Introduction
Home-based therapies (peritoneal dialysis and home hemodialysis ) are underutilized (1 ), despite comparative data showing similar quality of life, morbidity, and mortality when compared with in-center hemodialysis and lower cost in most countries (2 3 4 5 6–7 ). In part, this is because decisions around dialysis modality selection are a complicated interplay between physician knowledge and practice, patient and family values, patient autonomy and ability to self-manage, clinical benefits/limitations, resource allocation, incentives, and geographical variation (8 9 10 11 12 13–14 ). This is often further complicated by late referral to the nephrology team and urgent dialysis initiation for AKI such that choosing the right dialysis modality for the right patient at the right time cannot be accomplished.
The use of home dialysis in Canada remains lower than expected due to a combination of patient, caregiver, provider, and health system barriers (15 ). Previous Canadian studies have highlighted several potential patient and caregiver barriers to the use of home therapies, including knowledge, skills, personal circumstances, and social supports (13 ,14 ,16 ,17 ). Provider barriers have been reported to include lack of training in peritoneal dialysis , lack (or perceived lack) of skills and knowledge, bias against peritoneal dialysis as an effective dialysis modality, and possibly inadequate physician reimbursement for home dialysis (18 ). Lack of patient awareness and knowledge of home therapies have been consistent barriers noted in prior studies. These barriers persist despite the existence of national guidelines for home-based dialysis therapies (19 ) that note the importance of patient education and evidence suggesting that home-based therapies are chosen by most suitable patients when they are provided appropriate education and support (20 ).
Although studies have shown that patient education can overcome knowledge-related barriers, increasing the use of home dialysis is complex and multifaceted. We recently conducted a cluster randomized trial of multidisciplinary CKD clinics across Canada to determine the effect of standardized education—aimed at patients and providers—on the timing of dialysis initiation (21 ). Because patients and providers must also consider modality choice when they are thinking about the timing of dialysis initiation, we simultaneously delivered a standardized modality education program directed at patients in combination with a provider-directed intervention to address barriers to the use of home dialysis . The goal was to increase the use of home dialysis in patients on incident dialysis in Canada. Here, we describe the effects of our multifaceted modality education intervention on home dialysis use in patients followed by nephrologists in multidisciplinary clinics across Canada.
Materials and Methods
Overview
As noted, this study was conducted alongside a cluster randomized trial examining the effect of standardized education—aimed at patients and providers—on the timing of dialysis initiation (21 ). In this parallel study, we used the same clusters, but the inclusion criteria for this study were broader as patients were included regardless of GFR or whether they were followed by a nephrologist before dialysis . Although the main purpose of the intervention was to reduce early starts, the audit/feedback available to the intervention sites also included use of home dialysis , and all provider- and patient-facing tools spoke not just about when to start dialysis but also about the types of dialysis (with a preference toward use of home dialysis where appropriate).
Fifty-five multidisciplinary chronic disease clinics (clusters) across Canada were randomized to receive either an active knowledge translation intervention or no intervention to increase the use of home dialysis at 180 days after dialysis initiation. The active knowledge translation intervention included audit and feedback as well as patient- and provider-directed educational tools delivered at a comprehensive in-person medical detailing visit (21 ,22 ).
Clusters (CKD clinics) were randomized to receive the intervention at different points in time, and patients on incident dialysis in these clusters were followed to assess the primary outcome using data routinely collected by the Canadian Organ Replacement Registry.
Study Population and Data Sources
At the time of this study, there were 73 multidisciplinary CKD clinics across Canada providing care to nearly all patients with severe CKD, and they are responsible for the elective initiation of dialysis (23 ). Each clinic is associated with one or more dialysis facilities, which formed the clusters used for randomization. Of the clinics in the network, 55 clusters were randomized (Figure 1 ). Fourteen clinics in Quebec were excluded from randomization as they do not submit data to the Canadian Organ Replacement Registry. Because measurement of outcomes occurred at the level of the dialysis facility, for clinics that send their new dialysis starts to the same dialysis facility, we combined these clinics into clusters. This was done for eight clinics (four clusters) to create unique measurement clusters and ensure that all patients within a dialysis unit were managed in a similar fashion within their clinics. The remaining 55 clusters (59 clinics) were all geographically separated (not located in the same office building) and staffed by nephrologists who do not see outpatients in another CKD clinic.
Figure 1.: Study flow of clinic clusters and patients.
The effectiveness of the intervention was assessed in all patients older than 18 years who initiated dialysis between September 1, 2013 and September 1, 2016.
The duration of the follow-up period after intervention was 12 months. We hypothesized that clusters randomized to the active intervention would start a greater proportion of their patients on home dialysis by 180 days after dialysis initiation as compared with clusters randomized to no intervention (control group).
Data Source
To assess effectiveness, we used data collected by the Canadian Organ Replacement Registry, which is a national registry that captures the incidence, prevalence, treatment changes, and outcomes of over 99% of patients on maintenance dialysis in Canada (outside Quebec). The Canadian Organ Replacement Registry is a validated registry that includes the following information on all patients with kidney failure: demographics, comorbidities, vascular access, dialysis modality, transplantation, and mortality (24 ,25 ). Data are collected by dialysis facilities and are centrally housed at the Canadian Institute for Health Information. Data are collected by completion of a registration form by the dialysis provider on each patient at dialysis initiation and yearly thereafter. A change of status form is completed to document patient death, transplantation, or a switch in dialysis modality.
