Transplantation · 2014
Making house calls increases living donor inquiries and evaluations for blacks on the kidney transplant waiting list.
СтатьяРандомизированное исследованиеПоддержка NIH: внешняя программаПоддержка исследования: вне правительства СШАНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Rodrigue James R, Paek Matthew J, Egbuna Ogo, Waterman Amy D, Schold Jesse D, Pavlakis Martha, Mandelbrot Didier A
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: Blacks receive live donor kidney transplant (LDKT) less often than patients of all other races. We evaluated the effectiveness of educational interventions in removing barriers to LDKT for blacks.
METHODS: Patients were randomized to three interventions in which health educator(s) delivered an intervention to (a) the patient and his/her guests in the patient's home (house calls [HC], n=54), (b) clusters of patients and their guests in the transplant center (group based [GB], n=49), and (c) the individual patient alone in the transplant center (individual counseling [IC], n=49).
RESULTS: At the 2-year endpoint, 15% (n=8), 8% (n=4), and 6% (n=3) of HC, GB, and IC patients, respectively, received LDKT (P=0.30). Patients in the HC group were more likely than patients in the GB and IC groups to have at least one donor inquiry (82% vs. 61% vs. 47%, P=0.001) and evaluation (65% vs. 39% vs. 27%, P<0.001). Patients in the HC group also were more likely to have higher knowledge, fewer concerns, and higher willingness to talk to others about donation 6 weeks after intervention.
CONCLUSIONS: These findings underscore the importance of including the patient's social network in LDKT education and the potential of the HC intervention to reduce racial disparity in LDKT rates.
METHODS: Patients were randomized to three interventions in which health educator(s) delivered an intervention to (a) the patient and his/her guests in the patient's home (house calls [HC], n=54), (b) clusters of patients and their guests in the transplant center (group based [GB], n=49), and (c) the individual patient alone in the transplant center (individual counseling [IC], n=49).
RESULTS: At the 2-year endpoint, 15% (n=8), 8% (n=4), and 6% (n=3) of HC, GB, and IC patients, respectively, received LDKT (P=0.30). Patients in the HC group were more likely than patients in the GB and IC groups to have at least one donor inquiry (82% vs. 61% vs. 47%, P=0.001) and evaluation (65% vs. 39% vs. 27%, P<0.001). Patients in the HC group also were more likely to have higher knowledge, fewer concerns, and higher willingness to talk to others about donation 6 weeks after intervention.
CONCLUSIONS: These findings underscore the importance of including the patient's social network in LDKT education and the potential of the HC intervention to reduce racial disparity in LDKT rates.
Предметные рубрики MeSH
AdultBlack or African AmericanAlgorithmsFemaleHealth Knowledge, Attitudes, PracticeHealthcare DisparitiesHouse CallsHumansKidney Failure, ChronicKidney TransplantationLiving DonorsMaleMiddle AgedPatient ParticipationPatient SatisfactionPoisson DistributionRegression AnalysisSurveys and QuestionnairesTime FactorsTissue and Organ ProcurementTreatment OutcomeWaiting Lists