Chronic Kidney DiseasesSDM-DCNCT03868800
Shared Decision-Making and Dialysis Choice
A study testing SDM-DC in people with Chronic Kidney Diseases, run by University of Aarhus.
Trial summary
The SDM-DC intervention is designed for patients with kidney failure who must make a decision regarding type of dialysis: haemodialysis or peritoneal dialysis. SDM-DC consists of patient and his or her relative(s) being given a patient decision aid called 'Dialysis choice' and booked for meetings with a dialysis… Read more about this study
- Who is it for?
- Ages 18 years and older
- Conditions the study is for
- Chronic Kidney Diseases
- What is being tested?
- SDM-DC
- Could I receive a placebo?
- No, everyone receives an active treatment
- How many people
- 402 participants
- Where
- No sites listed yet
- Study dates
- 1 Oct 2016to 31 Aug 2018
- Phase
- Interventional
- Are there results?
- None posted in the registry
Key requirements
Who can take part, as listed by the sponsor. Only the study team can confirm whether you are eligible, so take this list to your doctor.
- Ages 18 years and older
- All sexes
- No healthy volunteers
- Adult, Older adult
Who may be able to join
- Estimated glomerular filtration rate below 20 ml/min
- A clinical judgement made by the contact nurse and the contact physician
Who cannot join
- Conservative care
- A set date for a transplantation with a living donor
- Not able to participate due to cognitive impairment
About this study
Official title: Shared Decision-Making and Dialysis Choice: A Complex Intervention
The SDM-DC intervention is designed for patients with kidney failure who must make a decision regarding type of dialysis: haemodialysis or peritoneal dialysis. SDM-DC consists of patient and his or her relative(s) being given a patient decision aid called 'Dialysis choice' and booked for meetings with a dialysis coordinator.
Read the detailed description
The dialysis coordinators were trained in the why, what and how in relation to SDM-DC and to deliver the intervention by tailoring to patients' needs and using three different communication skills: mirroring, active listening and value clarification. The patient decision aid was designed to be utilised during and between the SDM-DC meetings. The patient decision aid is in paper format and consists of a set of tools: a decision map, an overview of uremic symptoms, an overview of options, and the Ottawa Personal Decision Guide. More specifically, the patient decision aid makes explicit the dialysis decision, describes options, benefits and harms using the best available evidence, and intends to help patients clarify their values by indicating the importance of the benefits and harms out of scale from (0) to (5). Four videos with personal stories were available to be shown and discussed at the meetings if the patient preferred to see the reason why another patient has chosen a specific option. Each video showed one option with a patient telling why he/she chose that option, and how he/she weighed the advantages and disadvantages.
- Conditions
- Chronic Kidney Diseases
- Being tested
- SDM-DC
- Medical subject headings
- Renal Insufficiency, Chronic
What participants receive
What participants receive. In a randomised study each person is assigned to one group by chance.
SDM-DCOther
Also called Shared decision-making and dialysis choice
The SDM-DC intervention is designed for patients with kidney failure who must make a decision regarding type of dialysis: haemodialysis or peritoneal dialysis. SDM-DC consists of patient and his or her relative(s) being given a patient decision aid called 'Dialysis choice' and booked for meetings with a dialysis coordinator. There were optional videos describing other patients' experiences making this decision. The dialysis coordinators were trained in the why, what and how in relation to SDM-DC and to deliver the intervention by tailoring to patients' needs and using three different communication skills: mirroring, active listening and value clarification.
| Study group | Role | What they receive |
|---|---|---|
| SDM-DC | Other | All adult patients with kidney failure referred to a department of renal medicine at one of the four hospitals from the 1st of October 2016 to the 31st of May 2018 were offered the intervention and invited to participate in the study. The inclusion criterion was an estimated glomerular filtration rate below 20 ml/min and based on a clinical judgement made by the contact doctor and/or the contact nurse about the decline in the Estimated glomerular filtration rate to continue. Exclusion criteria were patients who had decided on conservative management, patients with a living donor and a set date for transplantation and patients not able to participate in the intervention due to cognitive impairment. The use of an interpreter was not an exclusion criterion. Receives: Other: SDM-DC |
What is being measured
The primary outcome is the main question the study is designed to answer.
