Advertisement
American Journal of Kidney Diseases

Perspectives on Research Participation and Facilitation Among Dialysis Patients, Clinic Personnel, and Medical Providers: A Focus Group Study

Published:December 26, 2017DOI:https://doi.org/10.1053/j.ajkd.2017.10.011

      Background

      Most prospective studies involving individuals receiving maintenance dialysis have been small, and many have had poor clinical translatability. Research relevance can be enhanced through stakeholder engagement. However, little is known about dialysis clinic stakeholders’ perceptions of research participation and facilitation. The objective of this study was to characterize the perspectives of dialysis clinic stakeholders (patients, clinic personnel, and medical providers) on: (1) research participation by patients and (2) research facilitation by clinic personnel and medical providers. We also sought to elucidate stakeholder preferences for research communication.

      Study Design

      Qualitative study.

      Setting & Participants

      7 focus groups (59 participants: 8 clinic managers, 14 nurses/patient care technicians, 8 social workers/dietitians, 11 nephrologists/advanced practice providers, and 18 patients/care partners) from 7 North Carolina dialysis clinics.

      Methodology

      Clinics and participants were purposively sampled. Focus groups were recorded and transcribed.

      Analytical Approach

      Thematic analysis.

      Results

      We identified 11 themes that captured barriers to and facilitators of research participation by patients and research facilitation by clinic personnel and medical providers. We collapsed these themes into 4 categories to create an organizational framework for considering stakeholder (narrow research understanding, competing personal priorities, and low patient literacy and education levels), relationship (trust, buy-in, and altruistic motivations), research design (convenience, follow-up, and patient incentives), and dialysis clinic (professional demands, teamwork, and communication) aspects that may affect stakeholder interest in participating in or facilitating research. These themes appear to shape the degree of research readiness of a dialysis clinic environment. Participants preferred short research communications delivered in multiple formats.

      Limitations

      Potential selection bias and inclusion of English-speaking participants only.

      Conclusions

      Our findings revealed patient interest in participating in research and clinical personnel and medical provider interest in facilitating research. Overall, our results suggest that dialysis clinic research readiness may be enhanced through increased stakeholder research knowledge and alignment of clinical and research activities.

      Index Words

      To read this article in full you will need to make a payment

      Purchase one-time access:

      Academic & Personal: 24 hour online accessCorporate R&D Professionals: 24 hour online access
      One-time access price info
      • For academic or personal research use, select 'Academic and Personal'
      • For corporate R&D use, select 'Corporate R&D Professionals'

      Subscribe:

      Subscribe to American Journal of Kidney Diseases
      Already a print subscriber? Claim online access
      Already an online subscriber? Sign in
      Institutional Access: Sign in to ScienceDirect

      References

        • Strippoli G.F.
        • Craig J.C.
        • Schena F.P.
        The number, quality, and coverage of randomized controlled trials in nephrology.
        J Am Soc Nephrol. 2004; 15: 411-419
        • Inrig J.K.
        • Califf R.M.
        • Tasneem A.
        • et al.
        The landscape of clinical trials in nephrology: a systematic review of Clinicaltrials.gov.
        Am J Kidney Dis. 2014; 63: 771-780
        • Casey J.R.
        • Hanson C.S.
        • Winkelmayer W.C.
        • et al.
        Patients' perspectives on hemodialysis vascular access: a systematic review of qualitative studies.
        Am J Kidney Dis. 2014; 64: 937-953
        • Tong A.
        • Manns B.
        • Hemmelgarn B.
        • et al.
        Establishing core outcome domains in hemodialysis: report of the Standardized Outcomes in Nephrology-Hemodialysis (SONG-HD) Consensus Workshop.
        Am J Kidney Dis. 2017; 69: 97-107
      1. Clinical and Translational Science Awards Consortium Community Engagement Key Function Committee Task Force on the Principles of Community Engagement. Principles of Community Engagement. Vol 2017. 2nd ed. National Institutes of Health; 2011. https://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/communityengagement/pdf/PCE_Report_508_FINAL.pdf. Accessed June 14, 2017.

        • Tong A.
        • Sainsbury P.
        • Craig J.
        Consolidated criteria for reporting qualitative research (COREQ): a 32-item checklist for interviews and focus groups.
        Int J Qual Health Care. 2007; 19: 349-357
        • Glaser B.G.
        • Strauss A.L.
        The Discovery of Grounded Theory: Strategies for Qualitative Research.
        Aldine Transaction, New Brunswick, NJ2008
        • Braun V.
        • Clarke V.
        Using thematic analysis in psychology.
        Qual Res Psychol. 2006; 3: 77-101
        • Braun V.
        • Clarke V.
        Successful Qualitative Research: A Practical Guide for Beginners.
        Sage, London, UK2012
        • Wuest J.
        Negotiating with helping systems: an example of grounded theory evolving through emergent fit.
        Qual Health Res. 2000; 10: 51-70
        • Glaser B.
        Basics of Grounded Theory Analysis.
        Sociology Press, Mill Valley, CA1992
        • Califf R.M.
        • Sanderson I.
        • Miranda M.L.
        The future of cardiovascular clinical research: informatics, clinical investigators, and community engagement.
        JAMA. 2012; 308: 1747-1748
        • Ford I.
        • Norrie J.
        Pragmatic trials.
        N Engl J Med. 2016; 375: 454-463
        • Tunis S.R.
        • Stryer D.B.
        • Clancy C.M.
        Practical clinical trials: increasing the value of clinical research for decision making in clinical and health policy.
        JAMA. 2003; 290: 1624-1632
        • Dember L.M.
        • Archdeacon P.
        • Krishnan M.
        • et al.
        Pragmatic trials in maintenance dialysis: perspectives from the Kidney Health Initiative.
        J Am Soc Nephrol. 2016; 27: 2955-2963
        • Wells M.
        • Williams B.
        • Treweek S.
        • Coyle J.
        • Taylor J.
        Intervention description is not enough: evidence from an in-depth multiple case study on the untold role and impact of context in randomised controlled trials of seven complex interventions.
        Trials. 2012; 13: 95
        • Boulware L.E.
        • Cooper L.A.
        • Ratner L.E.
        • LaVeist T.A.
        • Powe N.R.
        Race and trust in the health care system.
        Public Health Rep. 2003; 118: 358-365
        • Lee Y.Y.
        • Lin J.L.
        Trust but verify: the interactive effects of trust and autonomy preferences on health outcomes.
        Health Care Anal. 2009; 17: 244-260
        • Hillen M.A.
        • de Haes H.C.
        • Smets E.M.
        Cancer patients' trust in their physician-a review.
        Psychooncology. 2011; 20: 227-241
        • Hurd T.C.
        • Kaplan C.D.
        • Cook E.D.
        • et al.
        Building trust and diversity in patient-centered oncology clinical trials: an integrated model.
        Clin Trials. 2017; 14: 170-179
      2. Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services. Dialysis Facility Compare https://data.medicare.gov/data/dialysis-facility-compare. Accessed September 6, 2017.

      3. US Census Bureau. 2011-2015 American Community Survey 5-year estimates. https://factfinder.census.gov/faces/nav/jsf/pages/index.xhtml. Accessed September 6, 2017.