Skip to main content

Main menu

  • Home
  • Content
    • Published Ahead of Print
    • Current Issue
    • Podcasts
    • Subject Collections
    • Archives
    • Kidney Week 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
    • ASN Publications
    • 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
    • ASN Publications
    • 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
    • Kidney Week 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 ArticlesGeriatric and Palliative Nephrology
Open Access

Emotional Impact of Illness and Care on Patients with Advanced Kidney Disease

Ann M. O’Hare, Claire Richards, Jackie Szarka, Lynne V. McFarland, Whitney Showalter, Elizabeth K. Vig, Rebecca L. Sudore, Susan T. Crowley, Ranak Trivedi and Janelle S. Taylor
CJASN July 2018, 13 (7) 1022-1029; DOI: https://doi.org/10.2215/CJN.14261217
Ann M. O’Hare
1Center of Innovation for Veteran-Centered and Value-Driven Care,
2Nephrology Section, Hospital and Specialty Medicine Service, and
3Departments of Medicine,
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Claire Richards
1Center of Innovation for Veteran-Centered and Value-Driven Care,
4Health Services, and
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • ORCID record for Claire Richards
Jackie Szarka
1Center of Innovation for Veteran-Centered and Value-Driven Care,
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Lynne V. McFarland
1Center of Innovation for Veteran-Centered and Value-Driven Care,
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Whitney Showalter
1Center of Innovation for Veteran-Centered and Value-Driven Care,
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Elizabeth K. Vig
3Departments of Medicine,
5Geriatrics and Extended Care, VA Puget Sound Health Care System, Seattle, Washington;
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Rebecca L. Sudore
6Division of Geriatrics, Department of Medicine, University of California, San Francisco, San Francisco, California;
7Geriatrics and Extended Care, San Francisco VA Medical Center, San Francisco, California;
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Susan T. Crowley
8Veterans Health Administration, Specialty Care Services/Office of Policy and Services, and
9Section of Nephrology, Department of Medicine, Yale University School of Medicine, New Haven, Connecticut;
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Ranak Trivedi
10Center for Innovation to Implementation, VA Palo Alto Health Care System, Palo Alto, California; and
11Department of Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences, Stanford University, Palo Alto, California
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Janelle S. Taylor
12Anthropology, University of Washington, Seattle, Washington;
  • 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

Visual Overview

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

Abstract

Background and objectives The highly specialized and technologically focused approach to care inherent to many health systems can adversely affect patients’ emotional experiences of illness, while also obscuring these effects from the clinician’s view. We describe what we learned from patients with advanced kidney disease about the emotional impact of illness and care.

Design, setting, participants, & measurements As part of an ongoing study on advance care planning, we conducted semistructured interviews at the VA Puget Sound Healthcare System in Seattle, Washington, with 27 patients with advanced kidney disease between April of 2014 and May of 2016. Of these, ten (37%) were receiving center hemodialysis, five (19%) were receiving peritoneal dialysis, and 12 (44%) had an eGFR≤20 ml/min per 1.73 m2 and had not started dialysis. Interviews were audiotaped, transcribed, and analyzed inductively using grounded theory methods.

Results We here describe three emergent themes related to patients’ emotional experiences of care and illness: (1) emotional impact of interactions with individual providers: when providers seemed to lack insight into the patient’s experience of illness and treatment, this could engender a sense of mistrust, abandonment, isolation, and/or alienation; (2) emotional impact of encounters with the health care system: just as they could be affected emotionally by interactions with individual providers, patients could also be affected by how care was organized, which could similarly lead to feelings of mistrust, abandonment, isolation, and/or alienation; and (3) emotional impact of meaning-making: patients struggled to make sense of their illness experience, worked to apportion blame, and were often quick to blame themselves and to assume that their illness could have been prevented.

Conclusions Interactions with individual providers and with the wider health system coupled with patients’ own struggles to make meaning of their illness can take a large emotional toll. A deeper appreciation of patients’ emotional experiences may offer important opportunities to improve care.

  • Abandonment
  • Advance Care Planning
  • Advanced Kidney Disease
  • dialysis
  • Emotions
  • Fragmentation
  • glomerular filtration rate
  • Grounded Theory
  • Humans
  • Isolation
  • kidney
  • Loneliness
  • Mistrust
  • Patient Experience
  • Patient-centered
  • peritoneal dialysis
  • renal dialysis
  • Self-blame
  • Specialization

Introduction

Like other populations with chronic illness, patients with CKD can have a high symptom burden, a high prevalence of other comorbid conditions, and limited life expectancy (1). Several recent studies among members of this population suggest that the concerns of patients can be diametrically opposed to those of their providers, and that patients may experience their illness and care in ways that might be surprising to providers (2–8). These studies illuminate patients’ experiences in ways that provide both impetus and direction for efforts to make care for this population more patient-centered.

