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
  • Log out
  • 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
  • Log out
  • 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
Special Features
You have accessRestricted Access

Setting Research Priorities for Patients on or Nearing Dialysis

Braden Manns, Brenda Hemmelgarn, Erin Lillie, Sally Crowe P.G. Dip, Annette Cyr, Michael Gladish, Claire Large, Howard Silverman, Brenda Toth, Wim Wolfs and Andreas Laupacis
CJASN October 2014, 9 (10) 1813-1821; DOI: https://doi.org/10.2215/CJN.01610214
Braden Manns
*Department of Medicine,
†Department of Community Health Sciences, and
‡Libin Cardiovascular Institute and Institute of Public Health, University of Calgary, Calgary, Alberta, Canada;
§Interdisciplinary Chronic Disease Collaboration, Calgary, Alberta, Canada;
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Brenda Hemmelgarn
*Department of Medicine,
†Department of Community Health Sciences, and
‡Libin Cardiovascular Institute and Institute of Public Health, University of Calgary, Calgary, Alberta, Canada;
§Interdisciplinary Chronic Disease Collaboration, Calgary, Alberta, Canada;
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Erin Lillie
‖Keenan Research Centre, Li Ka Shing Knowledge Institute of St. Michael’s Hospital, Toronto, Ontario, Canada;
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Sally Crowe P.G. Dip
¶Oxford, United Kingdom;
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Annette Cyr
**Halifax, Nova Scotia, Canada;
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Michael Gladish
††Whitehorse, Yukon, Canada;
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Claire Large
‡‡Calgary, Alberta, Canada;
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Howard Silverman
§§Montreal, Quebec, Canada;
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Brenda Toth
‖‖Saskatoon, Saskatchewan, Canada;
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Wim Wolfs
¶¶Kidney Foundation of Canada, Montreal, Quebec, Canada; and
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Andreas Laupacis
‖Keenan Research Centre, Li Ka Shing Knowledge Institute of St. Michael’s Hospital, Toronto, Ontario, Canada;
***Faculty of Medicine, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada
  • 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

With increasing emphasis among health care providers and funders on patient-centered care, it follows that patients and their caregivers should be included when priorities for research are being established. This study sought to identify the most important unanswered questions about the management of kidney failure from the perspective of adult patients on or nearing dialysis, their caregivers, and the health care professionals who care for these patients. Research uncertainties were identified through a national Canadian survey of adult patients on or nearing dialysis, their caregivers, and health care professionals. Uncertainties were refined by a steering committee that included patients, caregivers, researchers, and clinicians to assemble a short-list of the top 30 uncertainties. Thirty-four people (11 patients; five caregivers; eight physicians; six nurses; and one social worker, pharmacist, physiotherapist, and dietitian each) from across Canada subsequently participated in a workshop to determine the top 10 research questions. In total, 1570 usable research uncertainties were received from 317 respondents to the survey. Among these, 259 unique uncertainties were identified; after ranking, these were reduced to a short-list of 30 uncertainties. During the in-person workshop, the top 10 research uncertainties were identified, which included questions about enhanced communication among patients and providers, dialysis modality options, itching, access to kidney transplantation, heart health, dietary restrictions, depression, and vascular access. These can be used alongside the results of other research priority–setting exercises to guide researchers in designing future studies and inform health care funders.

  • Dialysis
  • research priorities
  • patient preferences

Introduction

The traditional approach to identifying research priorities in health care has not involved patients (1). However, with increasing emphasis among health care providers and funders on patient-centered care, defined as care that is respectful of patient preferences and in which patient values guide clinical decisions (2), it follows that patients and their caregivers should be included when establishing priorities for research in health care.

Because they live with their disease, people with kidney failure receiving dialysis, those with severe kidney disease who are likely to soon require RRT, and their caregivers become “experts” in their disease. Quality of life for people undergoing dialysis is severely impaired and is rated similarly to that among patients with metastatic cancer (3). Considerable responsibility is also placed on the patients and their caregivers, given the ongoing need for dialysis (regardless of the dialysis modality that is selected) and the required modifications to diet and fluid intake. For these reasons, involving patients, caregivers, and clinicians in setting research priorities for people receiving dialysis is particularly important.

