was unethical to prolong life, particularly with frail patients and those with a terminal illness (34). They acknowledged that dialysis could prolong "the suffering and the process of dying, rather than adding quality days to the patient’s life" (34). Nonetheless, even when health care professionals did not think someone would benefit from dialysis, they continued to offer the treatment because to withhold treatment was difficult (34) and they were led by their instinct to "err on the side of life" (34).

Commencing or Withholding Dialysis: Patient and Health Care Team Interaction.

Power and Communication

An important barrier to shared decision-making was the perceived power and dominance of the health care team. Health care professionals were considered to own the knowledge "and decided what the patient needed to know" (33,42); the patient relied on the team to share any knowledge (33). Health care professionals, however, also described their own "sense of powerlessness" (42) when faced with patients with ESRD, given the inevitability of disease progression.

Lelie found that physicians had typical "ideal" ways to provide information to patients of different age groups (35), with younger patients less likely to be informed of the option of conservative kidney management. Some patients were satisfied with the information they received (33) and thought they had made an informed independent decision (36,37). Others felt uninformed, did not feel they could ask questions, or did not know what to ask (33,42). Moreover, some misunderstood the information (36) and in particular its potential effect on their lives (42).

Acutely unwell patients often had little time to make a decision, could not always remember what had happened (33), or were unable to "deliberate" about treatment (39). The information provided was not consistent and was considered as "accidental" in its delivery (33). These patients often did not consider the decision to be their own (39).

The way information, and, in particular, risk, was presented influenced patient’s decisions (36,40,43). Some patients, after discussion with health care professionals, did not think a decision needed to be made (36). When health care professionals did communicate the uncertainty around the choice of treatment, this resulted in fear (40); however, more information about the future was still considered better than none by patients (42).

In addition, the person who provided the information and whether they were trusted by the patient was important (33,36,40,43). The majority felt that "if you wanna live" (40), you had to trust the physician to offer treatments that provided future hope (40). The decision was unique and complex, and so "who else you gonna trust" (40) was expressed to justify a dependence on professional judgement, which commonly nudged patients toward the choice considered to be medically optimal (39).

Dialysis Withdrawal: Patient-Level Factors.

Life on Dialysis

Participants remained convinced of their choice to have dialysis while they continued to experience the symptomatic benefits of treatment (40). At this stage dialysis had made them feel better, and this furthered their trust in the health care team (33). However, once their condition was no longer improving, past choice was questioned (40,42). This was typically after a prolonged period (e.g., years) on dialysis, when the "arduous" realities of life on dialysis were more fully appreciated (36,40–44). For many, particularly emotion-controlled patients, "their passive acceptance later generates profound questions about the meaning and worth" (39) of life on dialysis. This resulted once again in a feeling of powerlessness about one’s own life and a weariness (41), described as "sick of coming here," "had enough," and "just don’t want to do this anymore" (41).

Facing Withdrawal

Over time, participants reported that dialysis came to be seen as a "death sentence" in itself (44). Unfortunately, by this stage patients were dependent on treatment and withdrawal would result in imminent death, often within days (45). Therefore, the anxiety around such a decision was heightened, especially for those who had avoided the decision to commence dialysis in order to control their emotions (34,44) and were now faced with the same difficult choice between life on dialysis or death, but with more acute consequences if they chose the latter (34).

As with the decision to withhold treatment, individuals coped with dialysis withdrawal in a problem-controlling or emotion-controlling way. For some problem-focused patients, it was important to know they could stop treatment because this gave them back control (41). In contrast, the emotion controllers did not want to face such a decision and so focused on the present to avoid thoughts about future uncertainties (42).

Family Influence

From the family’s perspective the decision to withdraw treatment was equally difficult. Families found it difficult to differentiate between "allowing death and choosing it" (41), and so "guilt" (41) was closely associated with such decisions.

Dialysis Withdrawal: Health Care Professional Factors.

