Abstract
Background
There is wide variation in referral for kidney transplant and preemptive kidney transplant (PKT). Patient characteristics such as age, race, sex and geographic location have been cited as contributing factors to this disparity. We hypothesize that the characteristics of nephrologists interplay with the patients' characteristics to influence the referral decision. In this study, we used hypothetical case scenarios to assess nephrologists' decisions regarding transplant referral.
Methods
A total of 3180 nephrologists were invited to participate. Among those interested, 252 were randomly selected to receive a survey in which nephrologists were asked whether they would recommend transplant for the 25 hypothetical patients. Logistic regression models with single covariates and multiple covariates were used to identify patient characteristics associated with likelihood of being referred for transplant and to identify nephrologists' characteristics associated with likelihood of referring for transplant.
Results
Of the 252 potential participants, 216 completed the survey. A nephrologist's affiliation with an academic institution was associated with a higher likelihood of referral, and being ‘>10 years from fellowship’ was associated with lower likelihood of referring patients for transplant. Patient age <50 years was associated with higher likelihood of referral. Rural location and smoking history/chronic obstructive pulmonary disease were associated with lower likelihood of being referred for transplant. The nephrologist's affiliation with an academic institution was associated with higher likelihood of referring for preemptive transplant, and the patient having a rural residence was associated with lower likelihood of being referred for preemptive transplant.
Conclusions
The variability in transplant referral is related to patients' age and geographic location as well as the nephrologists' affiliation with an academic institution and time since completion of training. Future educational interventions should emphasize the benefits of kidney transplant and PKT for all population groups regardless of geographic location and age and should target nephrologists in non-academic settings who are 10 or more years from their fellowship training.
Keywords: case scenarios, disparities, kidney, preemptive, transplant
Introduction
End-stage renal disease (ESRD) is an important public health concern. It is associated with significant morbidity, cost and years of life lost due to premature death [1]. Kidney transplantation (KT) is the treatment of choice for the majority of patients with ESRD and the most effective method to reduce morbidity and mortality. Compared with dialysis, transplantation is associated with improved survival, a better quality of life and lower costs [2, 3]. Despite the known improved outcomes, there is wide variation in the rate of referral for KT [4]. Preemptive kidney transplant (PKT) is generally associated with improved outcomes compared with KT after a period of dialysis [5]. However, most transplant candidates are referred for KT after initiation of dialysis, and PKT is underutilized as an option for patients with ESRD [6, 7]. The reasons for the infrequent use of PKT remain unclear. Identifying factors that influence referral practices for KT and PKT is an important step in improving disparities in transplant. Patient characteristics such as age, race, sex and geographic location have been implicated as affecting the likelihood of referral for KT and particularly for PKT [8–12]. While each of the patient demographic factors has an independent effect on referral for KT, there is also a complex interplay between these factors. For example, racial disparities amplify overall regional disparities in KT [13]. Also, while men are more likely than women to receive a KT, the sex disparity is influenced by age and race; the sex disparity is stronger among older patients and black patients [14]. Even in programs in which the majority of patients on dialysis are women or African American, White men are more likely to receive a KT [9]. It has been proposed that a physician's assessment of the perceived benefit of KT for a particular patient is partially based on the patient's demographic characteristics [15–17]. In a qualitative study of nephrologists, we have observed geographic differences in perceptions of nephrologists regarding patient candidacy for KT [18].
We hypothesize that nephrologists' demographics, training and practice characteristics interact with the patients' characteristics to influence the decision for referral for KT and PKT. Hypothetical case scenarios have previously been used to examine physicians' choice of treatment modality for patients based on their demographic characteristics [19–24]. In the current study, we used hypothetical case scenarios to assess nephrologists' decisions regarding referral of patients for transplant. The study is unique because it addresses the association between nephrologist characteristics and likelihood of referral for transplant in a hypothetical scenario-based format.
