The role of personal attitudes of control and responsibility for the uptake of peritoneal dialysis- a national survey among dialysis patients.
Character
Decision-making
Desire for control
End-stage renal disease (ESRD)
Hemodialysis (HD)
Peritoneal dialysis (PD)
Personality
Renal replacement therapy
Treatment selection
Journal
BMC nephrology
ISSN: 1471-2369
Titre abrégé: BMC Nephrol
Pays: England
ID NLM: 100967793
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
24 03 2021
24 03 2021
Historique:
received:
21
12
2020
accepted:
08
03
2021
entrez:
25
3
2021
pubmed:
26
3
2021
medline:
8
2
2022
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
Although most patients are suitable for both hemodialysis (HD) and peritoneal dialysis (PD), there seem to be differences in the outlook of patients who choose one modality over the other. There is currently limited literature about the impact of patients' personal attitudes on the decision for PD or HD. In this study, we tried to find out whether there were differences between patients who were on HD and PD in their desire for control and responsibility for their treatment. The data were drawn from a nationwide postal survey of 630 HD and PD patients. Patients' desire for control was measured by scores on the internal locus of control (ILOC) scale. Patients were also asked how important taking responsibility for their dialysis had been for their treatment decision (ITR). Two multivariate logistic regression models, both adjusted for age, were applied to investigate whether there were differences between HD and PD patients in ILOC and ITR. Having one generic measure (ILOC) and one tailored to the dialysis context (ITR) gave the opportunity to investigate if it is a generic personality trait or rather a specific attitude that affects choice of dialysis modality. PD patients were younger and showed higher ILOC and ITR values. Multivariate logistic regression models adjusted for age confirmed the significant influence of ILOC and ITR on the uptake of PD. The odds ratios for being in the PD group were 1.53 for ILOC (p = 0.030; 95% CI 1.04-2.25), 1.49 for ITR (p = 0.019; 95% CI 1.07-2.07), and 0.95 (p = 0.000; 95% CI 0.94-0.97) for age in both models. Our analysis shows the impact of personal attitudes on the uptake of PD. Participants who generally want to keep control of their lives and take responsibility for their dialysis treatment tended to choose PD. As PD is a home dialysis treatment that requires patients to participate and contribute, it is beneficial if patients' personalities support the treatment procedure. Having two completely different treatment options that suit to different personalities gives us the opportunity to consider the relationship between personal attitudes and choice of dialysis modality. The MAU-PD study is registered at the German Clinical Trials Register. DRKS00012555 . Date of Registration in DRKS: 2018/01/04.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
Although most patients are suitable for both hemodialysis (HD) and peritoneal dialysis (PD), there seem to be differences in the outlook of patients who choose one modality over the other. There is currently limited literature about the impact of patients' personal attitudes on the decision for PD or HD. In this study, we tried to find out whether there were differences between patients who were on HD and PD in their desire for control and responsibility for their treatment.
METHODS
The data were drawn from a nationwide postal survey of 630 HD and PD patients. Patients' desire for control was measured by scores on the internal locus of control (ILOC) scale. Patients were also asked how important taking responsibility for their dialysis had been for their treatment decision (ITR). Two multivariate logistic regression models, both adjusted for age, were applied to investigate whether there were differences between HD and PD patients in ILOC and ITR. Having one generic measure (ILOC) and one tailored to the dialysis context (ITR) gave the opportunity to investigate if it is a generic personality trait or rather a specific attitude that affects choice of dialysis modality.
RESULTS
PD patients were younger and showed higher ILOC and ITR values. Multivariate logistic regression models adjusted for age confirmed the significant influence of ILOC and ITR on the uptake of PD. The odds ratios for being in the PD group were 1.53 for ILOC (p = 0.030; 95% CI 1.04-2.25), 1.49 for ITR (p = 0.019; 95% CI 1.07-2.07), and 0.95 (p = 0.000; 95% CI 0.94-0.97) for age in both models.
