Search

There are three notable aspects of the current kidney replacement therapy program. First, the number of patients on home dialysis has dropped substantially over the last decades. Second, the rate of transplantation has stabilized in recent years. Third, there is variation in referral rate for transplantation among hospitals. These trends are the result of overutilization of in-center dialysis and that demand for kidney replacement therapy is moderated by suppliers. Current healthcare policy leads to overutilization of in-center dialysis and underutilization of home dialysis and transplantation. This overutilization is the result of supplier-induced demand and leads to suboptimal care for patients and excessive healthcare expenditures. The main drivers of this overutilization are the overcapacity of in-center dialysis beds and the high financial disincentives on empty dialysis beds. Policymakers should address this by reducing dialysis capacity and increasing the capacity of transplantation facilities. This is the first attempt to address the overutilization and the nonalignment of supply and demand by looking at the capacity of in-center dialysis and the financial disincentives for physicians on empty in-center dialysis beds. In our analysis, we conclude that limiting the capacity of in-center dialysis beds is the most effective strategy to better align supply and demand, which will result in better patient outcomes and lower societal costs.

Summary Background The goal of postmastectomy breast reconstruction (BR) is to improve the quality of life of patients. However, complications following autologous (A-BR) and implant-based breast reconstruction (I-BR) occur frequently and may even lead to BR-failure, which can be a distressing event for both patients and surgeons. The current study therefore looks at the experiences of both patients and surgeons after a BR-failure. Methods Patients with a failed BR from a large multicenter cohort study and participating plastic surgeons were invited to participate in semi-structured interviews focusing on their experiences. The interviews were analyzed according to the principles of grounded theory. Results Fourteen patients with a failed I-BR, four patients with a failed A-BR and four plastic surgeons participated. Three main categories emerged from the data: personal experiences with BR-failure, the motives for a redo of a failed BR, and patient-surgeon communication. Patients would like to be treated with more attention to their personal feelings and lives, instead of being approached from a purely medical-technical perspective. Surgeons may experience feelings of guilt leading to the strong urge to fix the failed BR, whereas patients may be less inclined to undergo additional operations. Patients want to know what the choice for a particular type of BR would mean to their personal lives. The impact of I-BR-failure may be underestimated and requires the same degree of intensive aftercare and attention. Conclusions Implementing the recommendations of this study in clinical practice may facilitate improvements in how both patients and surgeons cope with a BR-failure.

Abstract. Findings for the effectiveness of neurofeedback in autism spectrum disorder are found to be inconsistent. Therefore, this review comprehensively and systematically reviewed literature on the effectiveness of neurofeedback for the treatment of autism spectrum disorders in children. A systematic search of Embase, Medline, Web of Science, PsycINFO, Cochrane, and Google Scholar was carried out in October 2017 to find relevant papers. We selected full journal articles that reported neurofeedback as a treatment for autism in children (0–17 years). The search yielded 587 articles and we included 20 references with a total of 443 participants. Ninety-four percent of nonrandomized controlled and experimental trials concerning neurofeedback for autism spectrum disorders found positive results. The evidence for effectiveness of neurofeedback therapy was even more robust when only randomized controlled studies were considered. Although there are only a few randomized controlled studies, results support effectiveness of neurofeedback for autism spectrum disorder, including long-term positive effects. In the future, optimal treatment protocols have to be developed to guide clinicians in their neurofeedback treatment. In conclusion, neurofeedback seems to be an alternative treatment for autism spectrum disorders, with space for improvement.

Informed consent for living kidney donation is paramount, as donors are healthy individuals undergoing surgery for the benefit of others. The informed consent process for living kidney donors is heterogenous, and the question concerns how well they are actually informed. Knowledge assessments, before and after donor education, can form the basis for a standardized informed consent procedure for live kidney donation.In this prospective, a multicenter national cohort study conducted in all eight kidney transplant centers in The Netherlands, we assessed the current status of the informed consent practice for live donor nephrectomy. All of the potential living kidney donors in the participating centers were invited to participate. They completed a pop quiz during their first outpatient appointment (Cohort A). Living kidney donors completed the same pop quiz upon admission for donor nephrectomy (Cohort B).In total, 656 pop quizzes were completed (417 in Cohort A, and 239 in Cohort B). The average donor knowledge score was 7.0/25.0 (±3.9, range 0-18) in Cohort A, and 10.5/25.0 (±2.8, range 0-17.5) in Cohort B. Cohort B scored significantly higher on overall knowledge, preparedness, and the individual item scores (Donor knowledge generally improves during the live donor workup, but it is still quite disappointing. Long-term complications, especially, deserve more attention during living kidney donor education.