Cluster Randomization
In this stratified cluster randomized study, the unit of observation was the patient (i.e. , outcomes were measured at the level of an individual patient), and the unit of randomization was the cluster. As described in a related paper (21 ), we performed constrained randomization using software for random number generation with allocation concealment, stratifying on province/region and size of the cluster (<200, 200–600, or >600 patients). A simulation of the randomization was completed to ensure balance on prespecified cluster-level variables. Approximately 1000 iterations were performed, and a randomization scheme that resulted in good balance on all measured cluster factors was selected. Randomization assignments were concealed until the planned implementation of the intervention for a given region. Sample size was constrained by the number of clinic clusters available for randomization across Canada, and study power was on the basis of the timing of dialysis initiation outcome as noted in a related paper (21 ).
Outcomes
The primary outcome was use of home dialysis (peritoneal dialysis or home hemodialysis ) at 180 days after dialysis initiation among the study population (i.e ., all patients older than 18 years initiating dialysis ). We used 180 days because that provided enough time for a patient to be informed about home dialysis and make a switch to home dialysis if that was their preference. The secondary outcome was the use of home dialysis at 180 days after dialysis initiation among all patients initiating dialysis who were followed by a nephrologist prior to dialysis initiation for at least 90 days. Other outcomes we assessed were any use of home dialysis within 180 days and the use of home dialysis at dialysis initiation, both in the overall cohort of patients over 18 years of age initiating dialysis .
Following randomization, the intervention was applied in a staggered rollout between October 2014 and November 2015, with observation for the primary outcome occurring in the intervention clusters (and the control clusters in the same strata) starting on the date of the medical detailing visit.
Intervention
The intervention was aimed to increase use of home dialysis and was delivered at the same time as an intervention aiming to improve appropriate timing of dialysis initiation. Because they were relevant to the same patient population, it made sense to combine them. Moreover, there was enthusiasm across Canadian centers about the timing of dialysis initiation given a recent randomized controlled trial (26 ) and a new Canadian guideline on the timing of dialysis initiation (27 ).
As noted in Figure 2 and described in more detail in Supplemental Appendix , the combined intervention consisted of audit and feedback, patient- and provider-directed educational tools, and a comprehensive in-person medical detailing visit (21 ,22 ).
Figure 2.: Overview of the combined intervention designed to increase the use of home dialysis (additional details are in Supplemental Appendix ) ( 21 , 33 , 40 ). Statistical Methods
To assess the effectiveness of patient education and provider tools, we used a cluster randomized trial design. The unit of randomization was the CKD clusters. No interim analyses were undertaken.
The time at which the cluster began the intervention was randomly determined. All patients received usual care up until the point of study initiation, with clusters subsequently being randomized to intervention every 3 months in four separate time periods until, by the end of 18 months, all clusters randomized to receive the intervention had received it. Dichotomous outcomes (such as whether the patient used home dialysis at 180 days) were compared using an adjusted two-sample t test. To adjust for individual- and cluster-level covariates as well as correlation within clusters (28 ), we used generalized estimating equations (GEEs) to obtain the population average effect of the intervention in the presence of clustering. Confidence interval widths were not adjusted for multiple testing. We also conducted a stratified analysis to align with the constrained randomization in our design, but because the results were consistent with the nonstratified models, we present the more parsimonious approach.
We also used a differences-in-differences approach to control for differences in the baseline rate of home dialysis use in the two groups (29 ). To do this, we constructed GEE models where the changes over time were compared using the interaction between group (intervention and control) and time (postintervention versus preintervention). For categorical outcomes, the log-binomial model was used when possible, and for nonconvergent models, we applied a log Poisson model. For continuous models, we applied a GEE model with a normal distribution and identity link (30 ).
We conducted several additional analyses. We repeated our models adjusted for patient-level characteristics with missing data being imputed with five imputations using SAS software’s PROC MI and a sensitivity analysis including all dialysis starts (irrespective of 90 days of nephrology follow-up before dialysis initiation). Finally, a post hoc analysis was conducted that included only clusters that were found in the follow-up survey to have been high users of the knowledge translation tools, defined as those who responded to a 6-month follow-up phone-based survey and rated the intervention greater than or equal to three of five on a Likert scale.
Ethical Considerations
Ethics approval was received from the Conjoint Health Research and Ethics Board, University of Calgary. Consistent with best practice (31 ), the research ethics board provided a waiver of consent for both patients and clinical directors for trial participants because the study interventions and data collection processes pose minimal risk; the intervention involved an already published clinical practice guideline, and the data required for this study were already routinely collected. Patients were not contacted, and outcomes were collected through the Canadian Organ Replacement Registry, which as noted above, routinely collects these data for dissemination to kidney programs. Although we did not mandate a change in care at CKD clinics, we encouraged the entire health care team to support the use of home dialysis .