CONCLUSIONS
Our analysis shows the impact of personal attitudes on the uptake of PD. Participants who generally want to keep control of their lives and take responsibility for their dialysis treatment tended to choose PD. As PD is a home dialysis treatment that requires patients to participate and contribute, it is beneficial if patients' personalities support the treatment procedure. Having two completely different treatment options that suit to different personalities gives us the opportunity to consider the relationship between personal attitudes and choice of dialysis modality.
TRIAL REGISTRATION
The MAU-PD study is registered at the German Clinical Trials Register.
DRKS-ID
DRKS00012555 . Date of Registration in DRKS: 2018/01/04.
Identifiants
pubmed: 33761891
doi: 10.1186/s12882-021-02303-3
pii: 10.1186/s12882-021-02303-3
pmc: PMC7989083
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
107Références
BMC Nephrol. 2017 Jun 19;18(1):200
pubmed: 28629462
Blood Purif. 2015;40(4):320-5
pubmed: 26657278
Kidney Blood Press Res. 2017;42(5):865-876
pubmed: 29161686
Psychol Monogr. 1966;80(1):1-28
pubmed: 5340840
Cancer. 2014 Jun 15;120(12):1863-70
pubmed: 24648117
Am J Kidney Dis. 2016 Sep;68(3):422-33
pubmed: 27125246
Clin Nephrol. 2018 Aug;90(2):94-101
pubmed: 29578403
Can J Kidney Health Dis. 2018 Nov 02;5:2054358118803322
pubmed: 30542621
Patient Educ Couns. 2009 Aug;76(2):149-58
pubmed: 19324509
Perit Dial Int. 2002 Mar-Apr;22(2):184-90
pubmed: 11990402
Nephrol Ther. 2017 Apr;13(2):93-102
pubmed: 28161262
Am J Kidney Dis. 2018 Mar;71(3):344-351
pubmed: 29174322
BMC Nephrol. 2013 Sep 10;14:192
pubmed: 24020978
BMC Nephrol. 2018 Oct 29;19(1):298
pubmed: 30373558
Soc Sci Med. 2001 Oct;53(8):971-87
pubmed: 11556779
Perit Dial Int. 2020 Nov;40(6):548-555
pubmed: 32063183
Nat Rev Nephrol. 2010 Feb;6(2):75-82
pubmed: 20010897
PLoS One. 2019 Oct 1;14(10):e0223336
pubmed: 31574134
Nephrol Dial Transplant. 2017 Feb 1;32(2):315-324
pubmed: 28186578
Kidney Int Rep. 2018 Oct 16;4(2):275-284
pubmed: 30775624
BMJ Open. 2019 Apr 20;9(4):e025451
pubmed: 31005921
BMC Nephrol. 2019 Apr 2;20(1):116
pubmed: 30940103
Biomed Res Int. 2016;2016:5314719
pubmed: 27042665
J Am Soc Nephrol. 2012 Mar;23(3):533-44
pubmed: 22302194
Can J Kidney Health Dis. 2020 May 1;7:2054358120912652
pubmed: 32426145
Sci Rep. 2019 Jul 16;9(1):10266
pubmed: 31312004
Eur J Intern Med. 2018 Apr;50:69-74
pubmed: 29208453
Int J Nephrol Renovasc Dis. 2014 Dec 04;7:447-55
pubmed: 25506238
Health Expect. 2019 Oct;22(5):1100-1110
pubmed: 31418984
Nephrology (Carlton). 2019 Jun;24(6):630-637
pubmed: 29926521
Res Nurs Health. 2019 Aug;42(4):273-283
pubmed: 31016758
Nephrol Dial Transplant. 2009 Apr;24(4):1293-7
pubmed: 19033252
West J Nurs Res. 2005 Nov;27(7):915-29; discussion 930-4
pubmed: 16275706
Sci Rep. 2019 Apr 11;9(1):5905
pubmed: 30976069
Br J Nurs. 2005 Jun 23-Jul 13;14(12):659-64
pubmed: 16010217
Ir Med J. 2017 Feb 10;110(2):513
pubmed: 28657258