Materials and methods
Participants
Following approval from the Institutional Review Board and using the AMA Masterfile, 3180 nephrologists practicing in the eastern USA were invited to participate in the survey study. Among those interested, 822 were following at least 20 ESRD patients. Assuming the likelihood of referral by urban and rural nephrologists for transplant to be 75 and 50%, respectively, the sample size of 252 is expected to achieve an alpha of 0.05 and a power of 0.8. In order to ensure adequate representation of nephrologists practicing in rural areas, 63 nephrologists from rural regions and 189 nephrologists from urban regions were selected to receive the full survey. Rural/urban location was based on the Urban Influence Code (UIC). Participants had the option of completing the survey on paper or using an email link to access the survey.
Case scenarios
The survey contained 25 investigator-designed case scenarios, generated by reviewing of literature and focus group discussions [18], and was refined following pilot testing. Nephrologists were asked whether they would recommend transplant for the 25 hypothetical patients (19 on dialysis and 6 not yet on dialysis). The scenarios for dialysis patients varied in age, race, sex, living situation (alone or with spouse), rural/urban location and smoking history/presence of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). Scenarios for PKT did not have smoking history/COPD as a variable and age of all hypothetical patients for PKT was below 50 years.
Statistical analysis
The outcome variable for all analyses was ‘likelihood of referring for transplant’. Patient-related characteristics analyzed in the scenarios included age, race, sex, living situation (alone or with a spouse), smoking history/COPD and urban/rural location. Nephrologist-related characteristics included age, race, sex, academic affiliation, time since completion of fellowship and attendance at national nephrology meetings. Logistic regression models with single covariates and multiple covariates were used to identify patient characteristics associated with higher and lower likelihood of recommending KT and PKT and to identify characteristics of nephrologists associated with higher or lower likelihood to recommend KT and PKT. As data were clustered with two levels (observation level and nephrologist level), multilevel model was used for analysis.
Results
Of the 252 potential participants who received the questionnaire, 216 completed the survey (online: 198; paper: 18). Respondent characteristics are shown in Table 1.
Table 1.
Characteristics of 216 respondents
Age, years (mean ± SD) | 45.74 ± 9.8 |
Age >50 years | 77 (36%) |
White | 123 (57%) |
Male | 182 (84%) |
Urban practice | 153 (71%) |
>10 years from fellowship | 100 (46%) |
Academic affiliation | 125 (58%) |
Attended >2 national nephrology meetings in past 5 years | 86 (40%) |
Data are presented as number and percentage in parentheses except as indicated.
Referral for KT
In univariate analysis of nephrologist-related factors, academic affiliation and urban practice were associated with higher likelihood of recommending KT; male nephrologists and ‘>10 years from fellowship’ were associated with a lower likelihood of recommending KT. In multivariate analysis, academic affiliation [odds ratio (OR): 1.64; 95% confidence interval (CI): 1.34–2.00; P < 0.005] was associated with higher likelihood of recommending transplant, and ‘>10 years from fellowship’ was associated with lower likelihood of referring patients for transplant (OR: 0.64; 95% CI: 0.53–0.78; P < 0.005) (Table 2). In univariate analysis of patient-related factors, age <50 years was associated with higher likelihood of being referred for KT. Factors associated with lower likelihood of being referred for KT included smoking history/COPD, rural residence, living alone and White race. In multivariate analysis, age <50 years was associated with higher likelihood of referral for KT (OR: 2.32; 95% CI: 1.67–3.21; P < 0.005). Rural location (OR: 0.35; 95% CI: 0.25–0.50; P < 0.005) and smoking history/COPD (OR: 0.49; 95% CI: 0.35–0.68; P < 0.005) were associated with lower likelihood of being referred for KT (Table 3). These factors remained significant when adjusted for significant nephrologist-related factors (academic affiliation and years from fellowship) (Table 4).
Table 2.