Results
Baseline Characteristics
Patients were well balanced across intervention and control clusters, with no clinically important differences noted across the trial period (Table 1 ) or before or after the trial period for the difference-in-differences analysis (Supplemental Table 1 ). There were 2476 and 2836 patients who initiated dialysis across intervention and control clusters during the trial period, respectively (Figure 1 ).
Table 1. -
Baseline characteristics of clusters and patients (as used for primary analysis)
Cluster and Patient Characteristics
Intervention, n =27
Control, n =28
Cluster characteristics, n
2476
2836
Mean no. of patients in the clinic
770 (667)
699 (598)
No. of nephrologists
5 (2–8)
5 (2.5–9)
Cluster size, patients, n (%)
<200
3 (11)
2 (7)
200–600
11 (41)
13 (46)
>600
13 (48)
13 (46)
Model of care, n (%)
Rotating nurse and rotating nephrologist
2 (7)
3 (11)
Same nurse and rotating nephrologist
3 (11)
2 (7)
Rotating nurse and same nephrologist
6 (22)
5 (18)
Same nurse and same nephrologist
15 (56)
17 (61)
Mixed
1 (4)
1 (4)
Region, n (%)
Alberta
2 (7)
2 (7)
British Columbia
6 (11)
6 (21)
Maritime provinces
4 (7)
4 (14)
Prairie provinces (Manitoba/Saskatchewan)
3 (6)
3 (11)
Ontario
12 (22)
13 (46)
Patients initiating dialysis , n
2476
2836
Demographics and laboratory values at dialysis initiation
Age (SD), yr
64 (0.3)
64 (0.3)
Men, n (%)
1580 (64)
1708 (60)
BMI, kg/m2
28.9 (0.2)
28.7 (0.1)
Hemoglobin, g/dl
9.6 (0.03)
9.4 (0.03)
Phosphate, mg/dl
6.1 (0.04)
5.9 (0.04)
Albumin, g/dl
3.2 (0.02)
3.1 (0.01)
Comorbidities, n (%)
Angina
294 (12)
354 (12)
Previous CABG
355 (14)
504 (18)
Cerebrovascular accident
325 (13)
359 (13)
Current smoker
344 (14)
386 (14)
Diabetes mellitus
1385 (56)
1569 (55)
Hypertension
1920 (78)
2180 (77)
Lung disease
287 (12)
389 (14)
Malignant neoplasm
371 (15)
474 (17)
Myocardial infarction
423 (17)
525 (19)
Peripheral vascular disease
367 (15)
468 (17)
Pulmonary edema
576 (23)
727 (26)
Cause of kidney failure, n (%)
Hypertension
222 (9)
316 (11)
Diabetes mellitus
1058 (43)
1120 (39)
GN
277 (11)
318 (11)
Obstruction
38 (2)
38 (1)
Interstitial
181 (7)
241 (9)
Polycystic kidney disease
107 (4)
84 (3)
Other and unknown
593 (24)
719 (25)
Race/ethnicity, n (%)
White
1582 (64)
1900 (67)
East Asian
190 (8)
187 (7)
Indigenous
192 (8)
190 (7)
South Asian
147 (6)
228 (8)
Black
88 (4)
95 (3)
Other
277 (11)
236 (8)
Distance from patient’s residence to center, km, n (%)
<50
1937 (78)
2291 (81)
50–100
377 (15)
345 (12)
>150
162 (7)
200 (7)
BMI, body mass index; CABG, coronary artery bypass graft.
Despite similar patient characteristics (Table 1 ), there was a baseline difference in use of home dialysis at 180 days among patients in intervention (28%) and control (23%) clusters before the intervention was implemented (P =0.10). There seemed to be a lower use of home dialysis within control clusters between 2010 and 2016 compared with intervention clusters (Supplemental Figure 1 ).
Primary Outcome: Use of Home Dialysis at 180 Days after Dialysis Initiation
The use of home dialysis at 180 days did not vary in the trial period across intervention and control clusters, with a relative risk of 1.16 (95% confidence interval [95% CI], 0.92 to 1.45) and absolute risk difference of 4% (95% CI, 2% to 9%) (Table 2 ). Using a difference-in-difference comparison, the use of home dialysis at 180 days was similar before and after implementation of the intervention (difference, 0% in intervention clinics; 95% CI, −2% to 3%; difference, 0.8% in control clinics; 95% CI, −1% to 3%; P =0.84) (Figure 3 and Table 3 ). After adjusting for clustering, the absolute between-group risk difference was −0.3% (95% CI, −4% to 3%; relative risk adjusted for clustering, 0.99; 95% CI, 0.86 to 1.13).
Table 2. -
The use of home
dialysis at 180 days (primary analysis) and at initiation in the year following the intervention
Outcome
Intervention, n =2476
Control, n =2836
Relative Risk (95% Confidence Interval)
Absolute Risk Difference (95% Confidence Interval)
P Value
Primary outcome
Home dialysis at 180 d postdialysis initiation
705 (29%)
686 (24%)
1.16 (0.92 to 1.45)
4% (−2% to 9%)
0.21
Secondary outcome
Home dialysis at 180 d postdialysis initiation among those with at least 90 d of nephrology care
614/1851 (33%)
588/2011 (29%)
1.13 (0.90 to 1.43)
4% (−3% to 11%)
0.29
Other outcomes
Home dialysis at dialysis initiation
467 (19%)
377 (13%)
1.31 (0.88 to 1.93)
4% (−2% to 10%)
0.17
Any home dialysis within 180 d
784 (32%)
806 (28%)
1.11 (0.89 to 1.39)
3% (−3% to 9%)
0.37
This is only adjusted for cluster correlation in the baseline analysis and not for individual factors.