The National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases recently completed a research prioritization exercise in which they asked the scientific community to formulate and prioritize research objectives to improve understanding of kidney function and disease (4), including for specific areas, such as dialysis therapies (5). This process did not specifically seek input from patients (only 7% of responses were received from individuals identifying themselves as lay-people), and no patients were involved in the second phase of work, during which the top priorities were selected. Indeed, few studies have elicited the research priorities of patients receiving dialysis (6), and none have done so systematically or have attempted to yield questions that relate to all facets of the disease (7,8).

We used the method established by the James Lind Alliance (9) to identify the most important unanswered questions (or uncertainties) about the management of kidney failure (i.e., in terms of diagnosis, prognosis, and treatment) from the perspective of adult patients receiving (or approaching the need for) dialysis, their caregivers, and the health care professionals who care for these patients. The goal of the James Lind Alliance is to develop patient-centered priorities. However, the method uses a shared process for identifying research priorities that includes patients, caregivers, and clinicians throughout the priority-setting exercise, with the expectation that this will increase the support for the priorities identified compared with an exercise that includes only patients. To clarify whether priorities varied across respondent types, we also compared the research priorities elicited across the different types of survey respondents.

Materials and Methods

As outlined in detail in the Supplemental Material, research uncertainties relevant to patients undergoing or nearing dialysis were identified through four key steps: identification and invitation of potential partners, collection of research uncertainties through a national survey, refinement and prioritization of uncertainties to assemble a list of the top 30 uncertainties, and an in-person workshop to determine the top 10 research uncertainties.

The priority-setting process was initiated in July 2012, with the formation of an 11-person Steering Group that included patients, a caregiver, clinicians, an employee of the Kidney Foundation of Canada, and an expert in the James Lind Alliance approach (see www.CANN-NET.ca for a list of members). The Steering Group held biweekly conference calls from July 2012 to June 2013 to oversee the process.

We developed a survey to identify uncertainties, consisting of broad questions about the overall management of severe kidney failure and dialysis, including diagnosis, prognosis, and treatment issues (Supplemental Material). Patients, caregivers, and clinicians were invited to complete the online survey through communications from our partner organizations (e.g., the Kidney Foundation of Canada), and emails to members of the Canadian Society of Nephrology and Canadian Association of Nephrology Nurses and Technologists. We also distributed paperbased surveys in 10 Canadian hemodialysis centers and three severe CKD and peritoneal dialysis clinics. Finally, we searched the most recent guidelines relevant to the care of patients receiving dialysis to identify research topics suggested by the guideline developers.

The uncertainties identified by survey respondents and from guidelines were combined, and those deemed not relevant to adult patients undergoing dialysis (e.g., prevention of kidney failure, management of a patient with a kidney transplant, issues exclusive to pediatric patients) were eliminated. Steering Group members then worked in pairs (a clinician paired with a patient or caregiver) to assign uncertainties into similar groups, with the goal of identifying a summary question for each group of uncertainties.

A summary document was prepared with all of the uncertainties, including the number of times the uncertainty was identified by patients, caregivers, and clinicians; and whether it was identified from a clinical practice guideline. The document was circulated to Steering Group members to facilitate an interim ranking exercise. Over the course of four Steering Group conference calls, the relative importance and wording of the uncertainties that were most highly ranked by committee members were discussed. The product was a short-list of 30 uncertainties to be considered at the workshop (Supplemental Material).

Finally, 34 people from across Canada participated in a 1-day workshop: 11 patients; five caregivers; eight physicians; six nurses; and one social worker, pharmacist, physiotherapist, and dietitian each (Supplemental Material). The workshop used a nominal group technique approach and a combination of small- and large-group exercises (9). A consensus approach (with voting when needed) was used to identify the top 10 research uncertainties.

To assess differences in research uncertainties across groups, we ranked the frequency with which research uncertainties from the survey were identified by patients, caregivers, physicians, and nurses.

Results

Characteristics of Survey Respondents

In total, we collected 1820 uncertainties from 317 respondents. The characteristics of the survey respondents are provided in Table 1. Most respondents expressed more than one uncertainty; the mean number of uncertainties per respondent was 5.5. One hundred seventy-three respondents (54.6%) were patients, 37 (12%) were caregivers, and 107 were health care professionals (34%; of these, 25 [23%] were physicians and 38 [36%] were nurses). Most patients were receiving in-center hemodialysis (53%), and 32% were undergoing home hemodialysis or peritoneal dialysis. Most respondents (75%) were from Western Canada or Ontario and identified themselves as white (79%). Forty-eight percent of patient respondents were age 50–69 years, similar to the average age of people starting dialysis in Canada (63 years). Only 1% of patients were Aboriginal, a rate lower than expected given that Aboriginal (10) peoples are three times as likely to be receiving treatment for ESRD as non-Aboriginals (11).