Patients experiences of a shared decision-making process
Shared decision-making questionnaire was used to measure patients' perception of shared decision-making in the clinical encounter. It consists of nine statements to be rated on a six-point scale from 'completely disagree' (0) to 'completely agree' (5) The quality of the decision-making process was calculated as the mean score for each item in the SDM-Q9. To provide a total score of the SDM-Q9 a sum of all items was calculated and standardized on a scale on 0-100.
Measured: 14 days after interventions
Knowledge, readiness for decision-making and decision quality
Decision Quality Measurement was used to measure the quality of the decision. The questionnaire consists of six knowledge statements and six readiness statements. All items on the questionnaire were rated as yes, no or unsure. It also consists of two open questions. A total knowledge and readiness score was calculated and standardized out of 100. Open questions were analysed using descriptive qualitative analysis and reported based on most common to least common comments. We decided that for a home-based treatment and choosing 'Treatment at home' in the preference question or deciding for a hospital-based treatment and not choosing 'Treatment at home' in the preference question were considered as concordant choices. Decision quality was defined as a knowledge score >66% on the knowledge score and combined with the concordance score.
Measured: 14 days after interventions
Timeline
From the start of the study to its completion; the mark is today. Estimated dates are the sponsor’s plan.
- First posted11 Mar 2019
- Study start1 Oct 2016
- Primary completion31 May 2018
- Study completion31 Aug 2018
Resources
- Official record on ClinicalTrials.govThe registry entry this page is built from, with its full change history.
- Publications (1)Papers the sponsor has linked to this study.
- Other trials for Chronic Kidney DiseasesStudies of the same condition, open and under way.
- What the trial phases meanHow a treatment moves from first tests in people to approval.
More details
For doctors and researchers: how the study is designed, who runs it, and its registry IDs.
Study design
- Study type
- Interventional
- Phase
- Phase N/A
- Primary purpose
- Supportive care
- Allocation
- Not applicable
- Intervention model
- Single group
- Masking
- None (open label)
- Enrolment
- 402 participants (actual)
Sponsor and investigators
- Lead sponsor
- University of Aarhus
- Sponsor type
- University, hospital or other
- Collaborators
- Aarhus University Hospital, Hillerod Hospital, Denmark, Hospital of Southern Jutland, Regional Hospital Holstebro
- Responsible party
- Sponsor
- Investigators
- Jeanette Finderup, Master, Principal investigator, Aarhus University Hospital
IDs, dates and publications
- ClinicalTrials.gov ID
- NCT03868800
- Sponsor's protocol ID
- 04032019
- Acronym
- SDM-DC
- Status last verified
- Mar 2019
- First submitted
- 7 Mar 2019
- Last updated
- 13 Mar 2019
- Results posted
- No
- Data monitoring committee
- No
- FDA-regulated drug
- No
- FDA-regulated device
- No
- Individual data sharing
- No: The datasets used and/or analysed during the current study are available from the corresponding author on reasonable request. But restrictions apply to the availability of these data, which were used under license for the current study, and so are not publicly available.
Publications
Finderup J, Lomborg K, Jensen JD, Stacey D. Choice of dialysis modality: patients' experiences and quality of decision after shared decision-making. BMC Nephrol. 2020 Aug 5;21(1):330. doi: 10.1186/s12882-020-01956-w.
PubMed 32758177
Study at a glance
From the registry record, last updated by the sponsor on 13 Mar 2019. Recruitment status is as the sponsor reported it: confirm with the study team.
- Official title
- Shared Decision-Making and Dialysis Choice: A Complex Intervention
- ClinicalTrials.gov ID
- NCT03868800
- Acronym / sponsor ID
- SDM-DC / 04032019
- Conditions
- Chronic Kidney Diseases
- Study type
- Interventional
- Recruitment status
- Completed
- Enrolment
- 402 participants (actual)
- Lead sponsor
- University of AarhusUniversity, hospital or other
- Collaborators
- Aarhus University Hospital, Hillerod Hospital, Denmark, Hospital of Southern Jutland, Regional Hospital Holstebro
- Study start
- 1 Oct 2016 (actual)
- Primary completion
- 31 May 2018 (actual)
- Study completion
- 31 Aug 2018 (actual)
- First posted
- 11 Mar 2019 (actual)
- Results
- Not posted in the source record
Clinical summary
The research question as the sponsor registered it. This describes what the study plans to test, not what it found.