The need for a more patient-centered approach to care, defined by the Institute of Medicine as “care that is respectful of and responsive to individual patient preferences, needs, and values and (ensures) that patient values guide all clinical decisions,” (9) is particularly pressing for those with advanced kidney disease. Available evidence suggests that for many of these patients major treatment decisions, such as whether and when to initiate dialysis, are often shaped more by provider- and system-level considerations than by the goals and values of individual patients (6,10).

As part of a study on advance care planning in patients with advanced kidney disease, we sought to learn about the illness experiences of members of this population, their interactions with providers and the health system, and their thoughts about advance care planning and end-of-life care. We here describe what we learned about the emotional impact of illness and care in this population.

Materials and Methods

Recruitment

The work described here was conducted as part of a single-center study on advance care planning (11,12). This study enrolled patients receiving care in the Nephrology clinic or dialysis unit at the VA Puget Sound Health Care System in Seattle, Washington, who had an eGFR≤20 ml/min per 1.73 m2 on at least two occasions 3 months apart or were undergoing treatment with maintenance dialysis. Potential participants were selected purposively to ensure representation of patients who were and were not receiving dialysis. Potential participants were mailed a letter inviting them to participate in the study and providing information on how to opt out from further contact. Those who did not opt out from further contact received a follow-up phone call to explain the study and learn whether they might be interested in participating. Those interested in participating were asked to complete a mini–mental status examination and were excluded if they provided an incorrect response to four or more questions (13). Those who were eligible and agreed to participate were asked to provide informed consent. Interviews were conducted in person or by phone, depending on the participant’s preference. In-person interviews were conducted in a private conference room in the Nephrology section at the Seattle VA.

Data Collection

Study participants completed a 45–60-minute semistructured, one-on-one interview that included both general questions about their illness experience and encounters with providers and the health system and more specific questions about their experience and perspectives on advance care planning (see Supplemental Appendix). Participants were prompted to provide details and examples to enhance the richness of the data. Interviews were conducted by one coinvestigator (J.S.), a study coordinator who practices part-time as a clinical psychologist and holds a PhD focused on qualitative research. The interviewer had no relationship with study participants before the interview and, at the beginning of each interview, explained to participants that she had no experience caring for patients with kidney disease. All interviews were digitally recorded and transcribed verbatim. The interviewer took field notes and used these to crosscheck with audio recordings and transcripts. Participants were not asked to review interview transcripts.

Qualitative Analysis

Data analyses were based on grounded theory methods (14). To ensure that the analysis was not biased by the researchers’ expectations, we began with open coding to capture important themes from the transcripts, using an emergent rather than a priori approach. We used Atlas.ti software to organize the coding process (Atlas.ti; Scientific Software Development GmbH, Berlin, Germany). Each transcript was coded by at least two coauthors (J.S., A.M.O., or L.V.M.). One coauthor (J.S.) then reviewed all coded transcripts and refined, condensed, and organized open codes into code families (groupings of codes with related meaning). Emergent codes were added throughout the analysis and “in vivo” codes were selected as exemplars (15). Six coauthors (J.S., A.M.O., L.V.M., J.S.T., W.S., and E.K.V.) iteratively reviewed and discussed the codes and code families, returned as needed to the transcripts to ensure that coding remained well grounded in the data, and built consensus by open discussion of differing interpretations of the data, choice of codes, and/or thematic organization. We continued to conduct interviews and analyze data until reaching saturation, the point at which no new codes were identified. The protocol for the overall study was reviewed and approved by the VA Central Institutional Review Board.

Results

Patients

Between April of 2014 and the end of May of 2016, 56 patients with advanced CKD were mailed an invitation to participate in this study of whom 27 enrolled (48%). The mean age of enrolled patients was 63±10 years (range 42–81 years); 96% were men; and most self-identified as white (56%), 33% as black, and 11% as other race. At the time of the interview, ten patients (37%) were receiving hemodialysis, five (19%) were receiving peritoneal dialysis, and 12 (44%) had not started dialysis.

Emergent Themes

We here describe three emergent themes related to patients’ emotional experiences of care and illness (Table 1): (1) emotional impact of interactions with individual providers: when providers seemed to display insufficient insight into, or concern for, patients’ experiences of illness, this could engender a sense of mistrust, abandonment, isolation, and/or alienation; (2) emotional impact of health system encounters: just as they could be affected emotionally by interactions with individual providers, patients could also be affected by how care was organized, which could similarly lead to feelings of mistrust, abandonment, isolation, and/or alienation; and (3) emotional impact of meaning-making: patients struggled to make sense of their illness experience, working to apportion blame, often feeling personally responsible for their course of illness, and relying on counterfactual explanations.

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

Emergent themes

Emotional Effect of Patients’ Interactions with Individual Providers.

To patients, providers could seem insufficiently concerned about, or even oblivious to, matters of immense importance to them. This disconnect could engender, or contribute to, feelings of alienation, mistrust, abandonment, and/or isolation.

Alienation.

