732
Views
53
CrossRef citations to date
0
Altmetric
Review

Home hemodialysis: a comprehensive review of patient-centered and economic considerations

, &
Pages 149-161 | Published online: 16 Feb 2017

Abstract

Internationally, the number of patients requiring treatment for end-stage kidney disease (ESKD) continues to increase, placing substantial burden on health systems and patients. Home hemodialysis (HD) has fluctuated in its popularity, and the rates of home HD vary considerably between and within countries although there is evidence suggesting a number of clinical, survival, economic, and quality of life (QoL) advantages associated with this treatment. International guidelines encourage shared decision making between patients and clinicians for the type of dialysis, with an emphasis on a treatment that aligned to the patients’ lifestyle. This is a comprehensive literature review of patient-centered and economic impacts of home HD with the studies published between January 2000 and July 2016. Data from the primary studies representing both efficiency and equity of home HD were presented as a narrative synthesis under the following topics: advantages to patients, barriers to patients, economic factors influencing patients, cost-effectiveness of home HD, and inequities in home HD delivery. There were a number of advantages for patients on home HD including improved survival and QoL and flexibility and potential for employment, compared to hospital HD. Similarly, there were several barriers to patients preferring or maintaining home HD, and the strategies to overcome these barriers were frequently reported. Good evidence reported that indigenous, low-income, and other socially disadvantaged individuals had reduced access to home HD compared to other forms of dialysis and that this situation compounds already-poor health outcomes on renal replacement therapy. Government policies that minimize barriers to home HD include reimbursement for dialysis-related out-of-pocket costs and employment-retention interventions for home HD patients and their family members. This review argues that home HD is a cost-effective treatment, and increasing the proportion of patients on this form of dialysis compared to hospital HD will result in a more equitable distribution of good health outcomes for individuals with ESKD.

Background

Home hemodialysis (HD) was developed in the 1960s in the USA and the UK, and by the early 1970s, 59% of patients on dialysis in the UK and 32% of patients in the USA received dialysis at home, mostly overnight hemodiaysis.Citation1 At this time, hospital dialysis was accessible to only a limited number of patients with end-stage kidney disease (ESKD). Home HD offered a solution that allowed more people to dialyze within the limited health system budget.Citation2 Over the last 50 years, the worldwide incidence of ESKD has exploded, and currently, dialysis accounts for a substantial burden on many health systems.Citation3,Citation4 In 2010, the number of patients on dialysis was 2.050 million, with recent modeling predicting that this number will be more than double between 2010 and 2030.Citation5 Despite this exponential growth in the total number of dialysis patients, the proportion of those on home HD since the 1970s has diminished and remains surprisingly low, whereas the numbers of patients preferring hospital and satellite dialysis have substantially increased. The low utilization of home HD is a lost opportunity both to decrease health system costs and to improve quality-adjusted survival.

International rates of home HD vary considerably; countries with a strong home HD “culture” such as New Zealand and Australia sustain 18% and 9% of all dialysis patients on home HD, respectively. This compares to 3–6% in Canada and western Europe with other countries having ≤3%.Citation6 One exception is the UK, where there is a steady growth in the numbers of patients on home HD over the last 10 years,Citation7 since the National Institute of Health and Care Excellence implemented a 15% target for home HD and recommended that the most appropriate modality was one that aligned to the patients’ lifestyle and personal circumstances, alongside their clinical requirements.Citation8

Home HD can be performed independently by the patient or with the assistance of a caregiver, allowing a more flexible and convenient option compared to hospital or satellite (henceforth referred to as facility) HD. Home HD also offers the ability to increase the hours and frequency of treatment. Recent data, including those from randomized controlled trials, suggest that the benefits of more frequent dialysis are similar to kidney transplantation, including greater solute clearance, better volume control potentially reducing left ventricular hypertrophy, improved nutrition, and improved quality of life (QoL).Citation9Citation11 Conventional home HD (three times per week, 4–5 h per treatment) is also associated with a number of benefits compared to facility HD including a lower risk of death, improved blood pressure control, higher QoL, and a greater chance of maintaining employment.Citation12Citation15 In contrast, facility dialysis is more restrictive, and hours are generally inflexible with a maximum dialysis duration of 3.5–5 h to accommodate multiple dialysis sessions per machine. Notwithstanding, facility dialysis is substantially more expensive, predominantly due to nursing and technical staff and facility overheads. However, there are reported disadvantages of home HD, including the burden it can impose on caregivers and family members.Citation16,Citation17 Concerns also exist regarding the complexity of home HDCitation18 and patient safety while performing unsupervised HD at home.Citation18Citation20

Home HD offers numerous patient-centered and economic benefits; however, a number of barriers to uptake and maintenance of this treatment also exist; these are addressed in the following sections with a focus on contemporary home HD modalities, including extended hours per week with “short daily” or “nocturnal” home HD.

