Exploring agreement and feasibility between virtual home visits and in-person home visits for peritoneal dialysis patients—a paired study

Abstract

Introduction Virtual home visits may improve chronic disease management. However, whether they are suitable for peritoneal dialysis (PD) patients has not yet been fully investigated. This study aimed to compare the agreement and acceptance of virtual home visits and in-person home visits in PD patients. Methods This was a paired, single center, noninferiority trial. Participants received a virtual home visit and an in-person home visit simultaneously. A home visit checklist was built for standardization visits. The content was divided into three parts: domestic habits (57 items), bag exchange procedures (56 items), and exit site care (53 items). Satisfaction questionnaires for both patients and nurses were designed to assess attitudes toward home visits and socioeconomic effects. Results A total of 30 PD patients were enrolled in a single center. The information collected from virtual home visits and in-person home visits was found to be highly consistent. The perfect agreement was found in 52/57, 49/56, and 44/53 items (Cohen's kappa 0.81–1.00), substantial agreement in 4/57, 7/56, and 8/53 items (Cohen's kappa 0.61–0.80). Patients reported almost identical satisfaction for virtual home visits and in-person home visits ( Z = 0.39, p = 0.70). PD nurses reported similar feasibility and patient cooperation for the two visit types ( Z = 0.99, p = 0.33; Z = 1.65, p = 0.10, respectively). In addition, virtual home visits were found to be more cost-effective than in-person home visits. Conclusions Virtual home visits information collection was similar to in-person home visits in PD. There were no differences in participant satisfaction and feasibility between the two visit types.

Malnutrition diagnosed by GLIM criteria better predicts long‐term outcomes for patients with non‐Hodgkin's lymphoma: A prospective multicenter cohort study

“…The agreements between GLIM and sPG‐SGA on identifying malnutrition were assessed by Kappa ( κ ) statistics. Interpretation of κ coefficient was as follows: 0.81–1.00, almost perfect; 0.61–0.80, substantial; 0.41–0.60, moderate; 0.21–0.40, fair; and 0–0.20, slight 23–25 . The rating of validity test statistics followed the recommended cut‐off points for sensitivity and specificity: sensitivity and specificity >80%, good validity; sensitivity or specificity <80% but both >50%, fair validity; and sensitivity or specificity <50%, poor validity 26 .…”

“…Interpretation of κ coefficient was as follows: 0.81-1.00, almost perfect; 0.61-0.80, substantial; 0.41-0.60, moderate; 0.21-0.40, fair; and 0-0.20, slight. [23][24][25] The rating of validity test statistics followed the recommended cut-off points for sensitivity and specificity: sensitivity and specificity >80%, good validity; sensitivity or specificity <80% but both >50%, fair validity; and sensitivity or specificity <50%, poor validity. 26 The discrimination of each tool was assessed with the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC-ROC), numbers greater than 0.9, 0.9 to 0.7, 0.7 to 0.5, and 0.5 indicated good, moderate, low, and none, respectively.…”

Use of eHealth and remote patient monitoring: a tool to support home dialysis patients, with an emphasis on peritoneal dialysis

“…The COVID-19 pandemic spurred telehealth use and its deployment to support home dialysis occurred worldwide. A few examples include the USA [ 20 , 21 ], Brazil [ 22 , 23 ], China [ 24 ], Mexico [ 25 ] and Dominican Republic [ 26 ].…”

“…During the COVID-19 pandemic, remote patient management of PD provided continuity of care, and decreased or prevented COVID-19 infection was reported [ 24 , 26 , 53 , 54 ].…”