One man spoke of his fear of undergoing a kidney biopsy: “That’s a big step, to me. A big deal! I have a pinched nerve, right? They want to stick a needle in my back, you know, for that?” From this individual’s perspective, his providers were not seeing him as a whole person; they had failed to understand the specifics of his situation and anticipate how preposterous their recommendations might seem to him given his other health issues.

Mistrust.

When patients’ kidney disease progressed, this could lead them to question the care that they had received earlier on. One man reflected on how little his provider had told him about preventing progression of kidney disease despite the dramatic implications this had for him: “Try to keep my BP down and try and stay away from … sodium and salt and sugar. And that’s about all he said, really.” Another patient spoke of how one doctor had failed to inform him about his worsening kidney function.

Abandonment.

Although some patients described positive relationships with providers, comments from other patients conveyed a sense that their providers had little to offer beyond their specialized repertoire of treatments and procedures, which could leave the patient feeling unaccompanied or even abandoned in their illness experience. This limited reach of patient-provider relationships could be laid bare when treatment options were narrowing. One man spoke of the limited dialysis options open to him because of what providers had already done to him: “They told me I couldn’t have the “at home” dialysis because they’ve been chopping me up so much, that they didn’t think it was a good thing.” Others expressed a sense of having been abandoned at moments of greatest need. For example, one man relayed how his nephrologist told him he had nothing more to offer: “So he said: “You know, we did it for a couple of months. I’ve done everything I know how to do for you, I can’t go any further.” Oh, so what does this mean?”

Isolation.

Patients also described a sense of isolation in their illness experience that providers could be powerless to address. One woman described how she had expressed a desire to meet other patients but her nephrologist did not feel able to facilitate this due to concerns about privacy. She spoke of how when she learned that one of her coworkers was on dialysis “it was nice to hear from someone who was going through that … it made me feel better.”

Emotional impact of Patients’ Encounters with the Health System.

Patients could also be affected emotionally by how care was organized. Similar to interactions with individual providers, encounters with the health system could also engender, or contribute to, feelings of mistrust, abandonment, isolation, and/or alienation among patients. Faced with a fragmented care system, patients struggled to create coherence and did so in ways unlikely to have been intended by the providers caring for them.

Mistrust.

When providers moved in and out of patients’ care over the course of illness this could engender a sense of mistrust. One patient described how he no longer had a provider he could “trust” and another patient described his mistrust for providers who did not know him.

Abandonment.

Fragmentation and discontinuity of care across providers could even be perceived by patients as having contributed to their course of illness. One man described how “the ball got dropped” on his kidney disease after his physician retired and he was cared for by a series of nurse practitioners. When providers failed to work collaboratively with their colleagues, this could cause patients immense distress. One woman described being reduced to tears when she showed up for a scan only to learn that the radiologist had cancelled the procedure due to concern over contrast nephropathy. Apparently, the radiologist was either unaware or did not care that she had already discussed this risk with her nephrologist, and desperately wanted to proceed with the study as part of her evaluation for transplant. One man described the difficulty he faced getting any of the specialists he was seeing to address the severe pruritus that was by far his most troubling concern.

Isolation.

Seemingly mundane aspects of how health care was delivered could sometimes take a large emotional toll. One man described a day when the order of his visits with different providers on the same team seemed to him to be “backwards” because it was not until the end of the day, when he sat down with his nephrologist, that he learned that his renal prognosis was much worse than he thought. This experience left the patient feeling “emotionally distraught for quite some time” in part because, at the end of the day, he came to realize that “all (of the providers) knew my kidney function had decreased, but no one had told me.” He went on to explain how he felt “alone and isolated” during this period in his life and mentioned that the opportunity to talk with another patient made him “not feel alone in the process.”

Alienation.

Even more explicit efforts to deliver multidisciplinary care could be perceived by patients in ways unlikely to have been intended by providers. One patient who had attended the multidisciplinary predialysis education class that is offered to patients approaching dialysis at our center seemed not to distinguish among the roles and expertise of individuals on the care team, referring to them collectively as “the people that tell you what to eat and what not to eat and be prepared for this or that.” This patient’s reaction to the tour of the dialysis unit (that is typically scheduled at the end of the class) would probably have shocked the organizers: “… and then they take you up seeing people who are laid up there and, you know, make a spectacle out of them.”

Emotional impact of Meaning-Making.

The question of whether and to what extent they were responsible for the course of their kidney disease (or illness more broadly) was one with which the individuals we interviewed struggled greatly. They reflexively tried to understand who or what might be to blame for their kidney disease, were often quick to blame themselves, and assumed that their kidney disease could have been prevented.

Apportioning Blame.

Whether they were personally responsible for their kidney disease could be a matter of considerable moral importance to the patients we spoke with. One man told us how, before he learned that his kidney disease was due to a genetic mutation, he “couldn’t help thinking that maybe I did this to myself.” Another man explained that his kidney function was normal until he went for a surgery, emphasizing that “It isn’t like I drank a lot or did a lot of things to kill my kidneys.”

Personal Responsibility.