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

Profile of all survey respondents

Uncertainties

Of the 1820 uncertainties, 91 were eliminated because they were deemed not relevant to adult patients receiving or nearing dialysis, and 159 were eliminated because the uncertainty was not clear (Figure 1). From the remaining 1570 in-scope uncertainties, we identified 144 summary questions across the 12 categories (Table 2) as well as 85 unique questions. Eighty-seven uncertainties from relevant clinical practice guidelines were also included, 57 of which were combined into summary questions identified from our survey and 30 that were unique.

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

The top thirty research uncertainties were developed through a national survey, followed by a process to combine and prioritize research uncertainties.

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

Frequency of in-scope uncertainties, by category

As a result of the process described above, a summary document was prepared with the 259 uncertainties identified within the survey and the guidelines, from which the Steering Group chose the top 30 uncertainties to be considered at the in-person workshop (Supplemental Material).

At the conclusion of the workshop, the top 10 research uncertainties were identified (Table 3). These included questions about the optimal communication methods between patients and health care professionals, the optimal dialysis modality, and the best way to manage a variety of symptoms due to kidney failure or its treatment. The uncertainties that were ranked 11–15 are identified in the Supplemental Material.

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

Top 10 research uncertainties

Comparing the Priorities Identified by Patients, Caregivers, Physicians, and Nurses in the Survey

Some uncertainties were identified by all four groups of respondents to the survey (e.g., how to determine the optimal duration of hemodialysis and the best dialysis modality), but there were also key differences across the four groups (Table 4). Patients were more likely to identify research to address symptoms that may be difficult to manage (e.g., itching, cramping, restless legs, poor energy) than were the other groups; six, three, two, and zero of the top 10 questions were related to symptoms for patients, nurses, physicians, and caregivers respectively (Table 4). In general, the priorities ranked in the top 10 by the James Lind Alliance process (Table 3) reflected a mix of priorities identified by all four groups.

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

Comparing the top 10 uncertainties identified by patients, caregivers, physicians, and nurses who responded to the survey

Discussion

Using an established method (9), we identified the top 10 research uncertainties from the perspective of patients living with severe kidney disease, their caregivers, and the health professionals that care for them. These include questions ranging from the causes and optimal management of patient-relevant symptoms, the most appropriate dialysis modality for each patient, cardiovascular health, ways to increase access to transplantation, the best method of communication with patients and families, how to address the psychological and social needs of patients, the effect of dietary restrictions, and the optimal hemodialysis access. Although it is difficult to compare these priorities to the current research being conducted in the field, these uncertainties appear to focus more on improving symptoms and optimizing communication, and less on determining how to extend life.

From the survey results, we noted differences among the priorities identified by patients, caregivers, physicians, and nurses, particularly with regard to symptoms. While we did not specifically seek priorities from researchers, the priorities we identified have some overlap with those identified by the Kidney Research National Dialogue (KRND), which was sponsored by the National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases (4). The objectives for the KRND dialysis therapies subgroup, which included 10 experts in dialysis and research into dialysis therapies, was to identify broad themes to help focus the research agenda for dialysis therapies (5). The themes identified by this conference included some topics that were similar to the priorities we identified, including “Decreasing Cardiovascular Risk in Dialysis Patients,” “Improving Vascular Access Outcomes,” and “Innovative Approaches to Reduce the Burden of Hemodialysis Treatments” as well as a broad focus on “Enhancing Patient-Centered Outcomes.” However, it also included themes that were not identified as priorities within our work, including “Identifying Uremic Toxins and Optimizing Their Clearance” and “Optimizing the Composition of Dialysate.”

We are aware of two other studies that have incorporated patient input regarding research priorities for people with severe kidney disease undergoing dialysis (6,8), although one only considered priorities to inform a social science research agenda for patients with kidney failure (8). Although the study by Tong et al. incorporated the views of patients, in general, the research priorities identified were broad compared with the research uncertainties identified by our process. Moreover, while research priorities of patients have been collected for other clinical areas, including diabetes, eczema, eye disease, and prostate cancer (12–14), we are not aware of any studies that have compared the priorities of patients, caregivers, and health care professionals.

Consistent with the study by Tong et al. (6), we found that many uncertainties submitted by patients in our survey touched on the optimal way to prevent or manage earlier forms of CKD and thus avoid the need for dialysis. These questions, while clearly important to patients and caregivers, were beyond the scope of this current project and will be considered in a future research priority–setting partnership for patients with earlier stages of kidney disease.