Methods

This is a comprehensive literature review of patient-centered and economic impacts (including both efficiency and equity considerations) of home HD. The databases MEDLINE, Pre-MEDLINE (Ovid), National Health Service Economic Evaluation Database, Cochrane Library, EMBASE, CINAHL, Google Scholar, EconLit, and Scopus were searched by using a comprehensive list of Medical Subject Headings terms and text words for HD (haemodialysis), home HD, nocturnal, daily, quotidian, patient experiences, qualitative, cost-effectiveness, cost utility, economic evaluation, life years, quality-adjusted life years, and costs. The search was limited to publications from January 1, 2000, to July 30, 2016, and manuscripts written in English. All the titles and abstracts were manually screened to identify relevant studies. Review studies were screened for references of further primary studies.

The titles and abstracts were screened by RCW, and full papers considered potentially relevant were retrieved. The data were extracted by RCW and RLM. Among papers considering all forms of dialysis, this review included only the papers containing information relevant to home HD. Studies or reports were included if they explored either patient-centered or economic perspectives of patients on home HD. Studies on clinical, survival, or clinician perspectives only were excluded. In this review, the data from the primary studies were presented in a narrative synthesis of findings under the following home HD topics: advantages to patients, barriers to patients, economic factors influencing patients, cost-effectiveness, and inequities in home HD delivery. summarizes the barriers to home HD and potential solutions to overcome these barriers.

Table 1 Home HD barriers and potential solutions

Results

The search resulted in 102 articles, and after titles and abstracts were assessed for relevance and the exclusion criteria applied, 61 studies were included in this review. describes the search process. The study types were divided into two broad categories: patient-centered considerations, which included studies related to the advantages of and barriers to home HD, and economic considerations. lists the included study titles.

Figure 1 PRISMA flow chart of included studies.

Abbreviation: CKD, chronic kidney disease.
Figure 1 PRISMA flow chart of included studies.

Patient-centered considerations

Advantages for patients

Contemporary home HD has been shown to be associated with substantial clinical benefits, not least survival rates with nocturnal home HD being comparable to rates observed in deceased donor kidney transplant recipients.Citation21 Of equal importance, patient-centered research has identified that QoL factors such as daytime freedom and flexibility, employment, fatigue, caregiver burden, and ability to maintain “normal activities” are of great concern to patients.Citation22Citation28 A recent qualitative systematic review of patient and caregiver’s perspectives found that home HD offered the opportunity to thrive; improved freedom, flexibility, and well-being; and strengthened family relationships.Citation22 Patients valued their ability to work and the sense of self-value that employment provided.Citation23,Citation29

Unemployment in working-age people is known to be associated with high rates of anxiety, depression, and low self-esteem.Citation30 Considering that nearly half of the dialysis population is of working age, employment retention is extremely important. The scheduling restrictions of facility dialysis reduce employment opportunities for patients; a study showed that only 43% of the patients maintained the same level of employment after 6 months.Citation29 In contrast, contemporary home HD allows for greater treatment schedule flexibility and therefore more chance of sustained employment.Citation31 Employment, both paid and unpaid, has productivity benefits for society as well as financial stability for individuals and their families. Future economic evaluations of dialysis modalities should include these broader societal benefits that fall beyond direct benefits to health systems.

Home HD also enables patients to maintain social relationships, avoid relocation to a major city for facility dialysis, and maintain cultural involvement, which is particularly important for people living in rural areas and for indigenous populations.Citation23 One study reported that patients on home HD were reluctant to undergo a kidney transplant (considered the gold standard treatment in renal replacement therapy [RRT]) as they believed that there was little additional benefit from their current health status and the potential risks of transplantation were not worth the risk.Citation32

Patient barriers to home HD

Patients new to home HD initially described lacking confidence about their own ability to master home HD and fears about being isolated from medical support; their vulnerability if a medical catastrophe were to occur; and anxiety about specific aspects of home HD, particularly inserting needles.Citation22 Patients also described home HD as being portrayed by educators and clinicians as a complex treatment that was difficult to learn and therefore might be “beyond their capabilities,” resulting in patients doubting their own ability to perform home HD safely.Citation23 Hanson et al’sCitation33 mixed methods study of 20 Australian patients undergoing training for home HD identified that patients experienced unexpected problems throughout the first few weeks of home HD, which caused doubt in their ability to dialyze independently. Similarly, Young et al described the first 3 months of independent home HD as a critical period in determining the success of long-term home HD.Citation34 In a previous study, patients established on home HD acknowledged these early fears; however, they also spoke of their trepidation being alleviated over time as their confidence increased. Patients cited peer support and clinician recommendation of home HD as a superior treatment for them and the doctors’ trust in the patients’ ability to perform this treatment independently as an encouragement of this treatment choice.Citation23

Other barriers to patients in taking up home HD include a lack of knowledge, exposure, visibility, and perceived complexity of this modality.Citation19,Citation23 Lack of effective patient education regarding all the dialysis modalities may influence this, as effective predialysis education has been shown to significantly increase patient choice of a home modality.Citation35Citation37 This has been acknowledged in a previous work based in the USA where up to 88% of patients in 2005 were not aware of home HD as an option.Citation36