Study participants were often quick to assume that their illness was due to something they had done or not done. Many of the explanations patients gave for their kidney disease implied substantial faith in the power of medical advice and in their own agency if only they had received or followed this advice, underplaying what medical researchers and practitioners know about the complexities and uncertainties of chronic illness. One man expressed “regret” that he “didn’t listen in time to prevent this” and said that he saw his kidney disease and other health problems as “a result of you not doing what you should have been doing … you can’t hold anyone else accountable for it. It’s all on you.”

Even patients who understood their kidney disease to be multifactorial seemed to assume that they might have been able to do something to alter the course of disease if they had only known more. One man indicated that he believed his providers could have intervened to change the course of his illness if only he had “asked more questions” and not been “afraid” to let providers know when he saw things going “off-track.”

Undoing.

Some patients offered highly specific counterfactual explanations for their kidney disease that implied a belief that it could easily have been prevented. One woman spoke of how she wished she had realized that she had kidney disease earlier on “because I was taking medications that were making the condition worse. And I would have stopped my medications, well, maybe not.” In some instances, patients pinpointed a single pivotal incident or moment in time. One man described how his kidneys were damaged by a lithium overdose while he was in prison because he did not drink enough water to “flush” them. Although it is medically plausible that medications might have caused kidney disease in these patients, neither of these explanations seems to leave room for more than one causative factor, nor for any uncertainty about etiology.

Discussion

Patients’ experiences of illness and interactions with providers and the health system can take a large emotional toll. Patients with advanced kidney disease interviewed for this study described feelings of isolation, abandonment, alienation, mistrust, and even self-blame that would probably be surprising to the providers taking care of them. It is striking that these themes emerged in response to open-ended questions about patients’ experiences of illness and care without the use of specific probes to elicit information about their emotions. These findings underscore the critical importance of considering patients’ emotional experiences in efforts to improve care. They also provide a compelling rationale for more in-depth qualitative work to understand the source of these negative emotions and determine how widespread they might be.

Our findings are consistent with a large body of work at the intersection of medicine, social science, and the humanities highlighting the limitations of the biomedical model of health that underlies much of contemporary medical education, practice, and research. This technologically focused model is often ill-equipped to address the emotional and existential needs of patients (16–20), and especially the complex needs of patients with multiple different comorbid conditions and/or limited life expectancy (21,22). The biomedical model also fosters a sharp separation between the roles, experiences, and cultures of patients and health care providers, which can make it difficult for providers to understand and acknowledge patients’ suffering (16–20). Even well intentioned efforts to increase patient engagement in care (e.g., efforts to promote living well with chronic disease or healthy aging) can have the unintended effect of making patients feel responsible for their ill-health or disability (2,7,23–25). One of the more insidious ways this may occur is when messaging from both within and outside the health system oversimplifies the complex “multicausal” nature of chronic conditions and underplays the inherent uncertainty and unpredictability that often characterize their course (2,7,23–25).

Improving education and health literacy among patients with kidney disease (26–29) and building communication skills among nephrology providers (30–35) will go some way toward improving communication between patients and providers. However, in complex and fragmented health systems, our findings suggest that improving communication will require that providers gain a stronger appreciation of the totality of patients’ interactions with other providers and the health system and how these interface with patients’ own struggles to make meaning of their illness. It will also require that providers reflect on the unintended effects of their own actions as agents within the health system (18,19,36). Equipping providers to engage in such reflection will require that we reshape medical training and practice to place a higher premium on emotional intelligence (37), the narratives of individual patients (17,19,38), and person-centered approaches to care (e.g., listening, relationship-building, care coordination, shared decision-making, peer support) (9,19,39–47).

Perhaps most importantly, our findings suggest that, although necessary, efforts focused on individual providers will alone be insufficient to meaningfully improve the patient experience. Also needed, will be a stronger commitment to teamwork at a variety of organizational levels in order to accommodate the increasingly limited reach of individual patient-provider relationships and the large numbers of providers with whom individual patients may interact across settings and over time (11,48,49). Similar to individual providers, these groups of providers working together in a multi-, inter-, or transdisciplinary fashion and the organizational leadership of the health systems that support them must be mindful of the patient perspective and potential unintended emotional consequences of their approach to care delivery for individual patients.

The main limitations of this study relate to transferability and potential for bias. More work is needed to understand whether these findings from a single-center study among predominantly male veterans are also present in other settings and populations, especially those with a higher representation of women. A further limitation is that we only included patients who could provide informed consent and thus our results do not speak to the experiences of patients with kidney disease who have cognitive insufficiency.

Interactions with individual providers and with the wider health system coupled with patients’ own struggle to make meaning of their illness can take a large emotional toll. Our findings suggest that a deeper appreciation of patients’ emotional experiences may offer important opportunities to improve care and highlight the need for more in-depth work in this area.

Acknowledgments

We are extremely grateful to the patients with advanced kidney disease who participated in this study.