Figure 3.: Proportion of patients using home dialysis at 180 days for the year before and year after study initiation, by intervention and control clinic clusters. Solid line, intervention cluster; dashed line, control clusters.
Table 3. -
Results of differences-in-differences analyses with generalized estimating equations models comparing the 1-year preintervention with the 1-year postintervention
Outcome
Intervention Group
Control Group
Effect of Intervention
Preintervention, n =2468, no. (%)
Postintervention, n =2476, no. (%)
Difference, % (95% CI)
Preintervention, n =2798, no. (%)
Postintervention, n =2836, no. (%)
Difference, % (95% CI)
Crude Absolute Risk Difference between Groups, % (95% CI)
Absolute Risk Difference between Groups Accounting for Clustering, % (95% CI)
Relative Risk between Groups Accounting for Clustering, Relative Risk (95% CI)
P Value
Primary outcome
Home dialysis at 180 d postdialysis initiation
702 (28)
705 (28)
0 (–2 to 3)
653 (23)
686 (24)
0.8 (–1 to 3)
−0.8 (–4 to 3)
−0.3 (–4 to 3)
0.99 (0.86 to 1.13)
0.84
Secondary outcome
Home dialysis at 180 d postdialysis initiation among those with at least 90 d of nephrology care
610/1860 (33)
614/1851 (33)
0.4 (–3 to 3)
560/1981 (28)
588/2011 (29)
1 (–2 to 4)
−1 (–5 to 4)
−0.2 (–5 to 4)
0.98 (0.85 to 1.14)
0.84
Other outcomes
Home dialysis at dialysis initiation
526 (21)
467 (19)
−2 (–5 to 0.2)
363 (13)
377 (13)
0.3 (–1 to 0.2)
−3 (–6 to 0.1)
−2 (–5 to 0.5)
0.86 (0.72 to 1.03)
0.10
Any home dialysis within 180 d
795 (32)
784 (32)
−1 (–3 to 2)
751 (27)
806 (28)
2 (–1 to 4)
−2 (–6 to 1)
−1 (–5 to 2)
0.95 (0.84 to 1.06)
0.35
95% CI, 95% confidence interval.
Secondary Outcome: Use of Home Dialysis at 180 Days after Dialysis Initiation among Those Who Were Followed by a Nephrologist prior to Dialysis Initiation
Using a difference-in-difference comparison, the use of home dialysis at 180 days was similar before and after implementation of the intervention (difference, 0.4% in intervention clinics; 95% CI, −3% to 3%; difference, 1% in control clinics; 95% CI, –2% to 4%; P =0.84) (Figure 3 and Table 3 ). After adjusting for clustering, the absolute between-group risk difference was −0.2% (95% CI, −5% to 4%; relative risk adjusted for clustering, 0.98; 95% CI, 0.85 to 1.14).
Other Outcomes
Considering the secondary outcomes of use of home dialysis at initiation and any use of home dialysis within 180 days, there was no difference noted across intervention and control clusters (Tables 2 and 3 ). Using a log Poisson model to adjust for patient differences and imputing for missing data, there was no difference in use of home dialysis at 180 days.
In a survey completed by 20 of 27 intervention clusters between 3 and 6 months after the in-person visit, 45% of the intervention clusters reported a high ongoing use of the knowledge translation tools. Comparing the 12 of 27 intervention clusters that reported a high subjective use of the knowledge translation tools with control clusters, we did not find any statistically significant changes in the primary outcome (Supplemental Table 2 ).
Discussion
We noted no difference in the use of home dialysis at 180 days after dialysis initiation in intervention and control clusters. This is despite the use of a multifaceted knowledge translation intervention, including audit and feedback, patient and provider tools and education, and an academic detailing visit, each of which has been shown in other studies to increase uptake (32 33–34 ).
There are several possible reasons why our study did not detect any differences between the study groups. These include baseline differences in the clusters randomized to intervention and control (specifically differences in the baseline use of home dialysis across intervention and control clusters), more variability in the use of home dialysis across clinics than we expected, because our intervention was not effective, and issues with study power. Although there were over 5300 patients in the intervention and control clusters, the effective sample size is 55 clusters, meaning that small imbalances in clusters might have large effects and that our study was likely underpowered to show significant differences.
We noted baseline differences in the use of home dialysis , with higher use of home dialysis in the intervention clusters. Use of home dialysis at initiation in the intervention clusters before the study intervention was 28%, which is higher than in most health systems and higher than the Canadian average in 2015 (22%) (35 ). Thus, it is possible that these clusters had reached a ceiling in the use of home dialysis and that further increases were not possible with an intervention of the type we tested. It may be that future cluster randomized controlled trials should focus on randomizing clusters with low performance on the outcome of interest for the study to avoid a possible ceiling effect.