Although New Zealand and Australia have relatively high rates of home HD, there is large regional variability in these rates, suggesting further potential to increase home HD overall. Both these countries and others such as Canada have the advantage of supporting patients to dialyze without the requirement of a caregiver or adult to be present during each treatment session. In two previous qualitative studies, patients considered the burden of home HD on their family, but also acknowledged that the inclusion of family members in education and training would help to alleviate some of these concerns.Citation23,Citation33

Home HD was traditionally considered appropriate for “young and well” patients; however, more recently, countries such as the UK have found that patients in their 70s and 80s are successfully performing home HD independently and may benefit from this modality. A multinational retrospective cohort study of 79 patients aged ≥65 years confirmed feasibility of home HD in this patient group. Although this study did not measure patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs), it may be assumed that, given the patient-centered benefits from other studies, this group could also benefit from home HD. However, the authors of this study did highlight the potential for long training duration and increased caregiver burden, with >50% of the patient cohort requiring some home assistance.Citation38 More recently, Australasian countries have developed novel ways of increasing their home HD rates. In southern New Zealand, assisted home HD programs have ensured that some elderly are able to remain on home HD with the trained support staff (generally enrolled nurses). Assisted home HD has also shown promising results in a recent pilot study in Canada, and plans are under way to expand the number of participants to a larger cohort and to explore the cost-effectiveness of the program.Citation39 The adoption of community dialysis houses has also been a successful initiative in New Zealand to provide home HD for patients to independently dialyze in a home environment. These patients would not otherwise be able to dialyze in their own home, because of factors such as overcrowding, lack of storage, concerns of patient safety, or reluctance to “medicalize” the home environment.Citation40 This initiative was highly valued by Australian patients already dialyzing in the hospital setting.Citation41 Using this concept in other countries may help to address some of the identified socioeconomic and social isolation barriers to home HD previously reported by patients. For the centers planning to establish home HD programs, initial investment and commitment are required due to the requirements such as extensive nurse education, patient training, and infrastructure support.Citation42

Economic considerations

Hanson et al conducted a qualitative studyCitation33 reporting that patients undergoing training for home HD often had to sacrifice their annual leave to accommodate the longer training duration of home HD and as such incurred high out-of-pocket expenses that drained their financial reserves. Despite this, patients weighed these costs against their opportunity for employment and improved lifestyle and livelihood on home HD. Patients felt that the out-of-pocket costs were unfair and that available reimbursements were inadequate. These findings are similar to the economic factors influencing dialysis decision making that was identified in qualitative interviews with predialysis and dialysis patients in New Zealand.Citation43 In this study, patients considered their potential financial losses when choosing a dialysis modality, particularly in relation to maintaining or resuming employment.Citation24 In the present study, both patients and caregivers believed that it was unfair and inequitable that those on home dialysis personally subsidized the cost of their treatment, whereas facility dialysis patients did not incur many additional out-of-pocket costs. It was also observed that socioeconomic disadvantage was a barrier to home dialysis due to multiple factors including unsuitable housing, the lack of home ownership, and not being able to afford the required out-of-pocket costs. In an Australian study of nephrologists, lack of patient reimbursement for out-of-pocket costs was also a barrier to clinicians in promoting home dialysis.Citation44

Financial barriers to home HD are a hurdle that may easily be overcome with a direct policy change.Citation24 A national survey of home HD programs in Canada identified that although the majority of programs partially reimbursed patients’ expenses for minor plumbing and electrical renovations (88%), this was more commonly a one-off cost and less than a third of programs reimbursed for ongoing out-of-pocket utility costs (29%). This survey also identified that over half of the home HD programs required a care partner at home with them when they dialyzed, the majority of whom were unpaid family members or living companions, raising the issue of equity for the patients without a care partner.Citation45

Access to home HD training for patients who are living rural areas is often a barrier, particularly if there is a waiting or extended training duration, meaning that patients need to temporarily relocate during training. This relocation can significantly impact on the patient and their family, including financial burden and cultural and social dislocation from their community.

Cost-effectiveness of home HD

Previous studies, including a recent systematic review, have suggested home HD to be less expensive than facility HD.Citation46 One review of contemporary home HD practice, including nocturnal and daily regimens, reported generally equivalent costs or cost-effectiveness compared to conventional facility HD.Citation47 Both reviews concluded that, in general, home HD was associated with lower costs and better outcomes compared with facility hemodialysis. Even when high-dose HD was available in hospitals, a modeled cost–utility analysis from the UK reported this modality would not be cost-effective, whereas home HD was considered “dominant” with both lower total costs and higher health outcomes than conventional HD.Citation48 Although the studies included in this reviews showed home HD to be cost-effective, only one study included patients’ out-of-pocket expenses, training time, and productivity losses,Citation49 a topic that requires further exploration in order to assess the full impact on the patient and their family and society.