This work was supported by the VA Health Services Research and Development Service (VA IIR 12-126, PI A.M.O.). R.T. was supported by a VA HSR&D Career Development Award (CDA-09-206, PI R.T.). C.R. was supported by the VA Office of Academic Affiliations’ Advanced Fellowship in Health Services Research and Development (#TPH 61-000-22). None of the funding sources for this project had a role in the design and conduct of the study, including collection, management, analysis, and interpretation of the data; in preparation, review, or approval of the manuscript; or in the decision to submit the manuscript for publication. In the past 3 years, A.M.O. has received speaking honoraria from Fresenius Medical Care, Dialysis Clinics Inc., the Japanese Society for Dialysis and Transplantation, the University of Alabama, and the University of Pennsylvania. She receives an honorarium from UpToDate and is currently participating in the Health and Aging Policy Fellows Program supported by the John A. Hartford Foundation and the American Political Science Association Congressional Fellowship Program.

A.M.O., J.S., E.K.V., and J.S.T. designed the study; A.M.O. and W.S. obtained IRB approval; L.V.M. and J.S. recruited patients; J.S. conducted and recorded patient interviews; L.V.M. and W.S. transcribed interviews; A.M.O., J.S., W.S., and L.V.M. coded interview transcripts; A.M.O., E.K.V., J.S.T., J.S., W.S., and L.V.M. conducted qualitative analyses; A.M.O. prepared the first draft of the manuscript and all authors participated in manuscript revision and approved the final version of the manuscript.

Rajnish Mehrotra, Editor-in-Chief and Ian de Boer, Deputy Editor, of the Clinical Journal of the American Society of Nephrology were recused from the peer review process of this manuscript since they are at the same institution as some of the authors. The peer review and decision-making process for this manuscript were overseen by another editor.

Footnotes

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

  • See related Patient Voice, “12 Tips to Nephrology Teams Supporting Patients with Advanced Kidney Disease: An Advocate’s Dozen,” on pages 971–972.

  • This article contains supplemental material online at http://cjasn.asnjournals.org/lookup/suppl/doi:10.2215/CJN.14261217/-/DCSupplemental.

  • Received December 22, 2017.
  • Accepted April 2, 2018.
  • Copyright © 2018 by the American Society of Nephrology