Our study has strengths and limitations. We conducted a national survey and applied a transparent method routinely used and successfully applied by other groups (9), which ensured that different perspectives could be incorporated. While it might be seen as a limitation that we did not exclusively consider priorities from patients alone, the James Lind Alliance uses a shared process for identifying research priorities, including patients, caregivers, and clinicians throughout the priority-setting exercise with the expectation that this will increase the support for the priorities identified, across all groups, in comparison to an exercise including each group separately. Although we have identified important priorities for research, we acknowledge that there is no gold standard for identifying research priorities and that the final priority-setting workshop exercise includes participants’ subjective viewpoints; however, the use of experienced facilitators and an established process reduced this impact. Efforts were made to survey as many patients, caregivers, and health care professionals across Canada as possible, but our responses may not be entirely representative of all patient groups (including the frail elderly, Aboriginal people, African Canadian people, and Francophone Canadians). In addition, there were only 317 respondents. Nonetheless, the average age of respondents was similar to the average age of patients starting dialysis, and with >1500 uncertainties identified we had a comprehensive list from which to prioritize.

We believe that the priority-setting process that we used gave us a robust set of research questions that researchers can address over the coming years. While we do not feel that these top 10 research uncertainties should be the sole driver of the research agenda, we do believe they should receive careful consideration by funders and researchers alike. Many (if not all) of the questions could be answered with carefully designed randomized clinical trials, with the need for basic discovery research, and mixed-methods research in some cases as well. Given that nephrology is the medical specialty with the fewest trials to guide management (15), health care funders are encouraged to offer targeted funding competitions for the questions of highest priority and to encourage researchers to use these priorities when developing their own research agendas. With the increasing emphasis on patient-centered care in the United States and elsewhere, the importance of including patients and their caregivers in establishing research priorities that inform clinical care is clear (16–18). However, identifying the best approach to engage patients and get their feedback has been a challenge for health care organizations and for funders (18).

Through a comprehensive process involving patients, caregivers, and a multidisciplinary group of health care professionals, we have assembled the top 10 priorities for new research questions relevant to patients receiving or nearing dialysis. These can be used alongside the results of other research priority–setting exercises to guide researchers in designing research studies, including justifying the importance of research questions, and can inform health care funders.

Disclosures

While none of the authors has any relevant financial conflicts of interest, given the nature of the study, full disclosure of research grants is provided. B.H. holds an investigator-initiated research grant from Hoffman La Roche unrelated to this project, and B.M. holds investigator-initiated research grants from Hoffman La Roche and Baxter Healthcare Corporation, both unrelated to this project. B.M. and B.H. hold funding from the Canadian Institutes of Health Research, Kidney Foundation of Canada and AI-HS for research investigating optimal care and management of patients with chronic diseases, and for establishing a knowledge translation network in kidney diseases. The sponsors of the study had no role in study design, data collection, data analysis, data interpretation, or writing of the report.

Acknowledgments

The authors are indebted to L. Barnieh, R. Wald, and S. Soroka for their assistance in facilitating survey distribution and providing suggestions for names of patients and caregivers and to K. Born and K. Cowan for facilitating the workshop.

B.H. and B.M. are supported by Alberta Innovates–Health Solutions (AI-HS) (formerly Alberta Heritage Foundation for Medical Research) salary awards. B.M. and B.H. are supported by an alternative funding plan from the government of Alberta and the Universities of Alberta and Calgary. A.L. is supported by a Canada Research Chair in Health Policy and Citizen Engagement. This research was supported by two grants from Canadian Institutes of Health Research (operating grant number 284262, team grant number 251048), an interdisciplinary team grant from AI-HS, the Interdisciplinary Chronic Disease Collaboration, and the Kidney Foundation of Canada.

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.01610214/-/DCSupplemental.