Single- and multiple-covariate OR for nephrologist-related characteristics (n = 216) and recommendation of transplant for 19 hypothetical patients on dialysis
Characteristic | Single-covariate model | P-value | Multiple-covariate model | P-value |
---|---|---|---|---|
Academic affiliation | 1.60 (1.34–1.91) | <0.005 | 1.64 (1.34–2.00) | <0.005 |
Urban practice | 1.23 (1.02–1.48) | 0.03 | 0.93 (0.76–1.14) | 0.49 |
Attended >2 national nephrology meetings in past 5 years | 1.20 (1.00–1.44) | 0.05 | 1.06 (0.87–1.29) | 0.55 |
Male | 0.75 (0.58–0.98) | 0.03 | 0.80 (0.61–1.05) | 0.10 |
>10 years from fellowship | 0.73 (0.61–0.88) | <0.005 | 0.64 (0.53–0.78) | <0.005 |
Age >50 years | 1.01 (0.83–1.21) | 0.97 |
Data are presented as OR (95% CI). The multiple-covariate model includes only variables significant at P ≤ 0.05 in single-covariate analysis (variables: >10 years from fellowship, male sex, attended >2 national meetings in past 5 years, urban practice and academic affiliation).
Table 3.
Single- and multiple-covariate OR for characteristics of 19 hypothetical dialysis patients and referral for transplant
Characteristic | Single-covariate model | P-value | Multiple-covariate model | P-value |
---|---|---|---|---|
Age <50 years | 2.19 (1.83–2.61) | <0.005 | 2.32 (1.67–3.21) | <0.005 |
Smoking history/COPD | 0.52 (0.44–0.62) | <0.005 | 0.49 (0.35–0.68) | <0.005 |
Rural residence | 0.50 (0.39–0.65) | <0.005 | 0.35 (0.25–0.50) | <0.005 |
Living alone | 0.49 (0.39–0.61) | <0.005 | 0.82 (0.54–1.25) | 0.36 |
White | 0.29 (0.23–0.36) | <0.005 | 1.08 (0.77–1.53) | 0.64 |
Male | 0.85 (0.69–1.04) | 0.11 |
Data are presented as OR (95% CI). The multiple-covariate model includes only variables significant at P ≤ 0.05 in single-covariate analysis (variables: White, living alone, rural residence, co-morbidity and age <50 years).
Table 4.
Multiple-covariate OR for characteristics of 19 hypothetical dialysis patients and referral for transplant adjusted for nephrologist characteristics (n = 216)
Patient characteristic | Nephrologist characteristic |
|||
---|---|---|---|---|
Academic affiliation | P-value | >10 years from fellowship | P-value | |
Age <50 | 2.24 (1.50–3.33) | <0.005 | 2.08 (1.42–3.05) | <0.005 |
Smoking history/COPD | 0.61 (0.40–0.92) | 0.02 | 0.43 (0.29–0.62) | <0.005 |
Rural residence | 0.39 (0.26–0.58) | <0.005 | 0.37 (0.25–0.54) | <0.005 |
Data are presented as OR (95% CI). The model includes variables significant at P ≤ 0.05 in multiple-covariate analysis (variables: co-morbidity, rural residence and age <50 years) adjusted for each of the nephrologist characteristics identified as significant (variables: academic affiliation and >10 years from fellowship).
Referral for PKT
In univariate and multivariate analyses of nephrologist-related characteristics, academic affiliation was associated with higher likelihood of recommending PKT (Table 5). In univariate analysis of patient-related factors, living alone was associated with higher likelihood, while male sex and rural residence were associated with lower likelihood of being referred for PKT. The only characteristic that remained significant in multivariate analysis was rural residence, which was associated with lower likelihood (OR: 0.39; 95% CI: 0.24–0.63; P = 0.0001) of being referred for PKT (Table 6). This remained significant when adjusted for nephrologists' academic affiliation (Table 7).
Table 5.