It is possible that our intervention was simply not effective—of particular relevance given that the primary focus of the intervention and cluster randomized controlled trial was on improving appropriateness of the timing of dialysis initiation (also a negative study) (21 ). It was also relevant to study the intervention’s effect on the use of home dialysis because the tools all emphasized the use of home dialysis , and decision making on dialysis modality is being made at the same time as consideration around timing of initiation. Despite basing our intervention on an understanding of the barriers to use of home dialysis (patient and physician knowledge), the tools and strategies we used may not have overcome the barriers to use of home dialysis . This may be because the tools were not effective or because the tools and recommendations were not used consistently within clinics. We did measure clinic engagement after the intervention was administered (including whether the educational tools were disseminated to patients and whether clinic processes changed), but even in clusters that appeared engaged, we did not identify a difference in the use of home dialysis at 180 days. In addition, numerous policy interventions to promote home dialysis uptake were in effect in several provinces during the study period. These efforts, led by provincial kidney programs, included funding for and hiring of home dialysis educators and nurse navigators, financial incentives and penalties for kidney care programs, educational tools for patients and staff, decision aids, and others. Collectively, these background interventions may have driven home dialysis uptake at control clusters, attenuating any potential effectiveness of our intervention.
Our results should be considered in the context of past research. A past systematic review looking at the effectiveness of nonfinancial interventions to increase use of peritoneal dialysis suggested that the following were effective: predialysis education, reporting the proportion of patients receiving peritoneal dialysis at different dialysis centers, nephrologist-directed peritoneal dialysis catheter placement (in programs where delays in peritoneal dialysis catheter placement exist), home-assisted peritoneal dialysis , and peritoneal dialysis –first initiatives (36 ). Our strategy included two of these strategies, although as noted above, it is unclear whether the tools disseminated to intervention clinics were used consistently. Although restricting choice of dialysis modality is controversial, studies suggest that some patients who are not capable of home dialysis can still successfully be managed at home with assisted peritoneal dialysis with equivalent outcomes (37 ) and at lower cost (38 ).
Our results have implications for US dialysis centers given recent federal legislation; the Advancing American Kidney Health initiative set a goal that 80% of patients who initiate KRT in 2025 will receive home dialysis or a transplant (39 ). Our results suggest that increasing the use of home dialysis to meet this goal will be challenging. It is relevant to note, however, that of the 10,578 patients who initiated dialysis with in-center hemodialysis in the pre- and postperiods, 1527 (14%) switched and were receiving home dialysis at 180 days. Given this, interventions that can facilitate patients switching modality after initiation should be explored in future research.
The strengths of this study include its national scope, as we included all provinces except Quebec, and randomization of essentially all Canadians with advanced CKD who were cared for by nephrologists. Limitations included that the level of engagement with the intervention was inconsistent among clinics (with <50% of clinics reporting a high level of engagement with the intervention after 3 months), and we were unable to tailor the intervention to each clinic’s individual needs. In addition, our outcomes were collected from the Canadian Organ Replacement Register and were only on the basis of the proportion of patients who progressed to kidney failure and started dialysis during this time period. It is possible that the effect of the intervention may have been observed in later time periods. Finally, the cluster-level trial design of our study may have limited the power to detect small differences in the efficacy of the intervention.
This study illustrates that increasing the use of home dialysis is challenging. Further research is required to determine the optimal strategy for increasing the use of home dialysis . Although education can increase the proportion of patients who prefer home dialysis , utilization of home dialysis is complex, and more complex interventions that assess and overcome barriers to the use of home dialysis at a patient level are likely required.
Disclosures
A. Alam reports consultancy agreements with AstraZeneca, Janssen, and Otsuka Canada; honoraria from AstraZeneca Inc., Janssen Inc., and Otsuka Pharmaceutical Inc.; speakers bureau for AstraZeneca and Otsuka Canada; and other interests or relationships with Royal College International (Canada). S. Allu reports employment with the Canadians Seeking Solutions and Innovations to Overcome Chronic Kidney Disease (Can-SOLVE CKD) Network. T. Ferguson reports consultancy agreements with Clinpredict LTD, Quanta Dialysis Technologies LTD, Strategic Health Resources, and Tricida Inc. and honoraria from Baxter Corporation. A.X. Garg reports research funding from Astellas and Baxter; serving on the editorial boards of American Journal of Kidney Diseases and Kidney International ; serving on the data safety and monitoring board for an anemia trial program funded by GlaxoSmithKline; and serving in the medical lead role to improve access