In countries such as the USA, currently, there lacks concordance between the costs of training a patient for home HD and the Medicare reimbursement.Citation50 Internationally, reimbursements for hospital HD are generally higher with the exception of the USA and UK; both of whom provide a flat rate regardless of dialysis location, a factor that may influence the low uptake of home HD. In contrast, the Netherlands has home HD reimbursed at a higher amount if the patient needs a nurse or a nurse assistant, but without an assistant, it is reimbursed lower than hospital HD.Citation51 Reimbursement strategies have proven favorable for increasing the rates of peritoneal dialysis (PD) useCitation52 as have incentive programs,Citation53 and these may have similar impact on the rates of home HD. A recent UK study comparing home dialysis rates of seven hospitals across the West Midlands with the rest of England demonstrated that the use of dialysis modality targets with financial penalties (ie, pay-for-performance) to increase home dialysis was successful, increasing the average uptake by 23% compared to a slight decrease in rates across the rest of England for a group of patients with complex medical problems. The qualitative component of this study also highlighted two neglected areas needed to increase home dialysis uptake in patients with complex medical needs: identifying individualized patient education and the ability to provide an ongoing emotional support.Citation54

More recently, PD-First programs have proved successful in countries such as Hong Kong and Thailand, who have instituted policy on PD through the creation of incentives for provider and patient use, including full reimbursement of PD and restricted reimbursement of HD for patients with a contraindication to PD.Citation55 Although it is a valid and cost-effective approach in the short term, the shorter technique survival of PD over timeCitation15,Citation56 may result in these countries facing another challenge in the future years as their dialysis population transitions from PD to HD. The direct transition from PD to home HD may help to address this issue.Citation57,Citation58

Inequities in home HD delivery

The high cost of dialysis has created inequitable access of not only home HD, but also RRT across the world, described recently as a “RRT gap.” Liyanage et alCitation5 estimated that although an estimated 2.6 million people worldwide were treated for ESKD in 2010, up to three times that number may have died from ESKD due to limited access or financial barriers to dialysis. Internationally, it is recognized that a country’s gross domestic product and health care expenditure predict the prevalence of dialysis treatment.Citation59 For low-income countries or those vastly dispersed, home HD may offer numerous additional benefits to improve the accessibility of dialysis. The considerable variability in international practices indicates many potential areas for improvement in the uptake of home HD. The number of patients on home HD in countries such as New Zealand indicates that, with greater exposure and availability, increase in the number of patients preferring home HD is achievable in other countries. From an epidemiological perspective, it is arguable that contemporary home HD, which is at least cost-neutral, if not cost-effective compared to facility dialysis, and has significant health gains and QoL improvements, is worth closer consideration.

However, inequities do not just exist between countries in access to home HD. Within countries with high rates of home HD (New Zealand, Australia, and Canada), minority populations and indigenous groups have significantly lower rates of home HD for reasons that remain poorly understood.Citation60,Citation61 In the USA, Hispanic patients are 37% less likely to receive home HD, and black patients are 17% less likely to receive home HD than white patients.Citation62 Recent data also suggest that countries with lower average incomes and more minority groups have a lower number of facilities offering home HD.Citation50 These low rates may also be compounded by the existing social gradient in predialysis patients’ access to health care, particularly for those without health insurance or home ownership, as this group is known to be significantly less likely to access specialist nephrology and cardiovascular health services.Citation63

In 2016, the National Kidney Foundation’s presidential address acknowledged that there is no method to accurately predict the “right” rates of home HD without understanding the choices of fully informed, nonbiased, and educated patients who are not influenced by the economics of their health system and, therefore, the availability of treatments.Citation64 However, it was known that faced with their own decision of modality, nearly half of the nephrologists would choose home HD if transplantation was not an option,Citation65 and therefore, it can be assumed from this that home HD represents an appropriate “target,” given nephrologists are a well-informed and educated group.

Conclusion

Although a number of barriers to increased uptake of home HD have been defined in this review, none are insurmountable. They require changes in renal unit practice and government policy. The evidence in this review argues that home HD is a patient-centered and cost-effective treatment and that increasing home HD uptake could assist in reducing inequities that currently exist internationally and locally. It was acknowledged, however, that the changes required would need financial investment and a long-term planning approach, as the benefits may not be realized in the short term.

This review emphasized the need for nephrology to better meet patient priorities. The alternative for “one size fits all” approach should be found, and the delivery of home HD training and care should be modified to better support the patient and their family. Promisingly, a recent systematic review and survey of renal registries reported the need for registries to routinely collect PROMs and patient experiences.Citation66 This systematic approach will help clinicians and policy-makers to understand the patient-centered benefits and downsides of all dialysis modalities and ensure that RRT is provided equitably and in a manner that is aligned with patient’s preferences.

Although previous economic studies have predominantly focused on the benefits to the health care system, patient-centered, economic considerations also impact on patient treatment choice and have a wider societal impact that must be explored. Given the clinical, patient, and economic benefits of contemporary home HD, it is difficult to understand why the proportions among high-income countries where home HD training and infrastructure are available remain so low. Government policy needs to address the areas of disadvantage and inequity that face minority and indigenous groups and those with low incomes and explore ways to support reimbursement, incentives, and employment for patients and their family members who choose home HD.