Single- and multiple-covariate OR for nephrologist-related characteristics and recommendation of preemptive transplant for six hypothetical patients
Characteristic | Single-covariate model | P-value | Multiple-covariate model | P-value |
---|---|---|---|---|
Academic affiliation | 1.77 (1.23–2.55) | 0.002 | 1.88 (1.30–2.72) | 0.0008 |
Age >50 years | 1.46 (0.96–2.20) | 0.08 | ||
>10 years from fellowship | 1.43 (0.99–2.06) | 0.06 | ||
Attended >2 national nephrology meetings in past 5 years | 1.43 (0.97–2.10) | 0.07 | ||
Urban practice | 0.99 (0.67–1.47) | 0.97 | ||
Male | 0.72 (0.42–1.25) | 0.24 |
Data are presented as OR (95% CI). The multiple-covariate model includes academic affiliation as the only variables significant at P ≤ 0.05 in univariate analysis.
Table 6.
Single- and multiple-covariate OR for characteristics of six hypothetical patients with stage 5 chronic kidney disease and referral for preemptive transplant
Characteristic | Univariate model | P-value | Multivariate model | P-value |
---|---|---|---|---|
Living alone | 1.48 (1.02–2.14) | 0.04 | 1.25 (0.80–1.96) | 0.33 |
Male | 0.55 (0.38–0.81) | 0.002 | 0.69 (0.44–1.08) | 0.11 |
Rural residence | 0.32 (0.21–0.48) | <0.005 | 0.39 (0.24–0.63) | 0.0001 |
White | 0.92 (0.64–1.32) | 0.64 |
Data are presented as OR (95% CI). The multiple-covariate model includes only variables significant at P ≤ 0.05 in single-covariate analysis (variables: living alone, male sex and rural residence).
Table 7.
Multiple-covariate OR for characteristics of six hypothetical patients with stage 5 chronic kidney disease and referral for preemptive transplant adjusted for nephrologist characteristics
Patient characteristic | Academic affiliation | P-value |
---|---|---|
Rural residence | 0.23 (0.12–0.45) | <0.005 |
Data are presented as OR (95% CI). The model includes the only variables significant at P ≤ 0.05 in multiple-covariate analysis (rural residence) adjusted for each of the nephrologist characteristics identified as significant (variables: academic affiliation and White race).
Discussion
In this scenario-based study, academic affiliation and time from fellowship are important nephrologist-related factors associated with likelihood of referring patients for transplant. Age, medical co-morbidity and rural/urban residence are important factors that affect whether or not patients would be referred for transplant. The nephrologist's academic affiliation and the patient's rural/urban residence are associated with likelihood of referral for preemptive transplant. We assume that these findings reflect the nephrologists' likelihood of being current on the knowledge about benefits of KT and PKT. This study also confirms previous findings that age [25], comorbidities [26] and rural residence [11] are significant considerations in being referred for kidney transplant.
Our study does not show any racial or sex difference in likelihood of being referred for transplant or preemptive transplant. Previous studies have shown that ethnic minorities and women are less likely to be referred for KT or to be placed on the waiting list [12, 27–33]. Physicians are less likely to perceive that KT improves survival in African-American versus White patients, although acknowledging that KT improves quality of life in both groups of patients [17]. Women with ESRD are less likely to have had discussions about KT compared with men [25]. Previous studies have identified age and racial disparities in likelihood of being referred for PKT [10, 34–36]. The main limitations in our study include the response bias inherent to survey studies, and possible hypothesis guessing and social desirability bias. The latter is particularly likely in regard to the case scenarios' race and sex. However, these biases are less likely to impact the analyses relating to the nephrologists' demographic factors and the patients' age, comorbidities and rural residence. The completion rate by urban nephrologists was 80.9%, while all of the rural nephrologists completed the survey. The reason for this discrepancy, which is a potential source of error, is not clear. Another limitation of the study is that only smoking history/COPD were included as comorbidities; some of the major clinically relevant comorbidities such as diabetes, ischemic heart disease and peripheral vascular disease were not included in the hypothetical scenarios.
