Title |
Barriers to successful implementation of care in home haemodialysis (BASIC-HHD):1. Study design, methods and rationale
|
---|---|
Published in |
BMC Nephrology, September 2013
|
DOI | 10.1186/1471-2369-14-197 |
Pubmed ID | |
Authors |
Anuradha Jayanti, Alison J Wearden, Julie Morris, Paul Brenchley, Inger Abma, Steffen Bayer, James Barlow, Sandip Mitra |
Abstract |
Ten years on from the National Institute of Health and Clinical Excellence' technology appraisal guideline on haemodialysis in 2002; the clinical community is yet to rise to the challenge of providing home haemodialysis (HHD) to 10-15% of the dialysis cohort. The renal registry report, suggests underutilization of a treatment type that has had a lot of research interest and several publications worldwide on its apparent benefit for both physical and mental health of patients. An understanding of the drivers to introducing and sustaining the modality, from organizational, economic, clinical and patient perspectives is fundamental to realizing the full benefits of the therapy with the potential to provide evidence base for effective care models. Through the BASIC-HHD study, we seek to understand the clinical, patient and carer related psychosocial, economic and organisational determinants of successful uptake and maintenance of home haemodialysis and thereby, engage all major stakeholders in the process. |
X Demographics
Geographical breakdown
Country | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
United Kingdom | 2 | 50% |
Unknown | 2 | 50% |
Demographic breakdown
Type | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
Members of the public | 3 | 75% |
Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 1 | 25% |
Mendeley readers
Geographical breakdown
Country | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
Unknown | 168 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
Student > Master | 29 | 17% |
Researcher | 26 | 15% |
Student > Ph. D. Student | 26 | 15% |
Student > Bachelor | 12 | 7% |
Student > Doctoral Student | 11 | 7% |
Other | 30 | 18% |
Unknown | 34 | 20% |
Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
Medicine and Dentistry | 39 | 23% |
Nursing and Health Professions | 23 | 14% |
Psychology | 19 | 11% |
Social Sciences | 13 | 8% |
Economics, Econometrics and Finance | 6 | 4% |
Other | 25 | 15% |
Unknown | 43 | 26% |