Supplementary material

Table S1 Included studies

References

  • AgarJWKnightRJSimmondsREBoddingtonJMWaldronCMSomervilleCANocturnal haemodialysis: An Australian cost comparison with conventional satellite haemodialysis (Review Article)Nephrology200510655757016354238
  • BarniehLKing-ShierKHemmelgarnBLaupacisAMannsLMannsBViews of Canadian patients on or nearing dialysis and their caregivers: a thematic analysisCan J Kidney Health Dis201411425780599
  • BernsJSHonoring patient preferences: The 2016 National Kidney Foundation Presidential AddressAm J Kidney Dis2016
  • BloggAHydeCThe experience of spouses caring for a person on home haemodialysis: an ethnographyRenal Society of Australasia Journal2008437580
  • BrillAEconomic Benefits of Increased Home Dialysis Utilization and Innovation Available from: http://www.nephrologynews.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/03/MGAhomedialysispaperforrelease.pdfAccessed August 25, 2016
  • CafazzoJALeonardKEastyACRossosPGChanCTPatient-perceived barriers to the adoption of nocturnal home hemodialysisClinical Journal of the American Society of Nephrology: CJASN20094478478919339408
  • CasesADempsterMDaviesMGambleGThe experience of individuals with renal failure participating in home haemodialysis: An interpretative phenomenological analysisJ Health Psychol201116688489421447622
  • CassAChadbanSGallagherMThe Economic Impact of End-stage Kidney Disease in Australia: Projections to 2020MelbourneKidney Health Australia2010
  • CinàDPDacourisNKashaniMUse of home hemodi-alysis after peritoneal dialysis technique failurePerit Dial Int2013331969923349198
  • CombesGAllenKSeinKGirlingALilfordRTaking hospital treatments home: a mixed methods case study looking at the barriers and success factors for home dialysis treatment and the influence of a target on uptake ratesImplementation Science2015101125567289
  • CornelisTTennankoreKKGoffinEAn international feasibility study of home haemodialysis in older patientsNephrol Dial Transplant2014gfu260
  • CourtsNFPsychosocial adjustment of patients on home hemodialysis and their dialysis partnersClin Nurs Res20009217719012162241
  • GilesSTransformations: a phenomenological investigation into the life-world of home haemodialysisSoc Work Health Care2003382295015022733
  • GilesSStruggles between the body and machine: the paradox of living with a home haemodialysis machineSoc Work Health Care2005412193516048860
  • Gonzalez-PerezJGValeLStearnsSCWordsworthSHemodialysis for end-stage renal disease: A cost-effectiveness analysis of treatment optionsInt J Technol Assess Health Care20052101323915736512
  • HansonCSChapmanJRCraigJCPatient experiences of training and transition to home haemodialysis: a mixed methods studyNephrology2016
  • HelanteräIHaapioMKoskinenPGrönhagen-RiskaCFinnePEmployment of patients receiving maintenance dialysis and after kidney transplant: a cross-sectional study from FinlandAm J Kidney Dis201259570070621958597
  • HowardKSalkeldGWhiteSThe cost effectiveness of increasing kidney transplantation and home based dialysisNephrology200914112313219207859
  • HowardKMcFarlanePAMarshallMREastwoodDOMortonRLFunding and planning: What you need to know for starting or expanding a home hemodialysis programHemodial Int201519S1S23S4225925821
  • KlarenbachSTonelliMPaulyREconomic evaluation of frequent home nocturnal hemodialysis based on a randomized controlled trialJ Am Soc Nephrol201425358759424231665
  • KomendaPGavaghanMBGarfieldSSPoretAWSoodMMAn economic assessment model for in-center, conventional home, and more frequent home hemodialysisKidney Int201281330731321993583
  • KomendaPCoplandMMakwanaJDjurdjevOSoodMMLevinAThe cost of starting and maintaining a large home hemodialysis programKidney Int201077111039104520375983
  • KroekerAClarkWFHeidenheimAPAn operating cost comparison between conventional and home quotidian hemodialysisAm J Kidney Dis200342495512830444
  • LimT-OGohALimY-NZaherZMMSuleimanABHow public and private reforms dramatically improved access to dialysis therapy in MalaysiaHealth Affair2010291222142222
  • LiuFXTreharneCAriciMCroweLCulletonBHigh-dose hemodi-alysis versus conventional in-center hemodialysis: a cost-utility analysis from a UK payer perspectiveValue Health2015181172425595230
  • LiyanageTNinomiyaTJhaVWorldwide access to treatment for end-stage kidney disease: a systematic reviewLancet201538599811975198225777665
  • LudlowMJLauderLAMathewTHHawleyCMFortnumDAustra-lian consumer perspectives on dialysis: first national censusNephrology201217870370922882456
  • MalmströmRKRoineRPHeikkiläACost analysis and health-related quality of life of home and self-care satellite haemodialysisNephrol Dial Transplant20082361990199618223263
  • MannsBJMendelssohnDCTaubKJThe economics of end-stage renal disease care in Canada: incentives and impact on delivery of careInt J Health Care Finance Econ200772–314916917641968
  • MarshallMRvan der SchrieckNLilleyDIndependent community house hemodialysis as a novel dialysis setting: an observational cohort studyAm J Kidney Dis201361459860723219810
