Both patient sociodemographic factors (like ethnicity and education) and the specific treating renal centre significantly influence the uptake of home haemodialysis.
May signal ethnic and center disparities in home HD access; leaves open equity-focused prospective studies.
BACKGROUND: In the United Kingdom, socioeconomic disadvantage has been associated with lower use of home dialysis, mostly peritoneal dialysis. In this study, we explore the role of a patient's sociodemographic, socioeconomic differences and the centre's influence on home haemodialysis (HD) prevalence. METHODS: Data is derived from the cross-sectional arm of the UK multi-centre study investigating barriers and enablers of home HD (BASIC-HHD study). Centres were classified as low- (<3%), medium- (5-8%) and high-prevalence groups (>8%). Sociodemographic and socioeconomic status data were ascertained. Patients were enrolled in hospital HD (n = 213), home HD (n = 93) and predialysis groups (n = 222). RESULTS: The treating renal centre to which the patient belonged was significantly associated with a patient's modality in prevalent HD groups and modality-choice in the "predialysis" group, in confounder-adjusted multivariable analyses. Non-white ethnicity was associated with lower odds of self-care dialysis modality choice (OR 0.21, 95% CI 0.07-0.62) and lower odds of home HD uptake in the prevalent HD group (OR 0.24, 95% CI 0.07-0.80). Other significant associations of home HD uptake in the HD cohort included lower age (OR 0.59, 95% CI 0.39-0.89), higher education (OR 2.99, 95% CI 1.25-7.16), home ownership (OR 0.26, 95% CI 0.09-0.70), childcare responsibility (OR 0.22, 95% CI 0.08-0.66) and unrestricted mobility (OR 0.31, 95% CI 0.11-0.91). CONCLUSION: "Centre" effect accounts for variation in home HD prevalence between renal units after accounting for sociodemographic parameters and co-morbidities. Unit practices and attitudes to home HD are likely to have a dominating impact on home HD prevalence rates and these aspects need to be explored systematically at the organisational level.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Jayanti et al. (2017) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: