The current status and related factors of choice willingness for automated peritoneal dialysis
10.3760/cma.j.cn441217-20241021-01031
- VernacularTitle:自动化腹膜透析选择意愿现状及相关因素分析
- Author:
Shan DING
1
;
Ying XU
1
;
Tiantian MA
1
;
Jie DONG
1
Author Information
1. 北京大学第一医院肾内科 北京大学肾脏病研究所 国家卫生健康委员会肾脏疾病重点实验室 教育部慢性肾脏病防治重点实验室 重症肾脏疾病精准诊疗药械研发北京市重点实验室，北京100034
- Publication Type:Journal Article
- Keywords:
Renal dialysis;
Peritoneal dialysis;
Patient preference
- From:
Chinese Journal of Nephrology
2025;41(11):817-824
- CountryChina
- Language:Chinese
-
Abstract:
Objective:To explore the choice willingness and related factors of peritoneal dialysis patients regarding automated peritoneal dialysis (APD), in order to provide a basis for future technological improvements and enhancing the application rate of APD.Methods:This was a single-center cross-sectional study. Patients newly initiated on peritoneal dialysis due to end-stage renal disease in the Renal Division, Peking University First Hospital between January 1, 2021 and May 30, 2023 were enrolled. Demographic characteristics, clinical information, and laboratory data were collected. After completing initial training on APD and providing hands-on experience, a self- designed semi-quantitative questionnaire survey was administered to assess patients' willingness to adopt APD and to evaluate potential barriers to its implementation. Factors associated with patients' choice of APD were further analyzed.Results:A total of 203 newly enrolled peritoneal dialysis patients were included in the study, with an age of (53.40±15.86) years, and 57.1% (116 patients) of the participants were male. Among them, 71 patients (35.0%) chose APD, while 132 (65.0%) did not. There were no significant differences in the clinical characteristics between the APD group and the non-APD group (all P>0.05). Compared with the non-APD group, the APD group had a higher proportion of individuals who frequently traveled for business ( χ2=11.442, P<0.001) and a higher proportion with smaller peritoneal cavity volumes ( χ2=5.639, P=0.018). Among patients in the two group, significant differences were observed in self-rated difficulty of APD operation ( χ2=22.291, P<0.001), availability of space for APD setup ( χ2=21.773, P<0.001), 8-hour nocturnal APD treatment ( χ2=17.540, P<0.001), learning difficulty of machine operation ( P<0.001), learning difficulty of machine setting ( P<0.001), impact of APD on sleep ( χ2=6.826, P=0.033), impact of APD on nocturnal urination ( χ2=19.428, P<0.001), and annual cost of APD equipment ( χ2=39.066, P<0.001). Multivariate logistic regression analysis indicated that reimbursement for APD supplies ( OR=3.736, 95% CI 1.655-8.435, P=0.002), with smaller abdominal cavity volume ( OR=58.610, 95% CI 5.000-687.007, P=0.001), the acceptability of 8-hour nocturnal APD treatment ( OR=5.312, 95% CI 1.256-22.461, P=0.023), the low degree of difficulty in learning machine setting ( OR=29.299, 95% CI 2.025-423.812, P=0.013) and the annual cost of accessible APD equipment ( OR=3.643, 95% CI 1.348-9.842, P=0.011) were independent factors associated with patients' choice of APD treatment. Conclusion:Reimbursement for APD supplies, smaller abdominal cavity volume, the acceptability of 8-hour nocturnal APD treatment, the low degree of difficulty in learning machine setting, and the annual cost of accessible APD equipment are the main factors related patients' decision to choose APD treatment.