  • McfarlanePABayoumiAMPierratosARedelmeierDAThe quality of life and cost utility of home nocturnal and conventional in-center hemodialysisKidney Int20036431004101112911550
  • McFarlanePKomendaPEconomic considerations in frequent home hemodialysisSeminars in DialysisWiley Online Library2011678683
  • McLaughlinKMannsBMortisGHonsRTaubKWhy patients with ESRD do not select self-care dialysis as a treatment optionAm J Kidney Dis200341238038512552500
  • MehrotraRMarshDVoneshEPetersVNissensonAPatient education and access of ESRD patients to renal replacement therapies beyond in-center hemodialysisKidney Int200568137839015954930
  • MohrPENeumannPJFrancoSJMarainenJLockridgeRTingGThe case for daily dialysis: its impact on costs and quality of lifeAm J Kidney Dis200137477778911273878
  • MortonRLDevittJHowardKAndersonKSnellingPCassAPatient views about treatment of stage 5 CKD: a qualitative analysis of semistructured interviewsAm J Kidney Dis201055343144020116914
  • MortonRLTongAHowardKSnellingPWebsterACThe views of patients and carers in treatment decision making for chronic kidney disease: systematic review and thematic synthesis of qualitative studiesBrit Med J2010340
  • MortonRLTongAWebsterACSnellingPHowardKCharacteristics of dialysis important to patients and family caregivers: a mixed methods approachNephrol Dial Transplant201126124038404621482637
  • MortonRLSnellingPWebsterACDialysis modality preference of patients with CKD and family caregivers: a discrete-choice studyAm J Kidney Dis201260110211122417786
  • MortonRLSchlackowIMihaylovaBStaplinNDGrayACassAThe impact of social disadvantage in moderate-to-severe chronic kidney disease: an equity-focused systematic reviewNephrol Dial Transplant2015
  • MuehrerRJSchatellDWittenBGangnonRBeckerBNHofmannRMFactors affecting employment at initiation of dialysisClin J Am Soc Nephrol20116348949621393489
  • NamikiSRoweJCookeMLiving with home-based haemodialysis: Insights from older peopleJ Clin Nurs2010193–454755519886872
  • NavvaPKRVenkata SreepadaSShivanand NayakKPresent status of renal replacement therapy in Asian countriesBlood Purif201540428028726656132
  • OsterlundKMendelssohnDClaseCGuyattGNesrallahGIdentifi-cation of facilitators and barriers to home dialysis selection by Canadian adults with ESRDSeminars in DialysisWiley Online Library2014160172
  • PierratosATremblayMKandasamyGPersonal Support Worker (PSW) supported home hemodialysis: a paradigm shiftHemodial Int2016
  • PolaschekNLiving on dialysis: concerns of clients in a renal settingJ Adv Nurs2003411445212519287
  • PolaschekNHaemodialysing at home: the client experience of self-treatmentEDTNA/ERCA J20053112730
  • RivaraMBMehrotraRThe changing landscape of home dialysis in the United StatesCurr Opin Nephrol Hypertens201423658659125197946
  • RobinsonBMAkizawaTJagerKJKerrPGSaranRPisoniRLFactors affecting outcomes in patients reaching end-stage kidney disease worldwide: differences in access to renal replacement therapy, modality use, and haemodialysis practicesLancet2016
  • TeerawattananonYLuzAPilasantSHow to meet the demand for good quality renal dialysis as part of universal health coverage in resource-limited settings?Health Res Policy Syst2016141126742486
  • TongAPalmerSMannsBThe beliefs and expectations of patients and caregivers about home haemodialysis: an interview studyBMJ Open201331
  • TongACroweSChandoSResearch Priorities in CKD: Report of a National Workshop Conducted in AustraliaAm J Kidney Dis2015
  • VanholderRDavenportAHannedoucheTReimbursement of dialysis: a comparison of seven countriesJ Am Soc Nephrol20122381291129822677554
  • VestmanCHasselrothMBerglundMFreedom and confinement: patients’ experiences of life with home haemodialysisNurs Res Pract20142014
  • WalkerRCHowardKMortonRLPalmerSCMarshallMRTongAPatient and caregiver values, beliefs and experiences when considering home dialysis as a treatment option: a semi-structured interview studyNephrol Dial Transplant2015gfv330
  • WalkerRMarshallMMortonRLMcFarlanePHowardKThe cost effectiveness of contemporary home haemodialysis modalities compared to facility haemodialysis: A systematic review of full economic evaluationsNephrology201419845947024750559
  • WalkerRCHowardKTongAPalmerSCMarshallMRMortonRLThe economic considerations of patients and caregivers in choice of dialysis modalityHemodial Int2016
  • WongJEakinJMigramPCafazzoJAHalifaxNVDChanCTPatients’ experiences with learning a complex medical device for the self-administration of nocturnal home hemodialysisNephrol Nurs J2009361273319271621
  • WyldMMortonRLHayenAHowardKWebsterACA systematic review and meta-analysis of utility-based quality of life in chronic kidney disease treatmentsPLoS Med201299e100130722984353
  • XiWSinghPMHarwoodLPatient experiences and preferences on short daily and nocturnal home hemodialysisHemodial Int201317220120722882752
  • YoungBAChanCBlaggCHow to overcome barriers and establish a successful home HD programClin J Am Soc Nephrol20127122023203223037981