  • Copyright © 2014 by the American Society of Nephrology

References

  1. ↵
    Canada's Strategy for Patient-Oriented Research: Improving health outcomes through evidence-informed care. 2013. Available at: at http://www.cihr-irsc.gc.ca/e/44000.html. Accessed September 27, 2013
  2. ↵
    Institue of Medicine: Crossing the Quality Chasm: A New Health System for the 21st Century. Washington, DC, National Academy Press, 2001
  3. ↵
    1. Liem YS,
    2. Bosch JL,
    3. Hunink MG
    : Preference-based quality of life of patients on renal replacement therapy: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Value Health 11: 733–741, 2008
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  4. ↵
    1. Rys-Sikora KE,
    2. Ketchum CJ,
    3. Star RA
    ; Kidney Research National Dialogue (KRND) Editorial Board: Kidney research national dialogue overview and commentary. Clin J Am Soc Nephrol 8: 1599–1602, 2013
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  5. ↵
    1. Mehrotra R,
    2. Agarwal A,
    3. Bargman JM,
    4. Himmelfarb J,
    5. Johansen KL,
    6. Watnick S,
    7. Work J,
    8. McBryde K,
    9. Flessner M,
    10. Kimmel PL
    ; Kidney Research National Dialogue (KRND): Dialysis therapies: a national dialogue. Clin J Am Soc Nephrol 9: 812–814, 2014
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  6. ↵
    1. Tong A,
    2. Sainsbury P,
    3. Carter SM,
    4. Hall B,
    5. Harris DC,
    6. Walker RG,
    7. Hawley CM,
    8. Chadban S,
    9. Craig JC
    : Patients’ priorities for health research: Focus group study of patients with chronic kidney disease. Nephrol Dial Transplant 23: 3206–3214, 2008
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  7. ↵
    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, 2009
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  8. ↵
    1. Schipper K,
    2. Abma TA
    : Coping, family and mastery: Top priorities for social science research by patients with chronic kidney disease. Nephrol Dial Transplant 26: 3189–3195, 2011
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  9. ↵
    1. James Lind Alliance
    . JLA method. 2013. Available at: http://www.lindalliance.org/JLA_Method.asp. Accessed August 2013
  10. ↵
    Canadian Institute for Health Information: Canadian Organ Replacement Register Annual Report: Treatment of End-Stage Organ Failure in Canada 2001 to 2010. 2011. Available at: https://secure.cihi.ca/free_products/2011_CORR_Annua_Report_EN.pdf. Accessed November 1, 2013
  11. ↵
    Canadian Institute for Health Information. End-Stage Renal Disease Among Aborginal People in Canada: Treatment and Outcomes. Available at: https://secure.cihi.ca/free_products/EndStageRenalDiseaseAiB-ENweb.pdf. Accessed November 1, 2013
  12. ↵
    1. Gadsby R,
    2. Snow R,
    3. Daly AC,
    4. Crowe S,
    5. Matyka K,
    6. Hall B,
    7. Petrie J
    : Setting research priorities for Type 1 diabetes. Diabet Med 29: 1321–1326, 2012
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    1. Lophatananon A,
    2. Tyndale-Biscoe S,
    3. Malcolm E,
    4. Rippon HJ,
    5. Holmes K,
    6. Firkins LA,
    7. Fenton M,
    8. Crowe S,
    9. Stewart-Brown S,
    10. Gnanapragasam VJ,
    11. Muir KR
    : The James Lind Alliance approach to priority setting for prostate cancer research: An integrative methodology based on patient and clinician participation. BJU Int 108: 1040–1043, 2011
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  13. ↵
    1. Batchelor J,
    2. Ridd M,
    3. Clarke T,
    4. Ahmed A,
    5. Cox M,
    6. Crowe S,
    7. Howard M,
    8. Lawton S,
    9. McPhee M,
    10. Rani A,
    11. Ravenscroft JC,
    12. Roberts A,
    13. Thomas KS
    : The Eczema Priority Setting Partnership: identifying and prioritizing important research questions for the treatment of eczema. A collaborative partnership between patients, carers, clinicians and researchers. Br J Dermatol 167: 51, 2012
    OpenUrl
  14. ↵
    1. Strippoli GF,
    2. Craig JC,
    3. Schena FP
    : The number, quality, and coverage of randomized controlled trials in nephrology. J Am Soc Nephrol 15: 411–419, 2004
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  15. ↵
    1. Tinetti ME,
    2. Basch E
    : Patients’ responsibility to participate in decision making and research. JAMA 309: 2331–2332, 2013
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    1. Lloyd K,
    2. White J,
    3. Chalmers I
    : Schizophrenia: Patients’ research priorities get funded. Nature 487: 432, 2012
    OpenUrlPubMed
  16. ↵
    Patient-Centered Outcomes Reserach Institute: 2013. Available at: http://pcori.org/. Accessed September 27, 2013
PreviousNext
Back to top

