Search

Individuals with dialysis-dependent kidney failure experience considerable disease- and treatment-related decline in functional status and overall well-being. Despite these experiences, there have been few substantive technological advances in KRT in decades. As such, new federal initiatives seek to accelerate innovation. Historically, integration of patient perspectives into KRT product development has been limited. However, the US Food and Drug Administration recognizes the importance of incorporating patient perspectives into the total product life cycle ( i.e. , from product conception to postmarket surveillance) and encourages the consideration of patient-reported outcomes in regulatory-focused clinical trials when appropriate. Recognizing the significance of identifying patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) that capture contemporary patient priorities, the Kidney Health Initiative, a public-private partnership between the American Society of Nephrology and US Food and Drug Administration, convened a workgroup to ( 1 ) develop a conceptual framework for a health-related quality of life PROM; ( 2 ) identify and map existing PROMs to the conceptual framework, prioritizing them on the basis of their supporting evidence for use in the regulatory environment; and ( 3 ) describe next steps for identifying PROMs for use in regulatory clinical trials of transformative KRT devices. This paper summarizes the proposed health-related quality-of-life PROM conceptual framework, maps and prioritizes PROMs, and identifies gaps and future needs to advance the development of rigorous, meaningful PROMS for use in clinical trials of transformative KRT devices., (Copyright © 2020 by the American Society of Nephrology.)

Background and Objectives: Individuals receiving in-center hemodialysis experience a high symptom burden that detrimentally affects their quality of life. There are few evidence-based interventions for symptom relief in this population. To stimulate innovation in symptom management, data on patient symptom prioritization and treatment preferences are needed. We undertook this study to ( 1 ) identify patient-prioritized symptoms for the development of symptom relief therapies and ( 2 ) elicit preferences for treatments among individuals receiving hemodialysis., Design, Setting, Participants, & Measurements: We conducted a mixed methods study that included focus groups in Carrboro, North Carolina; Tucson, Arizona; and Seattle, Washington and a nationally distributed online survey. Focus group transcripts were analyzed for patterns, and the highest priority symptoms were determined on the basis of frequency and report severity. We used focus group findings to inform survey items. Focus group and survey results were crossvalidated and synthesized for final symptom prioritization., Results: There were 32 participants across three focus groups and 87 survey respondents from 27 states in the United States. The physical symptoms of insomnia, fatigue, muscle cramping, and nausea/vomiting and the mood symptoms of anxiety and depressed mood were reported by participants in all focus groups. Among survey respondents, fatigue (94%), cramping (79%), and body aches (76%) were the most common physical symptoms, and feeling depressed (66%), worried (64%), and frustrated (63%) were the most common mood symptoms. The top-prioritized symptoms were consistent across focus group and survey participants and included the physical symptoms insomnia, fatigue, and cramping and the mood symptoms anxiety, depression, and frustration. Participants indicated that symptom frequency, duration, unpredictability, and social and financial effects factored most heavily into symptom prioritization., Conclusions: Patients prioritized the physical symptoms of insomnia, fatigue, and cramping and the mood symptoms of anxiety, depression, and frustration as the top symptoms for which to find new therapies., (Copyright © 2018 by the American Society of Nephrology.)

Objective: To explore factors that may influence use of comparative public reports for hospital maternity care., Data Sources: Four focus groups conducted in 2013 with 41 women and preintervention survey data collected in 2014 to 2015 from 245 pregnant women in North Carolina., Study Design: As part of a larger randomized controlled trial, we conducted qualitative formative research to develop an intervention that will be evaluated through pre- and postintervention surveys., Data Extraction Methods: Analysis of focus group transcripts examined participants' perceptions of high-quality maternity care and the importance of different quality measures. Quantitative analysis included descriptive results of the preintervention survey and subgroup analyses to examine the impact of race, education, and being a first-time mom on outcomes., Principal Findings: When describing high-quality maternity care, participants focused on interactions with providers, including respect for preferences and communication. The importance of quality measures was influenced by the extent to which they focused on babies' health, were perceived as the hospital's responsibility, and were perceived as representing "standard care." At baseline, 28 percent of survey respondents had used quality information to choose a hospital. Survey respondents were more aware of some quality measures (e.g., breastfeeding support) than others (e.g., episiotomy rates)., Conclusions: Public reporting efforts could help increase relevance of maternity care quality measures by creating measures that reflect women's concerns, clearly explaining the hospital's role in supporting quality care, and showing how available quality measures can inform decisions about childbirth., (© Health Research and Educational Trust.)