We conclude that the substantial variability in referral for transplant and preemptive transplant among facilities might be partially related to non-medical factors, including patients' geographic location, nephrologists' practice setting and the amount of time since completion of training. Future interventions that address disparities in transplant should include educational activities particularly targeting nephrologists in non-academic settings who are >10 years from their training. These activities should emphasize benefits of KT and PKT for all population groups regardless of geographic location and age.
Conflict of interest statement
None declared.
Acknowledgements
N.G. is supported by K23DK084300. The content is solely the responsibility of the author and does not necessarily represent the official views of the NIDDK or the NIH.
References
- 1.Murray CJL, Abraham J, Ali MK et al. The state of us health, 1990–2010: Burden of diseases, injuries, and risk factors. JAMA 2013; 310: 591–608 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 2.Wyld M, Morton RL, Hayen A et al. A systematic review and meta-analysis of utility-based quality of life in chronic kidney disease treatments. PLoS Med 2012; 9: e1001307. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 3.Tonelli M, Wiebe N, Knoll G et al. Systematic review: kidney transplantation compared with dialysis in clinically relevant outcomes. Am J Transplant 2011; 11: 2093–2109 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 4.Patzer RE, Plantinga LC, Paul S et al. Variation in dialysis facility referral for kidney transplantation among patients with end-stage renal disease in Georgia. JAMA 2015; 314: 582–594 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 5.Abramowicz D, Hazzan M, Maggiore U et al. Does pre-emptive transplantation versus post start of dialysis transplantation with a kidney from a living donor improve outcomes after transplantation? A systematic literature review and position statement by the Descartes Working Group and ERBP. Nephrol Dial Transplant 2016; 31: 691–697 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 6.Davis CL. Preemptive transplantation and the transplant first initiative. Curr Opin Nephrol Hypertens 2010; 19: 592–597 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 7.Khosla N, Gordon E, Nishi L et al. Impact of a chronic kidney disease clinic on preemptive kidney transplantation and transplant wait times. Prog Transplant 2010; 20: 216–220 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 8.Johansen KL, Zhang R, Huang Y et al. Association of race and insurance type with delayed assessment for kidney transplantation among patients initiating dialysis in the United States. Clin J Am Soc Nephrol 2012; 7: 1490–1497 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 9.Delano BG, Macey L, Friedman EA. Gender and racial disparity in peritoneal dialysis patients undergoing kidney transplantation. ASAIO J 1997; 43: M861–M864 [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 10.Grams ME, Chen BP, Coresh J et al. Preemptive deceased donor kidney transplantation: considerations of equity and utility. Clin J Am Soc Nephrol 2013; 8: 575–582 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 11.Axelrod DA, Guidinger MK, Finlayson S et al. Rates of solid-organ wait-listing, transplantation, and survival among residents of rural and urban areas. JAMA 2008; 299: 202–207 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 12.Wong LL, Kindle K, Limm B. Racial disparities in Pacific Islanders undergoing renal transplant evaluation. Hawaii Med J 2009; 68: 30–33 [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 13.Saunders MR, Lee H, Alexander GC et al. Racial disparities in reaching the renal transplant waitlist: is geography as important as race? Clin Transplant 2015; 29: 531–538 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 14.Schaubel DE, Stewart DE, Morrison HI et al. Sex inequality in kidney transplantation rates. Arch Intern Med 2000; 160: 2349–2354 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 15.Spital A, Callender CO, Miles PV. Ethical issues in dialysis: institutionalized racism and end-stage renal disease: is its impact real or illusionary? Semin Dial 2004; 17: 177–180 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 16.Epstein AM, Ayanian JZ, Keogh JH et al. Racial disparities in access to renal transplantation — clinically appropriate or due to underuse or overuse? N Engl J Med 2000; 343: 1537–1544 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 