In this issue

Clinical Journal of the American Society of Nephrology: 9 (10)
Clinical Journal of the American Society of Nephrology
Vol. 9, Issue 10
October 07, 2014
  • 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.
Setting Research Priorities for Patients on or Nearing Dialysis
(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
Setting Research Priorities for Patients on or Nearing Dialysis
Braden Manns, Brenda Hemmelgarn, Erin Lillie, Sally Crowe P.G. Dip, Annette Cyr, Michael Gladish, Claire Large, Howard Silverman, Brenda Toth, Wim Wolfs, Andreas Laupacis
CJASN Oct 2014, 9 (10) 1813-1821; DOI: 10.2215/CJN.01610214

Citation Manager Formats

  • BibTeX
  • Bookends
  • EasyBib
  • EndNote (tagged)
  • EndNote 8 (xml)
  • Medlars
  • Mendeley
  • Papers
  • RefWorks Tagged
  • Ref Manager
  • RIS
  • Zotero
Request Permissions
Share
Setting Research Priorities for Patients on or Nearing Dialysis
Braden Manns, Brenda Hemmelgarn, Erin Lillie, Sally Crowe P.G. Dip, Annette Cyr, Michael Gladish, Claire Large, Howard Silverman, Brenda Toth, Wim Wolfs, Andreas Laupacis
CJASN Oct 2014, 9 (10) 1813-1821; DOI: 10.2215/CJN.01610214
del.icio.us logo Digg logo Reddit logo Twitter 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

  • Patient and Other Stakeholder Engagement in Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute Funded Studies of Patients with Kidney Diseases
  • Alport Syndrome in Women and Girls
  • Urinary Stone Disease: Advancing Knowledge, Patient Care, and Population Health
Show more Special Features

Cited By...

  • Effect of Aerobic Exercise on Dialysis-Related Symptoms in Individuals Undergoing Maintenance Hemodialysis: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Clinical Trials
  • Patient and public priorities for breast cancer research: a qualitative study in the UK
  • Characteristics and Effectiveness of Dedicated Care Programs for Patients Starting Dialysis: A Systematic Review
  • Patient needs and priorities for patient navigator programmes in chronic kidney disease: a workshop report
  • Toward Patient-Centered Innovation: A Conceptual Framework for Patient-Reported Outcome Measures for Transformative Kidney Replacement Devices
  • Prevalence and Persistence of Uremic Symptoms in Incident Dialysis Patients
  • Physical activity for people with chronic kidney disease: an international survey of nephrologist practice patterns and research priorities
  • Family Perceptions of Quality of End-of-Life Care for Veterans with Advanced CKD
  • Fostering Innovation in Symptom Management among Hemodialysis Patients: Paths Forward for Insomnia, Muscle Cramps, and Fatigue
  • Patient and caregiver involvement in a multicentre clustered hemodialysis trial
  • The top research questions asked by people with lived depression experience in Alberta: a survey
  • Symptom Prioritization among Adults Receiving In-Center Hemodialysis: A Mixed Methods Study
  • International Comparisons of Prevalence, Awareness, and Treatment of Pruritus in People on Hemodialysis
  • Examining the Association between Hemodialysis Access Type and Mortality: The Role of Access Complications
  • Nephrologists Perspectives on Defining and Applying Patient-Centered Outcomes in Hemodialysis
  • ACCESS HD pilot: A randomised feasibility trial Comparing Catheters with fistulas in Elderly patientS Starting haemodialysis
  • Supportive Care: Meeting the Needs of Patients with Advanced Chronic Kidney Disease
  • Supportive Care: Time to Change Our Prognostic Tools and Their Use in CKD
  • Supportive Care: Integration of Patient-Centered Kidney Care to Manage Symptoms and Geriatric Syndromes
  • A Qualitative Study to Explore Patient and Staff Perceptions of Intradialytic Exercise
  • Survival by Dialysis Modality--Who Cares?
  • Dying to Feel Better: The Central Role of Dialysis-Induced Tissue Hypoxia
  • Optimizing Enrollment of Patients into Nephrology Research Studies
  • How the ESRD Quality Incentive Program Could Potentially Improve Quality of Life for Patients on Dialysis
  • Patient and caregiver preferences for home dialysis--the home first study: a protocol for qualitative interviews and discrete choice experiments
  • Advance Care Planning: A Qualitative Study of Dialysis Patients and Families
  • Google Scholar

Similar Articles

Related Articles

  • PubMed
  • Google Scholar

Keywords

  • dialysis
  • research priorities
  • patient preferences

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