IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pone00/0202322.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Dialysis physicians’ referral behaviors for hemodialysis patients suspected of having cancer: A vignette-based questionnaire study

Author

Listed:
  • Shingo Fukuma
  • Miho Kimachi
  • Kenji Omae
  • Yuki Kataoka
  • Hajime Yamazaki
  • Manabu Muto
  • Tadao Akizawa
  • Motoko Yanagita
  • Shunichi Fukuhara

Abstract

Background: Although cancer management in dialysis patients has become a commonly encountered issue, known as “onco-nephrology”, few evidence-based clinical recommendations have been proposed. Here, we examined the variation in referral behaviors adopted by dialysis physicians on encountering dialysis patients with signs/symptoms suggestive of cancer. Methods: We conducted a vignette-based study in August 2015. We sent a 14-page questionnaire to 191 dialysis physicians, including the representative dialysis facilities participating in a Japanese dialysis cohort (the Japan Dialysis Outcomes and Practice Patterns Study). Using vignette scenarios for respiratory, digestive, and urological areas, we assessed the referral behaviors (expert referral or not) adopted by dialysis physicians on encountering dialysis patients with symptoms suggestive of cancer. Each scenario contained three patient functional factors: age (60 or 75 years), performance status (PS 0 or 1), and cognitive dysfunction (absence or presence). We examined the association between physician factors, patient factors, and referral behaviors. Results: We obtained 94 replies (response rate: 49.2%). For the respiratory scenarios, 38.3% and 51.9% of physicians reported watchful waiting when encountering bilateral and unilateral pleural effusion, respectively. In digestive and urologic scenarios, most physicians (>85%) selected expert referral. We detected differences in referral behaviors between scenarios with different cancer biological factors. However, we found consistency in referral behaviors within the same scenario, even with different patient functional factors (intra-class correlation coefficients within each scenario all >0.7). Conclusions: Physicians’ referral behaviors for dialysis patients suspected of having cancer vary for different cancer biological factors (probability of having cancer). However, the referral behaviors are similar for different patient functional factors (age, PS, and cognitive dysfunction).

Suggested Citation

  • Shingo Fukuma & Miho Kimachi & Kenji Omae & Yuki Kataoka & Hajime Yamazaki & Manabu Muto & Tadao Akizawa & Motoko Yanagita & Shunichi Fukuhara, 2018. "Dialysis physicians’ referral behaviors for hemodialysis patients suspected of having cancer: A vignette-based questionnaire study," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 13(8), pages 1-12, August.
  • Handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0202322
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0202322
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0202322
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0202322&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pone.0202322?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0202322. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: plosone (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.