Disclosure

RCW is supported by the University of Sydney APA Scholarship, Baxter Clinical Evidence Council research programme, and New Zealand Lotteries Health Research Grant. The other authors report no conflicts of interest in this work.

References

  • BlaggCRHome haemodialysisBMJ200833676343418174565
  • BlaggCRHome haemodialysis: ‘home, home, sweet, sweet home!’Nephrology (Carlton)200510320621415958031
  • CassAChadbanSGallagherMThe Economic Impact of End-stage Kidney Disease in Australia: Projections to 2020MelbourneKidney Health Australia2010
  • KerrMBrayBMedcalfJO’DonoghueDJMatthewsBEstimating the financial cost of chronic kidney disease to the NHS in EnglandNephrol Dial Transplant201227Suppl 3iii73iii8022815543
  • LiyanageTNinomiyaTJhaVWorldwide access to treatment for end-stage kidney disease: a systematic reviewLancet201538599811975198225777665
  • SaranRLiYRobinsonBUS Renal Data System 2015 Annual Data Report: epidemiology of kidney disease in the United StatesAm J Kidney Dis673 Suppl 1S1S305
  • RaoACasulaACastledineCUK Renal Registry 17th Annual Report: Chapter 2 UK renal replacement therapy prevalence in 2013: national and centre-specific analysesNephron2015129Suppl 1315625695806
  • National Institute of Care ExcellenceGuidance on home compared with hospital haemodialysis for patients with end-stage renal failure2002 Available from: http://www.nice.org.uk/nicemedia/live/11472/32449/32449.pdfAccessed July 22, 2014
  • FHN Trial GroupChertowGMLevinNWIn-center hemodialysis six times per week versus three times per weekN Engl J Med2010363242287230021091062
  • CulletonBFWalshMKlarenbachSWEffect of frequent nocturnal hemodialysis vs conventional hemodialysis on left ventricular mass and quality of life: a randomized controlled trialJAMA2007298111291129917878421
  • RoccoMVLockridgeRSBeckGJThe effects of frequent nocturnal home hemodialysis: the Frequent Hemodialysis Network Nocturnal TrialKidney Int201180101080109121775973
  • BlaggCRKjellstrandCMTingGOYoungBAComparison of survival between short-daily hemodialysis and conventional hemodialysis using the standardized mortality ratioHemodial Int200610437137417014514
  • NesrallahGELindsayRMCuerdenMSIntensive hemodialysis associates with improved survival compared with conventional hemodialysisJ Am Soc Nephrol201223469670522362910
  • MarshallMRHawleyCMKerrPGHome hemodialysis and mortality risk in Australian and New Zealand populationsAm J Kidney Dis201158578279321816526
  • MarshallMRWalkerRCPolkinghorneKRLynnKLSurvival on home dialysis in New ZealandPLoS One201495e9684724806458
  • MortonRLTongAHowardKSnellingPWebsterACThe views of patients and carers in treatment decision making for chronic kidney disease: systematic review and thematic synthesis of qualitative studiesBMJ2010340c11220085970
  • SuriRSLariveBGargAXBurden on caregivers as perceived by hemodialysis patients in the Frequent Hemodialysis Network (FHN) trialsNephrol Dial Transplant20112672316232221421590
  • RajkomarAFarringtonKMayerAWalkerDBlandfordAPatients’ and carers’ experiences of interacting with home haemodialysis technology: implications for quality and safetyBMC Nephrol201415119525495826
  • TongAPalmerSMannsBThe beliefs and expectations of patients and caregivers about home haemodialysis: an interview studyBMJ Open201331 pii: e002148
  • SchlaeperCDiaz-BuxoJAHome hemodialysis and remote monitoring: current technology, requirements and capabilitiesBlood Purif2005231182215627732
  • PaulyRPGillJSRoseCLSurvival among nocturnal home haemodialysis patients compared to kidney transplant recipientsNephrol Dial Transplant20092492915291919584107
  • WalkerRCHansonCSPalmerSCPatient and caregiver perspectives on home hemodialysis: a systematic reviewAm J Kidney Dis201565345146325582285
  • WalkerRCHowardKMortonRLPalmerSCMarshallMRTongAPatient and caregiver values, beliefs and experiences when considering home dialysis as a treatment option: a semi-structured interview studyNephrol Dial Transplant201531113314126346314
  • WalkerRCHowardKTongAPalmerSCMarshallMRMortonRLThe economic considerations of patients and caregivers in choice of dialysis modalityHemodial Int201620463464227196634
  • MortonRLDevittJHowardKAndersonKSnellingPCassAPatient views about treatment of stage 5 CKD: a qualitative analysis of semistructured interviewsAm J Kidney Dis201055343144020116914