Avoidance

Despite the worries expressed by patients on dialysis, health care professionals acknowledged their own concerns about initiating discussions about treatment withdrawal (34,39,42). This was because they did not want to upset patients by being "too explicit" (41), the uncertainty of disease progression (42), and the moral and ethical burdens associated with such decisions (43). There was also evidence that over an extended period a close relationship develops between patients and the renal team (41). This made it difficult for health care professionals to separate their own instinct from the patient’s choice (41).

Genuine Request

Health care professionals also found it difficult to distinguish between a genuine request for withdrawal, from an attempt to simply discuss the goals of therapy and complain given the demanding nature of dialysis (39,41). This resulted in cautious interpretation of patient cues to discuss withdrawal, with depression and other treatable causes considered at first (41). Whether patients fully understood the implications of treatment withdrawal was also a concern (41).

Dialysis Withdrawal: Patient and Health Care Team Interaction.

Doing Trumps Talking

Patients "missed engaging in the dialogue" (33), which was once easily accessible, "rote" (41), and "procedural" (41) during predialysis education. The task-orientated conduct of the dialysis team made patients feel "controlled and incapacitated" (33). Health care professionals, however, considered patients as "voting with their feet," with "doing" considered to "trump talking" (41). These individuals attended dialysis week after week, and the team interpreted this as evidence of ongoing consent to treatment. Lack of acknowledgment that under the "veneer of straightforward participation in the treatment, are doubt and ambivalence" (41) was thought to result from the team’s presumption that patients must want to choose life and therefore continued to attend dialysis (34,41).

If Not Now, When?

Even when health care professionals judged that treatment was futile and patients continued to deteriorate despite dialysis, withholding treatment was frequently delayed until it became physiologically necessary (34,40). From both the patient’s and health care professional’s perspective, the point of withdrawal remained in the future, once all alternatives had been exhausted (41).

Discussion

Decision-making in ESRD is complex and dynamic and evolves over time and toward death. The factors at work operate differently for patients and health care professionals. Our findings resonate with results from previous quantitative and qualitative studies, but this synthesis expands on these and provides a deeper understanding of how and why different factors influence decisions about dialysis.

To facilitate informed shared decision-making, it is important to incorporate decision-making theory into tools designed to make such processes explicit to stakeholders, such as the RPA clinical practice guidance on shared decision-making (6). We found that patients made their choice through careful deliberation of multiple factors, as well as their gut instinct. This is consistent with dual processing theory, which proposes there are two modes of thinking: system 1, which is intuitive (i.e., based on gut instinct), and system 2, which is analytical (i.e., involving the deliberation of factors) (46–48). System 2 requires high cognitive effort and is often used when decision accuracy is pertinent (49), such as in ESRD. System 1 requires less cognitive effort (49); therefore, patients with cognitive impairment secondary to uremia or comorbidities may rely on this. Health care professionals also used system 1 and 2 processing. They relied predominantly on the deliberation of biomedical and ethical factors but were also driven by an instinct to "err on the side of life" (34). Making such cognitive processes transparent to patients, family members, and health care professionals, through the shared decision-making process advocated by the RPA guidance (6), is necessary to ensure decisions are informed and consistent with the patient’s preference.

How patients coped with emotions was also important. The effect of emotions on choice is well described, and it is suggested that an emotional reaction to a stimulus is the most important factor to guide decisions (50). Two coping mechanisms, problem controlling and emotion controlling, were evident. These are consistent with Folkman and Lazarus’s (51) theory of problem- and emotion-focused coping. Problem-focused individuals deal with unpleasant emotions and situations by attempting to solve the underlying problem, whereas emotion-focused individuals cope by minimizing thoughts and feelings about the problem (51). Health care professionals also found decision-making a challenge, as patients gradually progressed along an unpredictable trajectory toward death. Current guidance on shared decision-making does not address support for health care professionals (6). Acknowledgment and regular assessment and support for the emotional effect of decision-making in this context are therefore required; how to provide and implement this requires further research.