References

  1. ↵
    1. Saran R,
    2. Robinson B,
    3. Abbott KC,
    4. Agodoa LY,
    5. Albertus P,
    6. Ayanian J,
    7. Balkrishnan R,
    8. Bragg-Gresham J,
    9. Cao J,
    10. Chen JL,
    11. Cope E,
    12. Dharmarajan S,
    13. Dietrich X,
    14. Eckard A,
    15. Eggers PW,
    16. Gaber C,
    17. Gillen D,
    18. Gipson D,
    19. Gu H,
    20. Hailpern SM,
    21. Hall YN,
    22. Han Y,
    23. He K,
    24. Hebert H,
    25. Helmuth M,
    26. Herman W,
    27. Heung M,
    28. Hutton D,
    29. Jacobsen SJ,
    30. Ji N,
    31. Jin Y,
    32. Kalantar-Zadeh K,
    33. Kapke A,
    34. Katz R,
    35. Kovesdy CP,
    36. Kurtz V,
    37. Lavalee D,
    38. Li Y,
    39. Lu Y,
    40. McCullough K,
    41. Molnar MZ,
    42. Montez-Rath M,
    43. Morgenstern H,
    44. Mu Q,
    45. Mukhopadhyay P,
    46. Nallamothu B,
    47. Nguyen DV,
    48. Norris KC,
    49. O,’Hare AM,
    50. Obi Y,
    51. Pearson J,
    52. Pisoni R,
    53. Plattner B,
    54. Port FK,
    55. Potukuchi P,
    56. Rao P,
    57. Ratkowiak K,
    58. Ravel V,
    59. Ray D,
    60. Rhee CM,
    61. Schaubel DE,
    62. Selewski DT,
    63. Shaw S,
    64. Shi J,
    65. Shieu M,
    66. Sim JJ,
    67. Song P,
    68. Soohoo M,
    69. Steffick D,
    70. Streja E,
    71. Tamura MK,
    72. Tentori F,
    73. Tilea A,
    74. Tong L,
    75. Turf M,
    76. Wang D,
    77. Wang M,
    78. Woodside K,
    79. Wyncott A,
    80. Xin X,
    81. Zang W,
    82. Zepel L,
    83. Zhang S,
    84. Zho H,
    85. Hirth RA,
    86. Shahinian V
    : US renal data system 2016 annual data report: Epidemiology of kidney disease in the United States. Am J Kidney Dis 69[Suppl 1]: A7–A8, 2017pmid:28236831
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  2. ↵
    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
    1. Wachterman MW,
    2. McCarthy EP,
    3. Marcantonio ER,
    4. Ersek M
    : Mistrust, misperceptions, and miscommunication: A qualitative study of preferences about kidney transplantation among African Americans. Transplant Proc 47: 240–246, 2015pmid:25769556
    OpenUrlPubMed
    1. Tong A,
    2. Rangan GK,
    3. Ruospo M,
    4. Saglimbene V,
    5. Strippoli GF,
    6. Palmer SC,
    7. Tunnicliffe DJ,
    8. Craig JC
    : A painful inheritance-patient perspectives on living with polycystic kidney disease: Thematic synthesis of qualitative research. Nephrol Dial Transplant 30: 790–800, 2015pmid:25637642
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    1. Bowling CB,
    2. Vandenberg AE,
    3. Phillips LS,
    4. McClellan WM,
    5. Johnson TM 2nd.,
    6. Echt KV
    : Older patients’ perspectives on managing complexity in CKD self-management. Clin J Am Soc Nephrol 12: 635–643, 2017pmid:28389529
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  3. ↵
    1. Wong SP,
    2. Vig EK,
    3. Taylor JS,
    4. Burrows NR,
    5. Liu CF,
    6. Williams DE,
    7. Hebert PL,
    8. O’Hare AM
    : Timing of initiation of maintenance dialysis: A qualitative analysis of the electronic medical records of a national cohort of patients from the department of veterans affairs. JAMA Intern Med 176: 228–235, 2016pmid:26809745
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  4. ↵
    1. Kang H,
    2. Stenfors-Hayes T
    : Feeling well and having good numbers: Renal patients’ encounter with clinical uncertainties and the responsibility to “Live Well”. Qual Health Res 26: 1591–1602, 2016pmid:26130653
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  5. ↵
    1. Stenfors-Hayes T,
    2. Kang HH
    : Boundaries, gaps, and overlaps: Defining roles in a multidisciplinary nephrology clinic. J Multidiscip Healthc 7: 471–477, 2014pmid:25336966
    OpenUrlPubMed
  6. ↵
    1. Institute of Medicine (U.S.)
    : Committee on Quality of Health Care in America. Crossing the Quality Chasm: A New Health System for the 21st Century, Washington, DC, National Academy Press, 2001
  7. ↵
    1. Hussain JA,
    2. Flemming K,
    3. Murtagh FE,
    4. Johnson MJ
    : Patient and health care professional decision-making to commence and withdraw from renal dialysis: A systematic review of qualitative research. Clin J Am Soc Nephrol 10: 1201–1215, 2015pmid:25943310
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  8. ↵
    1. O’Hare AM,
    2. Szarka J,
    3. McFarland LV,
    4. Taylor JS,
    5. Sudore RL,
    6. Trivedi R,
    7. Reinke LF,
    8. Vig EK
    : Provider perspectives on advance care planning for patients with kidney disease: Whose job is it anyway? Clin J Am Soc Nephrol 11: 855–866, 2016pmid:27084877
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  9. ↵
    1. O’Hare AM,
    2. Szarka J,
    3. McFarland LV,
    4. Vig EK,
    5. Sudore RL,
    6. Crowley S,
    7. Reinke LF,
    8. Trivedi R,
    9. Taylor JS
    : “Maybe They Don’t Even Know That I Exist”: Challenges faced by family members and friends of patients with advanced kidney disease. Clin J Am Soc Nephrol 12: 930–938, 2017pmid:28356337
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  10. ↵
    1. Pfeiffer E
    : A short portable mental status questionnaire for the assessment of organic brain deficit in elderly patients. J Am Geriatr Soc 23: 433–441, 1975pmid:1159263
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  11. ↵
    1. Glaser BG,
    2. Strauss AL
    : The Discovery of Grounded Theory: Strategies for Qualitative Research, Piscataway, NJ, Transaction Publishers, 1999
  12. ↵
    1. Strauss AL,
    2. Corbin J
    : Basics of Qualitative Research: Procedures and Techniques for Developing Grounded Theory, Thousand Oaks, CA, Sage, 1998
  13. ↵
    1. Illich I
    : Medical Nemesis: The Expropriation of Health, New York, Pantheon Books, 1982
  14. ↵
    1. Mattingly C
    : In search of the good: Narrative reasoning in clinical practice. Med Anthropol Q 12: 273–297, 1998pmid:9746895
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  15. ↵
    1. Taussig MT
    : Reification and the consciousness of the patient. Soc Sci Med Anthropol 14B: 3–13, 1980pmid:7394562
    OpenUrlPubMed
  16. ↵
    1. Kleinman A
    : The Illness Narratives: Suffering, Healing, and the Human Condition, New York, Basic Books, 1988
  17. ↵
    1. Detmar SB,
    2. Muller MJ,
    3. Wever LD,
    4. Schornagel JH,
    5. Aaronson NK
    : The patient-physician relationship. Patient-physician communication during outpatient palliative treatment visits: An observational study. JAMA 285: 1351–1357, 2001pmid:11255393
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  18. ↵
    1. Tinetti ME,
