BackgroundCompared to others, dialysis patients who are socioeconomically disadvantaged or Black are less likely to receive education about deceased donor kidney transplant (DDKT) and living donor kidney transplant (LDKT) before they reach transplant centers, often due to limited availability of transplant education within dialysis centers. Since these patients are often less knowledgeable or ready to pursue transplant, educational content must be simplified, made culturally sensitive, and presented gradually across multiple sessions to increase learning and honor where they are in their decision-making about transplant. The Explore Transplant at Home (ETH) program was developed to help patients learn more about DDKT and LDKT at home, with and without telephone conversations with an educator.Methods and Study DesignIn this randomized controlled trial (RCT), 540 low-income Black and White dialysis patients with household incomes at or below 250 % of the federal poverty line, some of whom receive financial assistance from the Missouri Kidney Program, will be randomly assigned to one of three education conditions: (1) standard-of-care transplant education provided by the dialysis center, (2) patient-guided ETH (ETH-PG), and (3) health educator-guided ETH (ETH-EG). Patients in the standard-of-care condition will only receive education provided in their dialysis centers. Those in the two ETH conditions will receive four video and print modules delivered over an 8 month period by mail, with the option of receiving supplementary text messages weekly. In addition, patients in the ETH-EG condition will participate in multiple telephonic educational sessions with a health educator. Changes in transplant knowledge, decisional balance, self-efficacy, and informed decision making will be captured with surveys administered before and after the ETH education.DiscussionAt the conclusion of this RCT, we will have determined whether an education program administered to socioeconomically disadvantaged dialysis patients, over several months directly in their homes, can help more individuals learn about the options of DDKT and LDKT. We also will be able to examine the efficacy of different educational delivery approaches to further understand whether the addition of a telephone educator is necessary for increasing transplant knowledge.Trial RegistrationClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02268682

No abstract

Although mandates require all dialysis patients be informed about transplant, Black and low‐income patients remain less likely to receive transplant education, and significant racial and socioeconomic disparities in access to transplant persist. This mixed methods study, utilizing surveys and focus groups, examined 48 dialysis providers’ perceptions of transplant barriers for Black and low‐income patients. Focus group transcripts were coded for common themes, which were organized by level of the Socio‐Ecological Model for Transplant (SEMT). On surveys, over 50 percent of providers reported having insufficient time to provide transplant education. In focus groups, providers perceived that Black and low‐income patients experience greater barriers to transplant. These perceptions, as well as limited time and resources, could enable subtle biases against comprehensive transplant education for these patient groups to emerge. Raising awareness among providers about existing biases and supplementing transplant education within dialysis centers may improve the consistency of education and access to transplant.

This reflective article describes how we, a trio of doctoral students, applied critical pedagogical approaches to identify gaps in our public health training, reflect on the value of our lived experiences and ancestral histories, and take action toward advancing change within our School of Public Health. Additionally, we argue that our future effectiveness in leading systemic change toward health justice requires our public health training institutions to deliver course content that addresses racism and other systemic forms of oppression, largely responsible for reproducing health inequities. We also reflect upon how our efforts to find spaces in which to critically engage with content related to social and structural determinants of health transformed into a collaborative learning opportunity that has served to strengthen our skills as public health researchers, advocates, and future educators. We conclude by calling upon our schools of public health to take the lead in preparing the public health workforce of tomorrow for the challenges of addressing systemic causes of health inequities. Our goal is to share our experiences so that graduate students across public health training institutions may look to this piece as a concrete example of how we can shape our schools of public health to meet our needs.

Differences in socioeconomic status (SES), including income, education, and employment, continue to be significant contributors to health disparities in the United States (US), including disparities in mental health outcomes. Despite the size and diversity of the Latinx population, there is a lack of literature describing differences in mental health outcomes, including psychological distress, for Latinx subgroups (e.g., Dominican, Puerto Rican, Cuban). Therefore, we used pooled data from the 2014–2018 National Health Interview Survey to examine variations in psychological distress among Latinx subgroups as compared to other Latinx subgroups and non-Latinx whites. Additionally, we conducted regression analyses and tested whether race/ethnicity modified the relationship between SES indicators and psychological distress. Findings indicate that individuals categorized as Dominican and Puerto Rican were among the Latinx subgroups with the highest levels of psychological distress when compared to other Latinx subgroups and non-Latinx whites. Additionally, results demonstrate that SES indicators, such as higher levels of income and education, were not necessarily significantly associated with lower levels of psychological distress for all Latinx subgroups when compared to non-Latinx whites. Our findings discourage the practice of making broad generalizations about psychological distress or its associations with SES indicators to all Latinx subgroups using results garnered from the aggregate Latinx category.