The synthesis also highlighted how factors that affect choice for patients and health care professionals evolve over time, and in particular how predialysis education did not prepare patients sufficiently for their personal experience of life on dialysis. In view of this and the difficulties in initiating discussions about treatment withdrawal, one recommendation is to extend the role of predialysis nurses to continue throughout the disease trajectory. This will provide continuity in discussions about treatment with a designated individual, who has already invested time to understand the patient’s priorities, and will therefore enable the RPA guidance to be applied in a sensitive and timely manner.

Most studies in this review were from Western, developed countries (n=11) and did not commonly report patients' ethnicity, level of education, or the socioeconomic class. Few studies provided information on those who chose conservative management. Patients with cognitive impairment were not included in the original studies. In addition, the experiences of those waiting for renal transplants were not within the scope of this review. These areas require further research.

The nephrology community has made substantial advances to address the issue of advance care planning in ESRD. To ensure such decisions are shared and informed, system 1 and 2 information processing, as well as how individuals cope with the decision-making process, must be further understood and incorporated into decision-making tools. Furthermore, continuity of patient-centered communication throughout the disease trajectory may facilitate timelier joint decision making with regard to dialysis withdrawal.

Disclosures

None.

Acknowledgments

This work was undertaken as part of a Masters by thesis funded through an National Institute for Health Research Academic Clinical Fellowship. The authors are grateful to Professor Karl Atkin and Dr. Peter Knapp for their advice and comments as members of the Thesis Advisory Panel and Dr. Matthew Nielson for screening studies.

Footnotes

  • Published online ahead of print. Publication date available at www.cjasn.org.

  • This article contains supplemental material online at http://cjasn.asnjournals.org/lookup/suppl/doi:10.2215/CJN.11091114/-/DCSupplemental.

  • Received November 7, 2014.
  • Accepted March 25, 2015.
  • Copyright © 2015 by the American Society of Nephrology