The SDM-DC intervention is designed for patients with kidney failure who must make a decision regarding type of dialysis: haemodialysis or peritoneal dialysis. SDM-DC consists of patient and his or her relative(s) being given a patient decision aid called 'Dialysis choice' and booked for meetings with a dialysis coordinator.
Detailed description
The dialysis coordinators were trained in the why, what and how in relation to SDM-DC and to deliver the intervention by tailoring to patients' needs and using three different communication skills: mirroring, active listening and value clarification. The patient decision aid was designed to be utilised during and between the SDM-DC meetings. The patient decision aid is in paper format and consists of a set of tools: a decision map, an overview of uremic symptoms, an overview of options, and the Ottawa Personal Decision Guide. More specifically, the patient decision aid makes explicit the dialysis decision, describes options, benefits and harms using the best available evidence, and intends to help patients clarify their values by indicating the importance of the benefits and harms out of scale from (0) to (5). Four videos with personal stories were available to be shown and discussed at the meetings if the patient preferred to see the reason why another patient has chosen a specific option. Each video showed one option with a patient telling why he/she chose that option, and how he/she weighed the advantages and disadvantages.
Study design
- Primary purpose
- Supportive care
- Allocation
- Not applicable
- Intervention model
- Single group
- Masking
- None (open label)
- Number of arms
- 1
| Arm | Type | Receives |
|---|---|---|
| SDM-DC | Other | Other: SDM-DCAll adult patients with kidney failure referred to a department of renal medicine at one of the four hospitals from the 1st of October 2016 to the 31st of May 2018 were offered the intervention and invited to participate in the study. The inclusion criterion was an estimated glomerular filtration rate below 20 ml/min and based on a clinical judgement made by the contact doctor and/or the contact nurse about the decline in the Estimated glomerular filtration rate to continue. Exclusion criteria were patients who had decided on conservative management, patients with a living donor and a set date for transplantation and patients not able to participate in the intervention due to cognitive impairment. The use of an interpreter was not an exclusion criterion. |
Who may qualify
- Ages
- 18 years and older
- Sex
- All
- Healthy volunteers
- Not accepted
- Age groups
- Adult, Older adult
Key inclusion criteria (2 listed)
- Estimated glomerular filtration rate below 20 ml/min
- A clinical judgement made by the contact nurse and the contact physician
Key exclusion criteria (3 listed)
- Conservative care
- A set date for a transplantation with a living donor
- Not able to participate due to cognitive impairment
Eligibility is decided by the study team after screening; this overview does not establish that a patient qualifies. Full inclusion and exclusion criteria.
Interventions
| Intervention | Type | Arms |
|---|---|---|
| SDM-DCAlso: Shared decision-making and dialysis choiceThe SDM-DC intervention is designed for patients with kidney failure who must make a decision regarding type of dialysis: haemodialysis or peritoneal dialysis. SDM-DC consists of patient and his or her relative(s) being given a patient decision aid called 'Dialysis choice' and booked for meetings with a dialysis coordinator. There were optional videos describing other patients' experiences making this decision. The dialysis coordinators were trained in the why, what and how in relation to SDM-DC and to deliver the intervention by tailoring to patients' needs and using three different communication skills: mirroring, active listening and value clarification. | Other | SDM-DC |
Primary outcome
Patients experiences of a shared decision-making process
Time frame: 14 days after interventions
Shared decision-making questionnaire was used to measure patients' perception of shared decision-making in the clinical encounter. It consists of nine statements to be rated on a six-point scale from 'completely disagree' (0) to 'completely agree' (5) The quality of the decision-making process was calculated as the mean score for each item in the SDM-Q9. To provide a total score of the SDM-Q9 a sum of all items was calculated and standardized on a scale on 0-100.