    2. Fried T
    : The end of the disease era. Am J Med 116: 179–185, 2004pmid:14749162
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  19. ↵
    1. Tinetti ME,
    2. Fried TR,
    3. Boyd CM
    : Designing health care for the most common chronic condition--multimorbidity. JAMA 307: 2493–2494, 2012pmid:22797447
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  20. ↵
    1. Lamb S
    : Successful Aging as a Contemporary Obsession: Global Perspectives, New Brunswick, NJ, Rutgers University Press, 2017
    1. Finerman R,
    2. Bennett LA
    : Overview: Guilt, blame and shame in sickness. Soc Sci Med 40: 1–3, 1995pmid:7899913
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  21. ↵
    1. Smith AK,
    2. White DB,
    3. Arnold RM
    : Uncertainty--the other side of prognosis. N Engl J Med 368: 2448–2450, 2013pmid:23802514
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  22. ↵
    1. Costa-Requena G,
    2. Moreso F,
    3. Cantarell MC,
    4. Serón D
    : Health literacy and chronic kidney disease. Nefrologia 37: 115–117, 2017pmid:27837925
    OpenUrlPubMed
    1. Taylor DM,
    2. Bradley JA,
    3. Bradley C,
    4. Draper H,
    5. Johnson R,
    6. Metcalfe W,
    7. Oniscu G,
    8. Robb M,
    9. Tomson C,
    10. Watson C,
    11. Ravanan R,
    12. Roderick P; ATTOM Investigators
    : Limited health literacy in advanced kidney disease. Kidney Int 90: 685–695, 2016pmid:27521115
    OpenUrlPubMed
    1. Jain D,
    2. Green JA
    : Health literacy in kidney disease: Review of the literature and implications for clinical practice. World J Nephrol 5: 147–151, 2016pmid:26981438
    OpenUrlPubMed
  23. ↵
    1. Narva AS,
    2. Norton JM,
    3. Boulware LE
    : Educating patients about CKD: The path to self-management and patient-centered care. Clin J Am Soc Nephrol 11: 694–703, 2016pmid:26536899
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  24. ↵
    1. Brown EA,
    2. Bekker HL,
    3. Davison SN,
    4. Koffman J,
    5. Schell JO
    : Supportive care: Communication strategies to improve cultural competence in shared decision making. Clin J Am Soc Nephrol 11: 1902–1908, 2016pmid:27510456
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
    1. Cohen RA,
    2. Jackson VA,
    3. Norwich D,
    4. Schell JO,
    5. Schaefer K,
    6. Ship AN,
    7. Sullivan AM
    : A nephrology fellows’ communication skills course: An educational quality improvement report. Am J Kidney Dis 68: 203–211, 2016pmid:26994686
    OpenUrlPubMed
    1. Koncicki HM,
    2. Schell JO
    : Communication skills and decision making for elderly patients with advanced kidney disease: A guide for nephrologists. Am J Kidney Dis 67: 688–695, 2016pmid:26709108
    OpenUrlPubMed
    1. Schell JO,
    2. Cohen RA
    : A communication framework for dialysis decision-making for frail elderly patients. Clin J Am Soc Nephrol 9: 2014–2021, 2014pmid:24970868
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
    1. Schell JO,
    2. Green JA,
    3. Tulsky JA,
    4. Arnold RM
    : Communication skills training for dialysis decision-making and end-of-life care in nephrology. Clin J Am Soc Nephrol 8: 675–680, 2013pmid:23143502
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  25. ↵
    1. Schell JO,
    2. Arnold RM
    : NephroTalk: Communication tools to enhance patient-centered care. Semin Dial 25: 611–616, 2012pmid:23078102
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  26. ↵
    1. Tsevat RK,
    2. Sinha AA,
    3. Gutierrez KJ,
    4. DasGupta S
    : Bringing home the health humanities: Narrative humility, structural competency, and engaged pedagogy. Acad Med 90: 1462–1465, 2015pmid:25945967
    OpenUrlPubMed
  27. ↵
    1. Emanuel EJ,
    2. Gudbranson E
    : Does medicine overemphasize IQ? JAMA 319: 651–652, 2018pmid:29379958
    OpenUrlPubMed
  28. ↵
    1. Mattingly C,
    2. Lawlor M
    : Learning from stories: Narrative interviewing in cross-cultural research. Scand J Occup Ther 7: 4–14, 2000pmid:21399739
    OpenUrlPubMed
  29. ↵
    1. Dugdale LS
    : Re-Enchanting medicine. JAMA Intern Med 177: 1075–1076, 2017pmid:28654951
    OpenUrlPubMed
    1. Sweet V
    : God’s Hotel: A Doctor, a Hospital, and a Pilgrimage to the Heart of Medicine, New York, Riverhead Books, 2012
    1. Millstein JH
    : The envelope. JAMA 319: 23, 2018pmid:29297081
    OpenUrlPubMed
    1. O’Hare AM
    : Patient-centered care in renal medicine: Five strategies to meet the challenge [published online ahead of print February 9, 2018]. Am J Kidney Dis, doi:10.1053/j.ajkd.2017.11.022pmid:29433828
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    1. Berwick DM
    : What ‘patient-centered’ should mean: Confessions of an extremist. Health Aff (Millwood) 28: w555–w565, 2009pmid:19454528
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
    1. Song MK,
    2. Ward SE,
    3. Happ MB,
    4. Piraino B,
    5. Donovan HS,
    6. Shields AM,
    7. Connolly MC
    : Randomized controlled trial of SPIRIT: An effective approach to preparing African-American dialysis patients and families for end of life. Res Nurs Health 32: 260–273, 2009pmid:19205027
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    1. Song MK,
    2. Ward SE,
    3. Fine JP,
    4. Hanson LC,
    5. Lin FC,
    6. Hladik GA,
    7. Hamilton JB,
    8. Bridgman JC
    : Advance care planning and end-of-life decision making in dialysis: A randomized controlled trial targeting patients and their surrogates. Am J Kidney Dis 66: 813–822, 2015pmid:26141307
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    1. Song MK,
    2. Unruh ML,
    3. Manatunga A,
    4. Plantinga LC,
    5. Lea J,
    6. Jhamb M,
    7. Kshirsagar AV,
    8. Ward SE
    : SPIRIT trial: A phase III pragmatic trial of an advance care planning intervention in ESRD. Contemp Clin Trials 64: 188–194, 2018pmid:28993286
    OpenUrlPubMed
  30. ↵
    1. Hughes J,
    2. Wood E,
    3. Smith G
    : Exploring kidney patients’ experiences of receiving individual peer support. Health Expect 12: 396–406, 2009pmid:19691464
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  31. ↵
    1. Xyrichis A,
    2. Lowton K
    : What fosters or prevents interprofessional teamworking in primary and community care? A literature review. Int J Nurs Stud 45: 140–153, 2008pmid:17383655
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  32. ↵
    1. Xyrichis A,
    2. Ream E
    : Teamwork: A concept analysis. J Adv Nurs 61: 232–241, 2008pmid:18186914
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
PreviousNext
Back to top