to kidney transplantation and living kidney donation for the Ontario Renal Network (a government-funded agency located within Ontario Health). A.X. Garg has received partnership grant funding from Astellas Canada Inc. for a Canadian Institutes of Health Research–funded grant in the area of living kidney donation. S.J. Kim reports support from Astellas Pharma Canada Inc. and serving in an advisory or leadership role for Canadian Blood Services, the Canadian Organ Replacement Register, the Canadian Society of Transplantation, Health Canada, the Organ Procurement and Transplant Network (OPTN)/United Network for Organ Sharing (UNOS) Data Advisory Committee, and the Scientific Registry of Transplant Recipients Technical Advisory Committee. G.E. Nesrallah reports consultancy agreements with Amgen Inc., AstraZeneca, Baxter Healthcare, and Otsuka and research funding from Baxter Healthcare. M.M. Sood reports consultancy agreements with AstraZeneca; honoraria from AstraZeneca; receiving speaker fees and educational funds from AstraZeneca; serving on the editorial boards of American Journal of Kidney Disease , Canadian Journal of Cardiology , and CJASN ; serving as the Deputy Editor of Canadian Journal of Kidney Disease and Health ; and serving as a member of the American Society of Nephrology Highlights ESRD Team. S.D. Soroka reports honoraria from AstraZeneca, Bayer, and Otsuka and speakers bureau for AstraZeneca, Bayer, Jannsen, and Otsuka. N. Tangri reports consultancy agreements with Healthlogic, Mesentech Inc., PulseData Inc., Renibus, and Tricida Inc.; ownership interest in Clinpredict Ltd., Healthlogic, Klinrisk, Mesentech Inc., PulseData Inc., Renibus, and Tricida Inc.; research funding from AstraZeneca Inc., Bayer, BI-Lilly, Janssen, Otsuka, and Tricida Inc.; honoraria from AstraZeneca Inc., Bayer, BI-Lilly, Janssen, Otsuka Pharmaceuticals, and Pfizer; advisory or leadership role for Mesentech, Pulsedata Inc., Renibus, and Tricida Inc.; a patent (“A microfluidic device for point of care detection of urine albumin”) pending; other interests or relationships with the National Kidney Foundation; and being the founder of Klinrisk, Clinpredict. All remaining authors have nothing to disclose.
Funding
This study was funded by a Baxter Healthcare Corporation Extramural grant (investigator initiated), the Canadian Institutes of Health Research Network Catalyst Grant - Diabetes, Obesity, Digestive and Kidney, the Kidney Foundation of Canada Network Catalyst Grant - Diabetes, Obesity, Digestive and Kidney, and Research Manitoba . A.X. Garg was supported by the Dr. Adam Linton Chair in Kidney Health Analytics and a Canadian Institutes of Health Research clinical investigator award. B.J. Manns is supported by the Svare Chair in Health Economics and a Canadian Institutes of Health Research foundation award. M.M. Sood is supported by the Jindal Research Chair for the Prevention of Kidney Disease. N. Tangri was supported by the Canadian Institutes of Health Research new investigator award and a Canadian Institutes of Health Research foundation award.
Acknowledgments
We thank Frank Ivis from the Canadian Institute for Health Information for help in data acquisition.
Author Contributions
A. Alam, M. Beaulieu, S.N. Dixon, A.X. Garg, S.J. Kim, B.J. Manns, D. Naimark, G.E. Nesrallah, M.M. Sood, S.D. Soroka, and N. Tangri conceptualized the study; N. Tangri was responsible for data curation; S.N. Dixon, T. Ferguson, and N. Tangri were responsible for formal analysis; A. Alam, M. Beaulieu, S.N. Dixon, T. Ferguson, A.X. Garg, S.J. Kim, B.J. Manns, D. Naimark, G.E. Nesrallah, M.M. Sood, S.D. Soroka, and N. Tangri were responsible for methodology; S. Allu, B.J. Manns, and N. Tangri were responsible for project administration; B.J. Manns and N. Tangri were responsible for resources; B.J. Manns and N. Tangri were responsible for funding acquisition; S.N. Dixon and B.J. Manns provided supervision; B.J. Manns wrote the original draft; and A. Alam, S. Allu, M. Beaulieu, S.N. Dixon, T. Ferguson, A.X. Garg, S.J. Kim, B.J. Manns, D. Naimark, G.E. Nesrallah, M.M. Sood, S.D. Soroka, and N. Tangri reviewed and edited the manuscript.
Data Sharing Statement
The study data are held by the Seven Oaks Nephrology research team, a research team at the University of Manitoba. The data were provided to them by the Canadian Organ Replacement Registry in the context of a contract that does not permit data sharing in any form. If a research team is interested in additional data analysis, please contact the corresponding author, who can assist the team in applying through the Canadian Organ Replacement Registry to gain access to the data.
Supplemental Material
This article contains the following supplemental material online at http://cjasn.asnjournals.org/lookup/suppl/doi:10.2215/CJN.13191021/-/DCSupplemental .
Supplemental Appendix . Additional details of the intervention applied to the intervention clinics: multifaceted intervention aimed at increasing the use of home dialysis and infographic given to patients in intervention clinics incorporating the focus on home dialysis and timing of dialysis initiation, referring patients to additional education material.
Supplemental Figure 1 . Proportion of home dialysis within 180 days versus time by treatment (2006–2016).
Supplemental Table 1 . Baseline characteristics of clusters and patients before and after intervention in intervention and control clusters (for primary outcome; secondary analysis used differences in differences).
Supplemental Table 2 . Results of post hoc analysis among clusters reporting a high subjective ranking of the provided knowledge translation tools (12 of 27 clusters assigned to the intervention) with GEE models in the 1 year following the KT intervention.