Knowledge, readiness for decision-making and decision quality
Time frame: 14 days after interventions
Decision Quality Measurement was used to measure the quality of the decision. The questionnaire consists of six knowledge statements and six readiness statements. All items on the questionnaire were rated as yes, no or unsure. It also consists of two open questions. A total knowledge and readiness score was calculated and standardized out of 100. Open questions were analysed using descriptive qualitative analysis and reported based on most common to least common comments. We decided that for a home-based treatment and choosing 'Treatment at home' in the preference question or deciding for a hospital-based treatment and not choosing 'Treatment at home' in the preference question were considered as concordant choices. Decision quality was defined as a knowledge score >66% on the knowledge score and combined with the concordance score.
Results and safety
The study is completed, but results are not available in the source record. That does not mean the treatment did or did not work.
Research links
- Official record on ClinicalTrials.govLast updated by the sponsor 13 Mar 2019.
- Derived from this study: PubMed 32758177Finderup J, Lomborg K, Jensen JD, Stacey D. Choice of dialysis modality: patients' experiences and quality of decision after shared decision-making. BMC Nephrol. 2020 Aug 5;21(1):330. doi: 10.1186/s12882-020-01956-w.
- Individual participant dataSharing planned: No. The datasets used and/or analysed during the current study are available from the corresponding author on reasonable request. But restrictions apply to the availability of these data, which were used under license for the current study, and so are not publicly available.
Related trials for Chronic Kidney Diseases
Not yet recruiting
Combined Versus Multicomponent Training in People With Chronic Kidney Disease Stages 3a and 3b
Chronic Kidney Disease Stage 3A, Chronic Kidney Disease Stage 3B
Not yet recruiting
Effects of Horticultural Therapy on Acute Stress and Salivary Cortisol Levels in Hemodialysis Patients
End-Stage Renal Disease, Renal Dialysis
Enrolling by invitationObservational study
Assessment of Worldwide Acute Kidney Injury Epidemiology in Neonates 2.0
Acute Kidney Injury, Fluid Overload
RecruitingPhase 4
Effect of Low Protein Diet on Top of Dapagliflozin on Chronic Kidney Disease in Patients With Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus
Chronic Kidney Diseases, Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus
Enrolling by invitationObservational study
AK+ Guard™ Pilot Study in Chronic Kidney Disease: Outpatient Diagnostic Accuracy and Remote Monitoring
Hyperkalemia, Chronic Kidney Disease (Stage 3-4)
Referral and contact
AzTrials does not enrol participants or take referrals. Contact the study team or a site listed below; they decide who can take part. This study is not recruiting at the moment.
Jeanette Finderup, Master principal investigator
Aarhus University Hospital
Questions about this trial
What is this clinical trial studying?
A study testing SDM-DC in people with Chronic Kidney Diseases, run by University of Aarhus.
The full registered description is in the About this study section and the official record.
Who may be eligible to take part?
The sponsor lists 2 inclusion and 3 exclusion criteria. Eligibility is decided by the study team after screening, so read the full criteria and contact a listed site.
Is this clinical trial currently recruiting?
The record says: finished, as of the sponsor's last update on 13 Mar 2019. Status can change between updates, so confirm with the study contact before making plans.
What are the possible benefits and risks?
They depend on the study and the treatment, and no study can promise a benefit. The study team explains the known risks during informed consent, before anyone joins; the record itself does not list them.
Are results available for this study?
The study is completed, but results are not available in the source record. That does not mean the treatment did or did not work.
How can a doctor refer a patient or contact the research team?
The record lists no contact. The official record names the sponsor, who can be asked directly. AzTrials does not enrol participants or take referrals.
What does the primary outcome measure?
Patients experiences of a shared decision-making process (time frame: 14 days after interventions). The study lists 2 primary outcomes in all. It is what the study was designed to measure, not a finding.
Where can I read the original study information?
On the ClinicalTrials.gov record for NCT03868800, which also lists 1 linked publication.
Does a listing mean the treatment is approved or proven to work?
No. A listing means the study is registered. It does not show that the treatment is safe, works, or is approved by a regulator.
How often is this information updated?
AzTrials copies changed records from ClinicalTrials.gov every night and reloads the whole registry every week. The sponsor last updated this record on 13 Mar 2019.