References

  1. ↵
    1. Song MK,
    2. Lin FC,
    3. Gilet CA,
    4. Arnold RM,
    5. Bridgman JC,
    6. Ward SE
    : Patient perspectives on informed decision-making surrounding dialysis initiation. Nephrol Dial Transplant 28: 2815–2823, 2013pmid:23901048
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  2. ↵
    Fresenius Medical Care: ESRD Patients in 2011: A Global Perspective, Bad Homburg, Germany, Fresenius Medical Care, 2012
  3. ↵
    1. Hussain JA,
    2. Mooney A,
    3. Russon L
    : Comparison of survival analysis and palliative care involvement in patients aged over 70 years choosing conservative management or renal replacement therapy in advanced chronic kidney disease. Palliat Med 27: 829–839, 2013pmid:23652841
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    1. Chandna SM,
    2. Da Silva-Gane M,
    3. Marshall C,
    4. Warwicker P,
    5. Greenwood RN,
    6. Farrington K
    : Survival of elderly patients with stage 5 CKD: comparison of conservative management and renal replacement therapy. Nephrol Dial Transplant 26: 1608–1614, 2011pmid:21098012
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  4. ↵
    1. Murtagh FE,
    2. Marsh JE,
    3. Donohoe P,
    4. Ekbal NJ,
    5. Sheerin NS,
    6. Harris FE
    : Dialysis or not? A comparative survival study of patients over 75 years with chronic kidney disease stage 5. Nephrol Dial Transplant 22: 1955–1962, 2007pmid:17412702
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  5. ↵
    Renal Physicians Association Working Group: Shared decision-making in the appropriate initiation of and withdrawal from dialysis: Clinical practice guideline. Renal Physicians Association. 2010. Available at: http://www.renalmd.org/WorkArea/DownloadAsset.aspx?id=2710 Accessed January 2015
  6. ↵
    1. Ahmed S,
    2. Addicott C,
    3. Qureshi M,
    4. Pendleton N,
    5. Clague JE,
    6. Horan MA
    : Opinions of elderly people on treatment for end-stage renal disease. Gerontology 45: 156–159, 1999pmid:10202260
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  7. ↵
    1. Bajwa K,
    2. Szabo E,
    3. Kjellstrand CM
    : A prospective study of risk factors and decision making in discontinuation of dialysis. Arch Intern Med 156: 2571–2577, 1996pmid:8951300
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    1. Davison SN,
    2. Jhangri GS
    : The impact of chronic pain on depression, sleep, and the desire to withdraw from dialysis in hemodialysis patients. J Pain Symptom Manage 30: 465–473, 2005pmid:16310620
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  8. ↵
    1. Tse DMW
    : Experience of a renal palliative care program in a Hong Kong center: Characteristics of patients who prefer palliative care to dialysis. Hong Kong J Nephrol 11: 50–58, 2009
    OpenUrlCrossRef
    1. Bapat U,
    2. Nayak SG,
    3. Kedleya PG,
    4. Gokulnath
    : Demographics and social factors associated with acceptance of treatment in patients with chronic kidney disease. Saudi J Kidney Dis Transpl 19: 132–136, 2008pmid:18087143
    OpenUrlPubMed
    1. Joly D,
    2. Anglicheau D,
    3. Alberti C,
    4. Nguyen AT,
    5. Touam M,
    6. Grünfeld JP,
    7. Jungers P
    : Octogenarians reaching end-stage renal disease: Cohort study of decision-making and clinical outcomes. J Am Soc Nephrol 14: 1012–1021, 2003pmid:12660336
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
    1. Navaneethan SD,
    2. Kandula P,
    3. Jeevanantham V,
    4. Nally JV Jr.,
    5. Liebman SE
    : Referral patterns of primary care physicians for chronic kidney disease in general population and geriatric patients. Clin Nephrol 73: 260–267, 2010pmid:20353733
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  9. ↵
    1. Sekkarie MA,
    2. Moss AH
    : Withholding and withdrawing dialysis: The role of physician specialty and education and patient functional status. Am J Kidney Dis 31: 464–472, 1998pmid:9506683
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  10. ↵
    1. Cohen LM,
    2. Germain M,
    3. Woods A,
    4. Gilman ED,
    5. McCue JD
    : Patient attitudes and psychological considerations in dialysis discontinuation. Psychosomatics 34: 395–401, 1993pmid:8140188
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    1. Hines SC,
    2. Badzek L,
    3. Moss AH