References
1. Canadian Institute for Health Information: Canadian Organ Replacement Register Annual Report: Treatment of End-Stage Organ Failure in Canada 2001 to 2010. Ottawa, ON, Canada, Canadian Institute for Health Information, 2011
2. Quinn RR, Hux JE, Oliver MJ, Austin PC, Tonelli M, Laupacis A: Selection bias explains apparent differential mortality between
dialysis modalities. J Am Soc Nephrol 22: 1534–1542, 2011
3. Merkus MP, Jager KJ, Dekker FW, De Haan RJ, Boeschoten EW, Krediet RT; NECOSAD Study Group: Quality of life over time in
dialysis : The Netherlands Cooperative Study on the Adequacy of
Dialysis . Kidney Int 56: 720–728, 1999
4. Foley RN, Parfrey PS, Harnett JD, Kent GM, O’Dea R, Murray DC, Barre PE: Mode of
dialysis therapy and mortality in end-stage renal disease. J Am Soc Nephrol 9: 267–276, 1998
5. Collins AJ, Hao W, Xia H, Ebben JP, Everson SE, Constantini EG, Ma JZ: Mortality risks of
peritoneal dialysis and hemodialysis. Am J Kidney Dis 34: 1065–1074, 1999
6. Merkus MP, Jager KJ, Dekker FW, Boeschoten EW, Stevens P, Krediet RT; The Necosad Study Group: Quality of life in patients on chronic
dialysis : Self-assessment 3 months after the start of treatment. Am J Kidney Dis 29: 584–592, 1997
7. Fenton SS, Schaubel DE, Desmeules M, Morrison HI, Mao Y, Copleston P, Jeffery JR, Kjellstrand CM: Hemodialysis versus
peritoneal dialysis : A comparison of adjusted mortality rates. Am J Kidney Dis 30: 334–342, 1997
8. Harwood L, Clark A: Understanding pre-
dialysis modality decision-making: A meta-synthesis of qualitative studies. Int J Nurs Stud 50: 109–120, 2013
9. Wuerth DB, Finkelstein SH, Schwetz O, Carey H, Kliger AS, Finkelstein FO: Patients’ descriptions of specific factors leading to modality selection of chronic
peritoneal dialysis or hemodialysis. Perit Dial Int 22: 184–190, 2002
10. Golper T: Patient education: Can it maximize the success of therapy? Nephrol Dial Transplant 16[Suppl 7]: 20–24, 2001
11. Davidson I, Gallieni M, Saxena R, Dolmatch B: A patient centered decision making
dialysis access algorithm. J Vasc Access 8: 59–68, 2007
12. Morton RL, Howard K, Webster AC, Snelling P: Patient INformation about Options for Treatment (PINOT): A prospective national study of information given to incident CKD Stage 5 patients. Nephrol Dial Transplant 26: 1266–1274, 2011
13. Morton RL, Tong A, Howard K, Snelling P, Webster AC: The views of patients and carers in treatment decision making for chronic kidney disease: Systematic review and thematic synthesis of qualitative studies. BMJ 340: c112, 2010
14. Morton RL, Snelling P, Webster AC, Rose J, Masterson R, Johnson DW, Howard K:
Dialysis modality preference of patients with CKD and family caregivers: A discrete-choice study. Am J Kidney Dis 60: 102–111, 2012
15. Osterlund K, Mendelssohn D, Clase C, Guyatt G, Nesrallah G: Identification of facilitators and barriers to home
dialysis selection by Canadian adults with ESRD. Semin Dial 27: 160–172, 2014
16. McLaughlin K, Jones H, VanderStraeten C, Mills C, Visser M, Taub K, Manns B: Why do patients choose self-care
dialysis ? Nephrol Dial Transplant 23: 3972–3976, 2008
17. Oliver MJ, Garg AX, Blake PG, Johnson JF, Verrelli M, Zacharias JM, Pandeya S, Quinn RR: Impact of contraindications, barriers to self-care and support on incident
peritoneal dialysis utilization. Nephrol Dial Transplant 25: 2737–2744, 2010
18. Jassal SV, Krishna G, Mallick NP, Mendelssohn DC: Attitudes of British Isles nephrologists towards
dialysis modality selection: A questionnaire study. Nephrol Dial Transplant 17: 474–477, 2002
19. Levin A, Hemmelgarn B, Culleton B, Tobe S, McFarlane P, Ruzicka M, Burns K, Manns B, White C, Madore F, Moist L, Klarenbach S, Barrett B, Foley R, Jindal K, Senior P, Pannu N, Shurraw S, Akbari A, Cohn A, Reslerova M, Deved V, Mendelssohn D, Nesrallah G, Kappel J, Tonelli M; Canadian Society of Nephrology: Guidelines for the management of chronic kidney disease. CMAJ 179: 1154–1162, 2008
20. Manns BJ, Taub K, Vanderstraeten C, Jones H, Mills C, Visser M, McLaughlin K: The impact of education on chronic kidney disease patients’ plans to initiate
dialysis with self-care
dialysis : A randomized trial. Kidney Int 68: 1777–1783, 2005
21. Tangri N, Garg AX, Ferguson TW, Dixon S, Rigatto C, Allu S, Chau E, Komenda P, Naimark D, Nesrallah GE, Soroka SD, Beaulieu M, Alam A, Kim SJ, Sood MM, Manns B: Effects of a knowledge-translation intervention on early