IntroductionUnequal access to kidney transplantation is suggested, but no systematic inventory exists about factors influencing access to kidney transplantation. There is an absence of any research that has combined stakeholder perspectives along the complete trajectory of transplantation. The present qualitative study explores the contributing factors from the perspectives of multiple stakeholders in this trajectory, including patients, health professionals and health insurance and financial representatives in the Netherlands. Moreover, stakeholders will be invited to suggesting strategies and solutions for handling the facilitating and hindering factors found. By means of interaction, stakeholder groups will arrive at a consensus for new policymaking in the field of a Dutch transplantation care.Methods and analysisThe different stakeholders’ perspectives and possible solutions will be explored by interviewing in three phases. In the first phase, stakeholders’ group perspectives will be explored with individual interviews and focus group interviews without confrontation of views from other perspectives. In the second phase of focus group interviewing, perspectives will be confronted with the other stakeholders’ perspectives assessed. Finally, in the third phase, stakeholders will be invited to focus group discussions for suggesting solutions to overcome barriers and promote facilitators for improving access to transplantation. Approximately, groups from six to twelve participants per focus group and four to maximal six focus groups will be held per stakeholder, depending on the level of saturation, as prescribed by grounded theory. The interviews will be audio-recorded and transcribed verbatim, and qualitative data will be analysed according to the principles of grounded theory supported by using NVivo software.Ethics and disseminationThe Medical Ethical Committee of Erasmus MC, Rotterdam, The Netherlands, has approved this study. The results will be disseminated in peer-reviewed journals and major international conferences.

A high percentage of family refusal is found for several outcomes in the Donor Register. Misconceptions and concerns regarding donation impede next of kin from making a well-considered decision. The donation request is the moment in which such concerns should be addressed by the requestor. The Communication about Donation-Telephone Advice by Psychologist (CaD-TAP) is a direct telephone intervention for requestors who are about to request the relatives for donation. The aim of this intervention is to improve requestors' communication skills regarding the donation request and thereby increase the consent rate for organ and/or tissue donation. The intervention started on the April 1, 2014, and lasted until December 31, 2014. To determine the effects, the consent and assent rates were compared between requestors who received the CaD-TAP intervention and those who did not. The requestors who received the CaD-TAP intervention (N = 141) had a significantly (P < .001) higher consent rate (58%) compared with the group who did not receive the intervention (N = 1563, consent rate: 34%). More tissue donor requestors received the intervention (74%) and most interventions took place outside office hours (82%). No significant difference was found in the effect of the intervention with regard to type of donation, time, or day. Furthermore, the intervention increased requestors' self-confidence in requesting for donation (P < .001), and a higher self-confidence indicated a significant association with increased consent rate. The intervention is unanimously experienced as positive and valuable by users. Based on these results the intervention is effective in increasing the consent rate for organ and tissue donation.

The number of living kidney donations is increasing in many countries, in response to increasing demand, lengthening waiting lists for transplants from deceased donors, and, in some areas, cultural or religious resistance to deceased donation. In most such donations the donor and recipient are related genetically or emotionally, but there are various routes by which a donor may give a kidney to a recipient who is a stranger. The practice of paired, pooled or chained donation - in which a recipient receives an organ from a stranger, in return for which that recipient‘s emotionally or genetically related (but incompatible) donor gives a kidney to another stranger - is accepted and growing. In contrast, the selling of organs by donors is controversial and generally illegal, except in a few countries.

Objectives This study examined whether kidney patients want to participate in decisions regarding the minimal acceptable quality of deceased donor kidneys. We also explored patients' opinions about the trade-off between a higher-quality organ with a longer waiting time vs a lower-quality organ with a shorter waiting time. Methods A questionnaire was distributed among kidney patients. Additionally, a sub-sample of these patients participated in in-depth interviews, which were analyzed using the grounded theory approach. Results Sixty-three percent of the patients wished to participate in decisions concerning the quality of a deceased donor kidney. The majority of the respondents indicated that they prefer a kidney of good quality and would therefore accept a longer waiting time. Responses to the qualitative interviews illustrated a more balanced choice regarding this trade-off. Conclusions Many patients wish to be involved in deciding on the quality of the kidney, but it may evoke the experience of decisional conflicts when they have to make rational trade-offs between the desire for the best kidney at the expense of a longer waiting time.

Our aim was to develop and test an educational program to support well-informed decision making among patients and their social network regarding living donor kidney transplantation (LDKT). One hundred sixty-three patients who were unable to find a living donor were randomized to standard care or standard care plus home-based education. In the education condition, patients and members of their social network participated in home-based educational meetings and discussed renal replacement therapy options. Patients and invitees completed pre-post self-report questionnaires measuring knowledge, risk perception, communication, self-efficacy and subjective norm. LDKT activities were observed for 6 months postintervention. Patients in the experimental group showed significantly more improvements in knowledge (p