    : Informed consent among chronically ill elderly: Assessing its (in)adequacy and predictors. J Appl Commun Res 25: 151–169, 1997
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  11. ↵
    1. Morton RL,
    2. Howard K,
    3. Webster AC,
    4. Snelling P
    : Patient INformation about Options for Treatment (PINOT): A prospective national study of information given to incident CKD stage 5 patients. Nephrol Dial Transplant 26: 1266–1274, 2011pmid:20819955
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  12. ↵
    1. McKenzie JK,
    2. Moss AH,
    3. Feest TG,
    4. Stocking CB,
    5. Siegler M
    : Dialysis decision making in Canada, the United Kingdom, and the United States. Am J Kidney Dis 31: 12–18, 1998pmid:9428446
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    1. Hirsch DJ
    : Death from dialysis termination. Nephrol Dial Transplant 4: 41–44, 1989pmid:2494597
    OpenUrlPubMed
    1. Leggat JE Jr.,
    2. Bloembergen WE,
    3. Levine G,
    4. Hulbert-Shearon TE,
    5. Port FK
    : An analysis of risk factors for withdrawal from dialysis before death. J Am Soc Nephrol 8: 1755–1763, 1997pmid:9355079
    OpenUrlAbstract
    1. Orsino A,
    2. Cameron JI,
    3. Seidl M,
    4. Mendelssohn D,
    5. Stewart DE
    : Medical decision-making and information needs in end-stage renal disease patients. Gen Hosp Psychiatry 25: 324–331, 2003pmid:12972223
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  13. ↵
    1. Parry RG,
    2. Crowe A,
    3. Stevens JM,
    4. Mason JC,
    5. Roderick P
    : Referral of elderly patients with severe renal failure: Questionnaire survey of physicians. BMJ 313: 466, 1996pmid:8776315
    OpenUrlFREE Full Text
  14. ↵
    1. Melnyk BM,
    2. Fineout-Overholt E
    1. Powers BA
    : Generating evidence through qualitative research. In: Evidence-Based Practice in Nursing and Health Care, edited by Melnyk BM, Fineout-Overholt E, Philadelphia, Lippincott Williams & Wilkins, 2005
  15. ↵
    1. Morton RL,
    2. Tong A,
    3. Howard K,
    4. Snelling P,
    5. Webster AC
    : The views of patients and carers in treatment decision making for chronic kidney disease: Systematic review and thematic synthesis of qualitative studies. BMJ 340: c112, 2010pmid:20085970
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  16. ↵
    1. Murray MA,
    2. Brunier G,
    3. Chung JO,
    4. Craig LA,
    5. Mills C,
    6. Thomas A,
    7. Stacey D
    : A systematic review of factors influencing decision-making in adults living with chronic kidney disease. Patient Educ Couns 76: 149–158, 2009pmid:19324509
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  17. ↵
    Department of Health: The National Service Framework for Renal Services. Part Two: Chronic Kidney Disease, Acute Renal Failure and End of Life Care. 2005. Available at: https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/199002/National_Service_Framework_for_Renal_Services_Part_Two_-_Chronic_Kidney_Disease__Acute_Renal_Failure_and_End_of_Life_Care.pdf. Accessed January 2015
  18. ↵
    1. Flemming K
    : The synthesis of qualitative research and evidence-based nursing. Evid Based Nurs 10: 68–71, 2007pmid:17596376
    OpenUrlFREE Full Text
  19. ↵
    1. Flemming K,
    2. Briggs M
    : Electronic searching to locate qualitative research: Evaluation of three strategies. J Adv Nurs 57: 95–100, 2007pmid:17184378
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  20. ↵
    1. Hawker S,
    2. Payne S,
    3. Kerr C,
    4. Hardey M,
    5. Powell J
    : Appraising the evidence: reviewing disparate data systematically. Qual Health Res 12: 1284–1299, 2002pmid:12448672
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  21. ↵
    1. Braun V,
    2. Clarke V
    : Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qual Res Psychol 3: 77–101, 2006
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  22. ↵
    Robson C: Real World Research, 2nd Ed., Oxford, United Kingdom, Blackwell, 2002
  23. ↵
    1. Tong A,
    2. Flemming K,
    3. McInnes E,
    4. Oliver S,
    5. Craig J
    : Enhancing transparency in reporting the synthesis of qualitative research: ENTREQ. BMC Med Res Methodol 12: 181, 2012pmid:23185978
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  24. ↵
    1. Aasen EM,
    2. Kvangarsnes M,
    3. Heggen K
    : Perceptions of patient participation amongst elderly patients with end-stage renal disease in a dialysis unit. Scand J Caring Sci 26: 61–69, 2012pmid:21718340