17.Ayanian JZ, Cleary PD, Keogh JH et al. Physicians’ beliefs about racial differences in referral for renal transplantation. Am J Kidney Dis 2004; 43: 350–357 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 18.Ghahramani N, Sanati-Mehrizy A, Wang C. Perceptions of patient candidacy for kidney transplant in the United States: a qualitative study comparing rural and urban nephrologists. Exp Clin Transplant 2014; 12: 9–14 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 19.Yu JI, Park HC, Ahn YC et al. Variation in practice patterns of korean radiation oncologists for spine metastasis between 2009 and 2014. Cancer Res Treat 2015, doi:10.4143/crt.2015.207 [Epub ahead of print] [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 20.Perez EA. Perceptions of prognosis, treatment, and treatment impact on prognosis in non-small cell lung cancer. Chest 1998; 114: 593–604 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 21.Schulman KA, Berlin JA, Harless W et al. The effect of race and sex on physicians’ recommendations for cardiac catheterization. N Engl J Med 1999; 340: 618–626 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 22.Rytwinski NK, Rosoff CB, Feeny NC et al. Are PTSD treatment choices and treatment beliefs related to depression symptoms and depression-relevant treatment rationales? Behav Res Ther 2014; 61: 96–104 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 23.Brar SS, Mahar AL, Helyer LK et al. Processes of care in the multidisciplinary treatment of gastric cancer: results of a RAND/UCLA expert panel. JAMA Surg 2014; 149: 18–25 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 24.Chan EW, Taylor DM, Knott JC et al. Variation in the management of hypothetical cases of acute agitation in Australasian emergency departments. Emerg Med Australas 2011; 23: 23–32 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 25.Salter ML, McAdams-Demarco MA, Law A et al. Age and sex disparities in discussions about kidney transplantation in adults undergoing dialysis. J Am Geriatr Soc 2014; 62: 843–849 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 26.Bayat S, Frimat L, Thilly N et al. Medical and non-medical determinants of access to renal transplant waiting list in a French community-based network of care. Nephrol Dial Transplant 2006; 21: 2900–2907 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 27.Sequist TD, Narva AS, Stiles SK et al. Access to renal transplantation among American Indians and Hispanics. Am J Kidney Dis 2004; 44: 344–352 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 28.Navaneethan SD, Singh S. A systematic review of barriers in access to renal transplantation among African Americans in the United States. Clin Transplant 2006; 20: 769–775 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 29.Young CJ, Gaston RS. African Americans and renal transplantation: disproportionate need, limited access, and impaired outcomes. Am J Med Sci 2002; 323: 94–99 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 30.Callender CO, Miles PV. Institutionalized racism and end-stage renal disease: is its impact real or illusionary? Semin Dial 2004; 17: 177–180 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 31.Thamer M, Hwang W, Fink NE et al. U.S. nephrologists’ attitudes towards renal transplantation: results from a national survey. Transplantation 2001; 71: 281–288 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 32.Matsuoka L, Alicuben E, Woo K et al. Kidney transplantation in the Hispanic population. Clin Transplant 2016; 30: 118–123 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 33.Arce CM, Goldstein BA, Mitani AA et al. Differences in access to kidney transplantation between Hispanic and non-Hispanic whites by geographic location in the United States. Clin J Am Soc Nephrol 2013; 8: 2149–2157 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 34.Kasiske BL, London W, Ellison MD. Race and socioeconomic factors influencing early placement on the kidney transplant waiting list. J Am Soc Nephrol 1998; 9: 2142–2147 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 35.Knight RJ, Teeter LD, Graviss EA et al. Barriers to preemptive renal transplantation: a single center questionnaire study. Transplantation 2015; 99: 576–579 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 36.Patzer RE, Sayed BA, Kutner N et al. Racial and ethnic differences in pediatric access to preemptive kidney transplantation in the United States. Am J Transplant 2013; 13: 1769–1781 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]