IntroductionThere is a lot of speculation about why and how patients decide to use invasive treatment in an advanced stage of cancer, but the body of research is limited. The present longitudinal qualitative and quantitative study reflects real-life practice of pixantrone use and aims to collect data on patients’ considerations for, expectations of and experiences with pixantrone and trajectories in their quality-of-life (QoL) values in a Dutch clinical setting. Hence, two questions emerge. Why do patients choose for this treatment, while the treatment success rate is limited and curation cannot be achieved? And second, once chosen, what conditions would patients like to satisfy and how do they experience the treatment?Methods and analysisThis is a non-interventional longitudinal and multicentre study. Patients are eligible if they are >18 years, have never been treated with pixantrone before, have an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance score ≤2, have a relapsed or refractory diffuse large B-cell lymphoma and have been treated with at least two prior regimens. The decision to treat patients with pixantrone has been taken by the treating physician before patients are asked to participate in the study. If patients refuse study participation after being informed by the investigator, reasons for refusal (if given) will be recorded. Participants will receive at least three interviews accompanied by three QOL questionnaires. Based on the required sample size, we aim to include 20 patients over a period of 2 years.Ethics and disseminationThe Medical Ethical Committee of Erasmus MC, Rotterdam, The Netherlands, has approved this study. The results will be disseminated in peer-reviewed journals and major international conferences. The study is non-interventional and falls therefore not under Medical Research Involving Human Subjects Act (In Dutch: Wet medisch-wetenschappelijk onderzoek met mensen; WMO). Hence, this study is approved to be carried out in the Erasmus MC. Each other participating centre will receive this approval and will separately undergo the ethical approval to be able to participate. In addition to the ethical approval, the participating centres need to obtain written informed consent of their patients. Given the non-interventional nature of this study, a study registration was considered but deemed unnecessary. The study will be conducted in accordance with the Declaration of Helsinki (Tokyo, Venice, Hong Kong and Somerset West amendments). A sequential identification number will be automatically attributed to each patient that has given consent to participate in the study. This number will identify the patient and must be included on all documents. Only the main researcher can link the code to the patient’s identity.

Knowledge is a prerequisite for promoting well-informed decision-making. Nevertheless, there is no validated and standardized test to assess the level of knowledge among renal patients regarding kidney disease and all treatment options. Therefore, the objective of this study was to investigate the psychometric properties of such a questionnaire for use in research and practice. A 30-item list was validated in four groups: (1) 187 patients on dialysis, (2) 82 patients who were undergoing living donor kidney transplantation the following day, (3) the general population of Dutch residents (n = 515) and (4) North American residents (n = 550). The psychometric properties of the questionnaire were examined using multidimensional item response theory (MIRT). Norm references were also calculated. Five items were found to distort ability estimates (Differential item functioning; DIF). MIRT analyses were subsequently carried out for the remaining 25 items. Almost all items showed good discrimination and difficulty parameters based on the fitted model. Two stable dimensions with 21 items were retrieved for which norm references for the Dutch and North American, dialysis and transplantation groups were calculated. This study resulted in a thorough questionnaire, the Rotterdam renal replacement knowledge-test, which enables reliable testing of patient's knowledge on kidney disease and treatment options in clinic and research.

Evaluating a person's suitability for living organ donation is crucial, consisting not only of a medical but also of a thorough psychosocial screening. We performed a systematic literature review of guidelines, consensus statements, and protocols on the content and process of psychosocial screening of living kidney and liver donor candidates. We searched PubMed, Embase, CINAHL, and PsycINFO until June 22, 2011, following the PRISMA guidelines, complemented by scrutinizing guidelines databases and references of identified publications. Thirty-four publications were identified, including seven guidelines, six consensus statements, and 21 protocols or programs. Guidelines and consensus statements were inconsistent and lacked concreteness for both their content and process, possibly explaining the observed variability in center-specific evaluation protocols and programs. Overall, recommended screening criteria are not evidence-based and an operational definition of the concept "psychosocial" is missing, causing heterogeneity in terminology. Variation also exists on methods used to psychosocially evaluate potential donors. The scientific basis of predonation psychosocial evaluation needs to be strengthened. There is a need for high-quality prospective psychosocial outcome studies in living donors, a uniform terminology to label psychosocial screening criteria, and validated instruments to identify risk factors.

Background. We have observed a significant inequality in the number of living-donor kidney transplants (LDKT) performed between patients of non-Western European origin and those of Western European origin. The aim of this study was to investigate modifiable factors that could be used as potential targets for an intervention in an attempt to reduce this inequality. Methods. A questionnaire on knowledge, risk perception, communication, subjective norm, and willingness to accept LDKT was completed by 160 end-stage renal patients who were referred to the pretransplantation outpatient clinic (participation rate of 92%). The questionnaire was available in nine languages. Multivariate analyses of variance were conducted to explore differences between patients with and without a living donor. Results. There were significantly fewer patients of non-Western descent (11 of 82) that brought a living donor to the outpatient clinic than patients of Western descent (38 of 78). After correcting for the unmodifiable sociodemographic factors non-Western descent, low knowledge, little communication about their kidney disease, and low willingness to communicate with individuals from the social network about LDKT were significantly associated with the absence of a living donor. Conclusions. Knowledge and communication are identified as modifiable factors that are associated with the likelihood of identifying a potential living donor for LDKT. This observation makes knowledge and communication targets for interventions to reduce inequality in access to LDKT.