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  25. ↵
    1. Halvorsen K,
    2. Slettebø A,
    3. Nortvedt P,
    4. Pedersen R,
    5. Kirkevold M,
    6. Nordhaug M,
    7. Brinchmann BS
    : Priority dilemmas in dialysis: The impact of old age. J Med Ethics 34: 585–589, 2008pmid:18667645
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  26. ↵
    1. Lelie A
    : Decision-making in nephrology: Shared decision making? Patient Educ Couns 39: 81–89, 2000pmid:11013550
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  27. ↵
    1. Johnson B
    1. Noble H,
    2. Meyer J,
    3. Bridges J,
    4. Kelly D
    ,Johnson B: Reasons renal patients give for deciding not to dialyze: A prospective qualitative interview study. Dial Transplant 38: 82–89, 2009
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  28. ↵
    1. Tweed AE,
    2. Ceaser K
    : Renal replacement therapy choices for pre-dialysis renal patients. Br J Nurs 14: 659–664, 2005pmid:16010217
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  29. ↵
    1. Breckenridge DM
    : Patients’ perceptions of why, how, and by whom dialysis treatment modality was chosen. ANNA J 24: 313–319, discussion 320–321, 1997pmid:9238903
    OpenUrlPubMed
  30. ↵
    1. Kaufman SR,
    2. Shim JK,
    3. Russ AJ
    : Old age, life extension, and the character of medical choice. J Gerontol B Psychol Sci Soc Sci 61: S175–S184, 2006pmid:16855038
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  31. ↵
    1. Kelly-Powell ML
    : Personalizing choices: Patients’ experiences with making treatment decisions. Res Nurs Health 20: 219–227, 1997pmid:9179176
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  32. ↵
    1. Russ AJ,
    2. Shim JK,
    3. Kaufman SR
    : The value of “life at any cost”: Talk about stopping kidney dialysis. Soc Sci Med 64: 2236–2247, 2007pmid:17418924
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  33. ↵
    1. Schell JO,
    2. Patel UD,
    3. Steinhauser KE,
    4. Ammarell N,
    5. Tulsky JA
    : Discussions of the kidney disease trajectory by elderly patients and nephrologists: A qualitative study. Am J Kidney Dis 59: 495–503, 2012pmid:22221483
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  34. ↵
    1. Ashby M,
    2. op’t Hoog C,
    3. Kellehear A,
    4. Kerr PG,
    5. Brooks D,
    6. Nicholls K,
    7. Forrest M
    : Renal dialysis abatement: Lessons from a social study. Palliat Med 19: 389–396, 2005pmid:16111062
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  35. ↵
    1. Lin CC,
    2. Lee BO,
    3. Hicks FD
    : The phenomenology of deciding about hemodialysis among Taiwanese. West J Nurs Res 27: 915–929, discussion 930–934, 2005pmid:16275706
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  36. ↵
    1. Murtagh F,
    2. Cohen LM,
    3. Germain MJ
    : Dialysis discontinuation: Quo vadis? Adv Chronic Kidney Dis 14: 379–401, 2007pmid:17904506
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  37. ↵
    Kahneman D, Frederick S: Representativeness revisited: attribute substitution in intuitive judgment. In: Heurisitics and Biases: The Psychology of Intuitive Judgement, edited by Gilovich T, Griffin D, Kahneman D, New York, Cambridge University Press, 2002, pp 49–81
    1. Sloman SA
    : The empirical case for two systems of reasoning. Psychol Bull 119: 3–22, 1996
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  38. ↵
    1. Gilovich T,
    2. Griffin DW,
    3. Kahneman D
    1. Stanovich KE,
    2. West RF
    : Individual differences in reasoning: Implications for the rationality debate? In: Heurisitics and Biases: The Psychology of Intuitive Judgement, edited by Gilovich T, Griffin DW, Kahneman D, New York, Cambridge University Press, 2002, pp 421–440
  39. ↵
    1. Kahneman D
    : A perspective on judgment and choice: Mapping bounded rationality. Am Psychol 58: 697–720, 2003pmid:14584987
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  40. ↵
    1. Zajonc RB
    : Feeling and thinking: Preferences need no inferences. Am Psychol 35: 151–175, 1980
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  41. ↵
    1. Folkman S,
    2. Lazarus RS
    : Coping as a mediator of emotion. J Pers Soc Psychol 54: 466–475, 1988pmid:3361419
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
PreviousNext
Back to top