In this issue

Clinical Journal of the American Society of Nephrology: 13 (7)
Clinical Journal of the American Society of Nephrology
Vol. 13, Issue 7
July 06, 2018
  • Table of Contents
  • Table of Contents (PDF)
  • About the Cover
  • 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.
Emotional Impact of Illness and Care on Patients with Advanced Kidney Disease
(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
Emotional Impact of Illness and Care on Patients with Advanced Kidney Disease
Ann M. O’Hare, Claire Richards, Jackie Szarka, Lynne V. McFarland, Whitney Showalter, Elizabeth K. Vig, Rebecca L. Sudore, Susan T. Crowley, Ranak Trivedi, Janelle S. Taylor
CJASN Jul 2018, 13 (7) 1022-1029; DOI: 10.2215/CJN.14261217

Citation Manager Formats

  • BibTeX
  • Bookends
  • EasyBib
  • EndNote (tagged)
  • EndNote 8 (xml)
  • Medlars
  • Mendeley
  • Papers
  • RefWorks Tagged
  • Ref Manager
  • RIS
  • Zotero
Request Permissions
Share
Emotional Impact of Illness and Care on Patients with Advanced Kidney Disease
Ann M. O’Hare, Claire Richards, Jackie Szarka, Lynne V. McFarland, Whitney Showalter, Elizabeth K. Vig, Rebecca L. Sudore, Susan T. Crowley, Ranak Trivedi, Janelle S. Taylor
CJASN Jul 2018, 13 (7) 1022-1029; DOI: 10.2215/CJN.14261217
del.icio.us logo Digg logo Reddit logo Twitter logo Facebook logo Google logo Mendeley logo
  • Tweet Widget
  • Facebook Like

Jump to section

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

More in this TOC Section

Original Articles

  • Association of Polypharmacy with Kidney Disease Progression in Adults with CKD
  • The Effect of Atrasentan on Kidney and Heart Failure Outcomes by Baseline Albuminuria and Kidney Function
  • Collectin11 and Complement Activation in IgA Nephropathy
Show more Original Articles

Geriatric and Palliative Nephrology

  • Family Members’ Understanding of the End-of-Life Wishes of People Undergoing Maintenance Dialysis
  • Availability, Accessibility, and Quality of Conservative Kidney Management Worldwide
  • Dialysis Regret
Show more Geriatric and Palliative Nephrology

Cited By...

  • No citing articles found.
  • Google Scholar

Similar Articles

Related Articles

  • 12 Tips to Nephrology Teams Supporting Patients with Advanced Kidney Disease
  • PubMed
  • Google Scholar

Keywords

  • Abandonment
  • Advance Care Planning
  • Advanced Kidney Disease
  • dialysis
  • Emotions
  • Fragmentation
  • glomerular filtration rate
  • Grounded Theory
  • humans
  • Isolation
  • kidney
  • Loneliness
  • Mistrust
  • patient experience
  • patient-centered
  • peritoneal dialysis
  • renal dialysis
  • Self-blame
  • Specialization

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

© 2022 American Society of Nephrology

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

Powered by HighWire