Abstract
Rationale & Objective: Few older adults with kidney failure engage in shared decision making (SDM) for kidney replacement therapy. The lack of instruments to assess SDM-relevant knowledge domains may contribute to this. We assessed the reliability and validity of a new instrument, the Rating of CKD Knowledge Older Adults (Know-CKD). Study Design: Multistage process, including a stakeholder-engaged development phase, pilot testing, and validation of a knowledge instrument using a cross-sectional survey of older adults with CKD. Setting & Participants: 363 patients aged 70+ years with nondialysis advanced chronic kidney disease (CKD) (estimated glomerular filtration rate [eGFR] < 30 mL/min/1.73 m2) in Boston, Chicago, Portland, ME, and San Diego from June 2018 and January 2020. Exposure: Educational level, higher literacy (Single Item Literacy Screener [SILS]) and numeracy (Subjective Numeracy Scale [SNS]), having participated in clinic-sponsored dialysis education, and self-reported “feeling informed” about options for treatment. Outcome: Validity and reliability of the Know-CKD instrument. Analytical Approach: Reliability was assessed with the Kuder-Richardson-20 coefficient. Construct validity was demonstrated by testing a priori hypotheses using t test, analysis of variance (ANOVA) tests, and linear regression analyses. Results: The mean (± SD) participant age was 77.6 ± 5.9 years, and mean eGFR was 22.7 ± 7.2 mL/min/1.73 m2; 281 participants (78%) self-reported as White. The 12-item Know-CKD assessment had good reliability (Kuder-Richardson-20 reliability coefficient = 0.75), and a mean score of 58.2% ± 22.3 SD. The subscales did not attain acceptable reliability. The proportion answering correctly on each item ranged from 20.1% to 91.7%. In examining construct validity, the hypothesized associations held; Know-CKD significantly associated with higher education (β = 6.98 [95% CI, 1.34-12.61], P = 0.02), health literacy (β = −12.67 [95% CI, −19.49 to −5.86], P ≤ 0.001), numeracy per 10% higher (β = 1.85 [95% CI, 1.02-2.69], P ≤ 0.001), and attendance at dialysis class (β = 18.28 [95% CI, 13.30-23.27], P ≤ 0.001). These associations were also observed for the subscales except for prognosis (not associated with literacy or numeracy). Limitations: Know-CKD is only available in English and has been used only in research settings. Conclusions: For older adults facing dialysis initiation decisions, Know-CKD is a valid, reliable, and easy to administer measure of knowledge. Further research should examine the relationship of kidney disease knowledge and SDM, patient satisfaction, and clinical outcomes. Plain-Language Summary: The Rating of CKD Knowledge Among Older Adults (Know-CKD) study measures knowledge of chronic kidney disease (CKD) and is designed for older adults. Most existing knowledge measures for CKD focus on people of all ages and all CKD stages. This measure is useful because it will allow researchers to assess how well patient education efforts are working. Patient education is a way to help patients make decisions about their care. We describe how the measure was developed by a team of doctors, researchers, and patients, and how the measure performed among persons with advanced CKD aged 70 years and older. Know-CKD can inform efforts to improve shared decision-making research and practice for older patients with kidney disease.
| Original language | English (US) |
|---|---|
| Pages (from-to) | 569-577 |
| Number of pages | 9 |
| Journal | American Journal of Kidney Diseases |
| Volume | 83 |
| Issue number | 5 |
| DOIs | |
| State | Published - May 2024 |
Funding
Susan Koch-Weser, ScD, Kristen Kennefick, MA, Hocine Tighiouart, MS, John B. Wong, MD, Elisa J. Gordon, PhD, MPH, Tamara Isakova, MD, MMSc, Dena Rifkin, MD, MS, Ana Rossi, MD, Daniel E. Weiner, MD, MS, and Keren Ladin, PhD, MSc. Study design: KL, SK-W; supervision and funding: DEW, KL; data analysis: HT; data access and collection: all authors data access, collection, and analysis: all authors. Each author contributed important intellectual content during manuscript drafting or revision and agrees to be personally accountable for the individual's own contributions and to ensure that questions pertaining to the accuracy or integrity of any portion of the work, even one in which the author was not directly involved, are appropriately investigated and resolved, including with documentation in the literature if appropriate. Dr Ladin was funded by the Paul Teschan Research Fund #2021-08, Dialysis Clinics Inc (DCI) Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute (PCORI) Award (CDR-2017C1-6297), with additional infrastructure support from the Tufts CTSI (NIH UL1TR002544). The funders did not have a role in study design, data collection, analysis, reporting, or the decision to submit for publication. Dr Isakova received consulting honorariums from Blueprint Partnership Manchester Ltd. The other authors declare that they have no relevant financial interests. The team greatly appreciates the participation and input of patients, care partners, and clinicians who participated in this study, as well as the Stakeholder Advisory Board. The views presented in this publication are solely the responsibility of the authors and do not necessarily represent the views of the Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute (PCORI), its Board of Governors, or Methodology Committee. Received April 28, 2023. Evaluated by 2 external peer reviewers, with direct editorial input from a Statistics/Methods Editor, an Associate Editor, and a Deputy Editor who served as Acting Editor-in-Chief. Accepted in revised form September 30, 2023. The involvement of an Acting Editor-in-Chief was to comply with AJKD's procedures for potential conflicts of interest for editors, described in the Information for Authors & Journal Policies. Dr Ladin was funded by the Paul Teschan Research Fund #2021-08, Dialysis Clinics Inc, (DCI). Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute (PCORI) Award (CDR-2017C1-6297) with additional infrastructure support from the Tufts CTSI (NIH UL1TR002544). The funders did not have a role in study design, data collection, analysis, reporting, or the decision to submit for publication.
Keywords
- Chronic kidney disease
- decisional quality
- dialysis
- kidney failure
- kidney replacement therapy
- knowledge
- renal failure
- renal replacement therapy
- shared decision-making
ASJC Scopus subject areas
- Nephrology