In this issue

Clinical Journal of the American Society of Nephrology: 10 (7)
Clinical Journal of the American Society of Nephrology
Vol. 10, Issue 7
July 07, 2015
  • Table of Contents
  • Table of Contents (PDF)
  • Index by author
View Selected Citations (0)
Print
Download PDF
Sign up for Alerts
Email Article
Thank you for your help in sharing the high-quality science in CJASN.
Enter multiple addresses on separate lines or separate them with commas.
Patient and Health Care Professional Decision-Making to Commence and Withdraw from Renal Dialysis: A Systematic Review of Qualitative Research
(Your Name) has sent you a message from American Society of Nephrology
(Your Name) thought you would like to see the American Society of Nephrology web site.
CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.
Citation Tools
Patient and Health Care Professional Decision-Making to Commence and Withdraw from Renal Dialysis: A Systematic Review of Qualitative Research
Jamilla A. Hussain, Kate Flemming, Fliss E.M. Murtagh, Miriam J. Johnson
CJASN Jul 2015, 10 (7) 1201-1215; DOI: 10.2215/CJN.11091114

Citation Manager Formats

  • BibTeX
  • Bookends
  • EasyBib
  • EndNote (tagged)
  • EndNote 8 (xml)
  • Medlars
  • Mendeley
  • Papers
  • RefWorks Tagged
  • Ref Manager
  • RIS
  • Zotero
Request Permissions
Share
Patient and Health Care Professional Decision-Making to Commence and Withdraw from Renal Dialysis: A Systematic Review of Qualitative Research
Jamilla A. Hussain, Kate Flemming, Fliss E.M. Murtagh, Miriam J. Johnson
CJASN Jul 2015, 10 (7) 1201-1215; DOI: 10.2215/CJN.11091114
del.icio.us logo Digg logo Reddit logo Twitter logo CiteULike logo Facebook logo Google logo Mendeley logo
  • Tweet Widget
  • Facebook Like

Jump to section

  • Article
    • Abstract
    • Introduction
    • Materials and Methods
    • Results
    • Discussion
    • Disclosures
    • Acknowledgments
    • Footnotes
    • References
  • Figures & Data Supps
  • Info & Metrics
  • View PDF

More in this TOC Section

Original Articles

  • Estimated Loss of Lifetime Employment Duration for Patients Undergoing Maintenance Dialysis in Taiwan
  • Neural Epidermal Growth Factor–Like 1 Protein–Positive Membranous Nephropathy in Chinese Patients
  • Digital Applications Targeting Medication Safety in Ambulatory High-Risk CKD Patients
Show more Original Articles

ESRD and Chronic Dialysis

  • Immunogenicity of Augmented Compared With Standard Dose Hepatitis B Vaccine in Pediatric Patients on Dialysis: a Midwest Pediatric Nephrology Consortium Study
  • Changes in the Profile of Endovascular Procedures Performed in Freestanding Dialysis Access Centers over 15 Years
  • Prognostic Value of Residual Urine Volume, GFR by 24-hour Urine Collection, and eGFR in Patients Receiving Dialysis
Show more ESRD and Chronic Dialysis

Cited By...

  • Advance care plan barriers in older patients with end-stage renal disease: a qualitative nephrologist interview study
  • Shared decision-making in advanced kidney disease: a scoping review protocol
  • Racial/Ethnic Differences in Dialysis Discontinuation and Survival after Hospitalization for Serious Conditions among Patients on Maintenance Dialysis
  • Discussions during shared decision-making in older adults with advanced renal disease: a scoping review
  • Emotional Impact of Illness and Care on Patients with Advanced Kidney Disease
  • Tuning into Qualitative Research--A Channel for the Patient Voice
  • Conservative care of the patient with end-stage renal disease
  • Google Scholar

Similar Articles

Related Articles

  • PubMed
  • Google Scholar

Keywords

  • CKD
  • dialysis
  • dialysis withholding
  • end-stage kidney disease
  • quality of life

Articles

  • Current Issue
  • Early Access
  • Subject Collections
  • Article Archive
  • ASN Meeting Abstracts

Information for Authors

  • Submit a Manuscript
  • Trainee of the Year
  • Author Resources
  • ASN Journal Policies
  • Reuse/Reprint Policy

About

  • CJASN
  • ASN
  • ASN Journals
  • ASN Kidney News

Journal Information

  • About CJASN
  • CJASN Email Alerts
  • CJASN Key Impact Information
  • CJASN Podcasts
  • CJASN RSS Feeds
  • Editorial Board

More Information

  • Advertise
  • ASN Podcasts
  • ASN Publications
  • Become an ASN Member
  • Feedback
  • Follow on Twitter
  • Password/Email Address Changes
  • Subscribe to ASN Journals

© 2021 American Society of Nephrology

Print ISSN - 1555-9041 Online ISSN - 1555-905X

Powered by HighWire