dialysis initiation: A cluster randomized trial. J Am Soc Nephrol 32: 1791–1800, 2021
22. Chau EM, Manns BJ, Garg AX, Sood MM, Kim SJ, Naimark D, Nesrallah GE, Soroka SD, Beaulieu M, Dixon S, Alam A, Tangri N; Canadian Kidney Knowledge Translation and Generation Network (CANN-NET): Knowledge translation interventions to improve the timing of
dialysis initiation: Protocol for a cluster randomized trial. Can J Kidney Health Dis 3: 2054358116665257, 2016
23. Levin A, Steven S, Selina A, Flora A, Sarah G, Braden M: Canadian chronic kidney disease clinics: A national survey of structure, function and models of care. Can J Kidney Health Dis 1: 29, 2014
24. Moist LM, Richards HA, Miskulin D, Lok CE, Yeates K, Garg AX, Trpeski L, Chapman A, Amuah J, Hemmelgarn BR: A validation study of the Canadian Organ Replacement Register. Clin J Am Soc Nephrol 6: 813–818, 2011
25. CIHI: Data Quality Study on the Canadian Organ Replacement Register, Ottawa, ON, Canada, Canadian Institute for Health Information, 2009
26. Cooper BA, Branley P, Bulfone L, Collins JF, Craig JC, Fraenkel MB, Harris A, Johnson DW, Kesselhut J, Li JJ, Luxton G, Pilmore A, Tiller DJ, Harris DC, Pollock CA; IDEAL Study: A randomized, controlled trial of early versus late initiation of
dialysis . N Engl J Med 363: 609–619, 2010
27. Nesrallah GE, Mustafa RA, Clark WF, Bass A, Barnieh L, Hemmelgarn BR, Klarenbach S, Quinn RR, Hiremath S, Ravani P, Sood MM, Moist LM; Canadian Society of Nephrology: Canadian Society of Nephrology 2014 clinical practice guideline for timing the initiation of chronic
dialysis . CMAJ 186: 112–117, 2014
28. Donner A, Klar N: Design and Analysis of Cluster Randomization Trials in Health Research, London, Arnold, 2000
29. Dimick JB, Ryan AM: Methods for evaluating changes in health care policy: The difference-in-differences approach. JAMA 312: 2401–2402, 2014
30. Spiegelman D, Hertzmark E: Easy SAS calculations for risk or prevalence ratios and differences. Am J Epidemiol 162: 199–200, 2005
31. Weijer C, Grimshaw JM, Eccles MP, McRae AD, White A, Brehaut JC, Taljaard M; Ottawa Ethics of Cluster Randomized Trials Consensus Group: The Ottawa statement on the ethical design and conduct of cluster randomized trials. PLoS Med 9: e1001346, 2012
32. Forsetlund L, Bjørndal A, Rashidian A, Jamtvedt G, O’Brien MA, Wolf F, Davis D, Odgaard-Jensen J, Oxman AD: Continuing education meetings and workshops: Effects on professional practice and health care outcomes. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2009: CD003030, 2009
33. Ivers N, Jamtvedt G, Flottorp S, Young JM, Odgaard-Jensen J, French SD, O’Brien MA, Johansen M, Grimshaw J, Oxman AD: Audit and feedback: Effects on professional practice and healthcare outcomes. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 6: CD000259, 2012
34. Flodgren G, Parmelli E, Doumit G, Gattellari M, O’Brien MA, Grimshaw J, Eccles MP: Local opinion leaders: Effects on professional practice and health care outcomes. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 8: CD000125, 2011
35. Canadian Institute for Health Information: Treatment of End-Stage Organ Failure in Canada, Canadian Organ Replacement Register, 2010 to 2019: End-Stage Kidney Disease and Kidney Transplants—Data Tables, Ottawa, ON, Canada, CIHI, 2020
36. Mann BS, Manns BJ, Barnieh L, Oliver MJ, Devoe D, Lorenzetti D, Pauly R, Quinn RR:
Peritoneal dialysis : A scoping review of strategies to maximize PD utilization. Perit Dial Int 37: 159–164, 2017
37. Oliver MJ, Al-Jaishi AA, Dixon SN, Perl J, Jain AK, Lavoie SD, Nash DM, Paterson JM, Lok CE, Quinn RR: Hospitalization rates for patients on assisted
peritoneal dialysis compared with in-center hemodialysis. Clin J Am Soc Nephrol 11: 1606–1614, 2016
38. Liu FX, Gao X, Inglese G, Chuengsaman P, Pecoits-Filho R, Yu A: A global overview of the impact of
peritoneal dialysis first or favored policies: An opinion. Perit Dial Int 35: 406–420, 2015
39. Lentine KL, Mannon RB: The Advancing American Kidney Health (AAKH) Executive Order: Promise and caveats for expanding access to kidney transplantation. Kidney360 1: 557–560, 2020
40. Jamtvedt G, Young JM, Kristoffersen DT, O’Brien MA, Oxman AD: Does telling people what they have been doing change what they do? A systematic review of the effects of audit and feedback. Qual Saf Health Care 15: 433–436, 2006