Background Non-dialytic conservative care (CC) has been proposed as a viable alternative to maintenance dialysis for selected older patients to treat end-stage kidney disease (ESKD). This systematic review compares both treatment pathways on health-related quality of life (HRQoL) and symptoms, which are major outcomes for patients and clinicians when deciding on preferred treatment. Methods We searched PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL) Plus and PsycINFO from inception to 1 October 2019 for studies comparing patient-reported HRQoL outcomes or symptoms between patients who chose either CC or dialysis for ESKD. Results Eleven observational cohort studies were identified comprising 1718 patients overall. There were no randomized controlled trials. Studies were susceptible to selection bias and confounding. In most studies, patients who chose CC were older and had more comorbidities and worse functional status than patients who chose dialysis. Results were broadly consistent across studies, despite considerable clinical and methodological heterogeneity. Patient-reported physical health outcomes and symptoms appeared to be worse in patients who chose CC compared with patients who chose dialysis but had not yet started, but similar compared with patients on dialysis. Mental health outcomes were similar between patients who chose CC or dialysis, including before and after dialysis start. In patients who chose dialysis, the burden of kidney disease and impact on daily life increased after dialysis start. Conclusions The available data, while heterogeneous, suggest that in selected older patients, CC has the potential to achieve similar HRQoL and symptoms compared with a dialysis pathway. High-quality prospective studies are needed to confirm these provisional findings.

Background Non-dialytic conservative care (CC) has been proposed as a treatment option for patients with kidney failure. This systematic review and meta-analysis aims to compare survival outcomes between dialysis and CC in studies where patients made an explicit treatment choice. Methods Five databases were systematically searched from origin up to February 25th, 2021 for studies comparing survival outcomes among patients choosing dialysis versus CC. Adjusted and unadjusted survival rates were extracted and meta-analysis performed where applicable. Risk of bias analysis was performed according to the Cochrane Risk Of Bias In Non-randomised Studies - of Interventions (ROBINS-I). Results Twenty-two cohort studies were included covering 21,344 patients. Most studies were prone to selection bias and confounding. Patients opting for dialysis were generally younger, had less comorbid conditions, functional impairments and frailty than patients who chose CC. Unadjusted median survival from treatment decision or eGFR <15mL/min/1.73m2 ranged between 20-67 months for dialysis and 6-31 months for CC. Meta-analysis of twelve studies that provided adjusted hazard ratios (HRs) for mortality showed a pooled adjusted HR of 0.47 (95% CI 0.39-0.57) for patients choosing dialysis compared to CC. In subgroups of patients with higher age or severe comorbidities, the reduction of mortality risk remained statistically significant, although analyses were unadjusted. Conclusions Patients opting for dialysis have an overall lower mortality risk compared to patients opting for CC. However, high risk of bias and heterogeneous reporting preclude definitive conclusions and results cannot be translated to an individual level.

Background: To be able to practice evidence-based medicine (EBM) when making decisions for individual patients, it is important to learn how to combine the best available evidence with the patient's preferences and the physician's clinical expertise. In general practice training, these skills can be learned at the workplace using learning conversations: meetings between the supervising general practitioner (GP) and GP trainee to discuss medical practice, selected topics or professional performance. This study aimed to give insight into the perceptions of GP trainees on their EBM learning processes during learning conversations. Methods: We held semi-structured video-stimulated elicitation interviews (n = 22) with GP trainees affiliated to GP training institutes in the Netherlands and Belgium. GP trainees were shown fragments of their learning conversations, enabling reflection during the interview. Taking an inductive approach, interview recordings were transcribed verbatim and analysed with NVivo software. Results: GP trainees perceived learning conversations as useful for learning and discussing EBM. Multiple EBM learning activities were identified, such as discussing evidence together, relating evidence to cases in daily practice and discussing the supervisor's experience and the specific local context in the light of what the evidence recommends. However, for learning to occur, trainees need and expect specific behaviour, both from their supervisors and themselves. Supervisors should supply well-substantiated answers that are applicable in practice and give the trainee confirmation. In turn, the trainee needs to prepare well in order to ask focused, in-depth questions. A safe space allowing equal and open discussion between trainee and supervisor is perceived as an essential context for optimal EBM learning. Conclusions: Our findings show that trainees find learning conversations useful for EBM learning in general practice. To bring EBM learning to its full potential, attention should be paid to optimising the behavioural and contextual factors found relevant to enhancing EBM learning.