We previously developed a mobile- and web-based decision aid (iChoose Kidney) that displays individualized risk estimates of survival and mortality, for the treatment modalities of dialysis versus kidney transplantation. We examined the effect of iChoose Kidney on change in transplant knowledge and access to transplant in a randomized controlled trial among patients presenting for evaluation in three transplant centers. A total of 470 patients were randomized to standard transplantation education (control) or standard education plus iChoose Kidney (intervention). Change in transplant knowledge (primary outcome) among intervention versus control patients was assessed using nine items in pre- and postevaluation surveys. Access to transplant (secondary outcome) was defined as a composite of waitlisting, living donor inquiries, or transplantation. Among 443 patients (n = 226 intervention; n = 216 control), the mean knowledge scores were 5.1 ± 2.1 pre- and 5.8 ± 1.9 postevaluation. Change in knowledge was greater among intervention (1.1 ± 2.0) versus control (0.4 ± 1.8) patients (P < .0001). Access to transplantation was similar among intervention (n = 168; 74.3%) versus control patients (n = 153; 70.5%; P = .37). The iChoose Kidney decision aid improved patient knowledge at evaluation, but did not impact transplant access. Future studies should examine whether combining iChoose Kidney with other interventions can increase transplantation. (Clinicaltrials.gov NCT02235571).

IMPORTANCE For-profit (vs nonprofit) dialysis facilities have historically had lower kidney transplantation rates, but it is unknown if the pattern holds for living donor and deceased donor kidney transplantation, varies by facility ownership, or has persisted over time in a nationally representative population. OBJECTIVE To determine the association between dialysis facility ownership and placement on the deceased donor kidney transplantation waiting list, receipt of a living donor kidney transplant, or receipt of a deceased donor kidney transplant. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS Retrospective cohort study that included 1 585 947 patients treated at 6512 US dialysis facilities. Adult patients with incident end-stage kidney disease from the US Renal Data System (2000-2016) were linked with facility ownership (Dialysis Facility Compare) and characteristics (Dialysis Facility Report). EXPOSURES The primary exposure was dialysis facility ownership, which was categorized as nonprofit small chains, nonprofit independent facilities, for-profit large chains (>1000 facilities), for-profit small chains (<1000 facilities), and for-profit independent facilities. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES Access to kidney transplantation was defined as time from initiation of dialysis to placement on the deceased donor kidney transplantation waiting list, receipt of a living donor kidney transplant, or receipt of a deceased donor kidney transplant. Cumulative incidence differences and multivariable Cox models assessed the association between dialysis facility ownership and each outcome. RESULTS Among 1 585 947 patients, the median age was 65 years (interquartile range, 54-75 years), with 55.8% male, and 28.4% non-Hispanic black patients. Eighty-eight percent of patients received care at a for-profit dialysis facility. A total of 115 650 patients (7.3%) received care at 435 nonprofit small chain facilities; 66 539 (4.2%) at 325 nonprofit independent facilities; 527 458 (33.3%) at 2239 facilities of large for-profit chain 1; 525 997 (33.2%) at 2082 facilities of large for-profit chain 2; 245 633 (15.5%) at 997 for-profit small chain facilities; and 104 670 (6.6%) at 434 for-profit independent facilities. During the study period, 230 202 patients (14.5%) were placed on the deceased donor waiting list, 39 767 (2.5%) received a living donor kidney transplant, and 88 431 (5.6%) received a deceased donor kidney transplant. For-profit facilities had lower 5-year cumulative incidence differences for each outcome vs nonprofit facilities (deceased donor waiting list: −2.6% [95% CI, −2.8% to −2.4%]; receipt of a living donor kidney transplant: −0.9% [95% CI, −1.0% to −0.8%]; and receipt of a deceased donor kidney transplant: −1.4% [95% CI, −1.5% to −1.3%]). Adjusted Cox analyses showed lower relative rates for each outcome among patients treated at all for-profit vs all nonprofit dialysis facilities: deceased donor waiting list (hazard ratio [HR], 0.87 [95% CI, 0.86 to 0.88]); receipt of a living donor kidney transplant (HR, 0.82 [95% CI, 0.80 to 0....

followed through February 2018 and linked data to referral and evaluation data from nine transplant centers in Georgia, North Carolina, and South Carolina. Multivariableadjusted competing risk analysis examined each outcome. The median within-facility cumulative percentage of patients referred for kidney transplantation within 1 year of dialysis at the 690 dialysis facilities in Network 6 was 33.7% (interquartile range [IQR]: 25.3%-43.1%). Only 48.3% of referred patients started the transplant evaluation within 6 months of referral. In multivariable analyses, factors associated with referral vs evaluation start among those referred at any time differed. For example, black, non-Hispanic patients had a higher rate of referral (hazard ratio [HR]: 1.22; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.18-1.27), but lower evaluation start among those referred (HR: 0.93; 95% CI: 0.88-0.98), vs white non-Hispanic patients. Barriers to transplant varied by step, and national surveillance data should be collected on early transplant steps to improve transplant access.

No abstract

Background and objectives Access to kidney transplantation requires a referral to a transplant center for medical evaluation. Prior research suggests that the distance that a person must travel to reach a center might be a barrier to referral. We examined whether a shorter distance from patients' residence to a transplant center increased the likelihood of referral and initiating the transplant evaluation once referred. Design, setting, participants, & measurements Adults who began treatment for ESKD at any Georgia, North Carolina, or South Carolina dialysis facility from 1/1/2012 to 12/31/2015 were identified from the US Renal Data System. Referral (within 1 year of dialysis initiation) and evaluation initiation (within 6 months of referral) data were collected from all nine transplant centers located in that region. Distance was categorized as ,15, 15-30, 31-60, 61-90, and .90 miles from the center of a patient's residential zip code to the nearest center. We used multilevel, multivariable-adjusted logistic regression to quantify the association between distance with referral and evaluation initiation. Results Among 27,250 adult patients on incident dialysis, 9582 (35%) were referred. Among those referred, 58% initiated evaluation. Although patients who lived farther from a center were less likely to be referred, distance was not statistically significantly related to transplant referral: adjusted odds ratios of 1.08 (95% confidence interval, 0.96 to 1.22), 1.07 (95% confidence interval, 0.95 to 1.22), 0.96 (95% confidence interval, 0.84 to 1.10), and 0.87 (95% confidence interval, 0.74 to 1.03) for 15-30, 31-60, 61-90, and .90 miles, respectively, compared with ,15 miles (P trend 50.05). There was no statistically significant association of distance and evaluation initiation among referred patients: adjusted odds ratios of 1.14 (95% confidence interval, 0.97 to 1.33), 1.12 (95% confidence interval, 0.94 to 1.35), 1.04 (95% confidence interval, 0.87 to 1.25), and 0.89 (95% confidence interval, 0.72 to 1.11) for 15-30, 31-60, 61-90, and .90 miles, respectively, compared with ,15 miles (P trend 50.70). Conclusions Distance from residence to transplant center among patients undergoing long-term dialysis in the southeastern United States was not associated with increased likelihood of referral and initiating transplant center evaluation.