  • MortonRLSnellingPWebsterACDialysis modality preference of patients with CKD and family caregivers: a discrete-choice studyAm J Kidney Dis201260110211122417786
  • MortonRLSnellingPWebsterACFactors influencing patient choice of dialysis versus conservative care to treat end-stage kidney diseaseCMAJ20121845E277E28322311947
  • TongACroweSChandoSResearch priorities in CKD: report of a National Workshop conducted in AustraliaAm J Kidney Dis201566221222225943716
  • MuehrerRJSchatellDWittenBGangnonRBeckerBNHofmannRMFactors affecting employment at initiation of dialysisClin J Am Soc Nephrol20116348949621393489
  • HergenratherKCZeglinRJMcGuire-KuletzMRhodesSDEmployment as a social determinant of health: a review of longitudinal studies exploring the relationship between employment status and mental healthRehab Res Policy Educ2015293261290
  • HelanteräIHaapioMKoskinenPGrönhagen-RiskaCFinnePEmployment of patients receiving maintenance dialysis and after kidney transplant: a cross-sectional study from FinlandAm J Kidney Dis201259570070621958597
  • RosenthalMMMolzahnAEChanCTCockfieldSLKimSJPaulyRPWhy take the chance: a qualitative grounded theory study of nocturnal hemodialysis recipients who decline kidney transplantationBMJ Open20166e011951
  • HansonCSChapmanJRCraigJCPatient experiences of training and transition to home haemodialysis: a mixed methods studyNephrology (Carlton) Epub201662
  • YoungBAChanCBlaggCHow to overcome barriers and establish a successful home HD programClin J Am Soc Nephrol20127122023203223037981
  • McLaughlinKMannsBMortisGHonsRTaubKWhy patients with ESRD do not select self-care dialysis as a treatment optionAm J Kidney Dis200341238038512552500
  • MehrotraRMarshDVoneshEPetersVNissensonAPatient education and access of ESRD patients to renal replacement therapies beyond in-center hemodialysisKidney Int200568137839015954930
  • WalkerRCBlaggCRMendelssohnDCSystems to cultivate suitable patients for home dialysisHemodial Int201519Suppl 1S52S5825925824
  • CornelisTTennankoreKKGoffinEAn international feasibility study of home haemodialysis in older patientsNephrol Dial Transplant20142922327233325085237
  • PierratosATremblayMKandasamyGPersonal Support Worker (PSW)-supported home hemodialysis: a paradigm shiftHemodial Int Epub2016822
  • MarshallMRvan der SchrieckNLilleyDIndependent community house hemodialysis as a novel dialysis setting: an observational cohort studyAm J Kidney Dis201361459860723219810
  • LudlowMJLauderLAMathewTHHawleyCMFortnumDAustralian consumer perspectives on dialysis: first national censusNephrology201217870370922882456
  • HowardKMcFarlanePAMarshallMREastwoodDOMortonRLFunding and planning: what you need to know for starting or expanding a home hemodialysis programHemodial Int201519S1S23S4225925821
  • WalkerRCMortonRLTongAMarshallMRPalmerSHowardKPatient and caregiver preferences for home dialysis-the home first study: a protocol for qualitative interviews and discrete choice experimentsBMJ Open201554e007405
  • LudlowMJGeorgeCRHawleyCMHow Australian nephrologists view home dialysis: results of a national surveyNephrology (Carlton)201116444645221518119
  • PaulyRPKomendaPChanCTProgrammatic variation in home hemodialysis in Canada: results from a nationwide survey of practice patternsCan J Kidney Health Dis2014111125780606
  • MowattGValeLPerezJSystematic review of the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness, and economic evaluation, of home versus hospital or satellite unit haemodialysis for people with end-stage renal failureHealth Technol Assess2003721174
  • WalkerRMarshallMMortonRLMcFarlanePHowardKThe cost effectiveness of contemporary home haemodialysis modalities compared to facility haemodialysis: a systematic review of full economic evaluationsNephrology201419845947024750559
  • LiuFXTreharneCAriciMCroweLCulletonBHigh-dose hemodialysis versus conventional in-center hemodialysis: a cost-utility analysis from a UK payer perspectiveValue Health2015181172425595230
  • MortonRLTongAHowardKSnellingPWebsterACThe views of patients and carers in treatment decision making for chronic kidney disease: systematic review and thematic synthesis of qualitative studiesBMJ2010340c11220085970
  • BrillAEconomic Benefits of Increased Home Dialysis Utilization and Innovation2016 Available from: http://www.nephrologynews.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/03/MGAhomedialysispaperforrelease.pdfAccessed August 25, 2016
  • VanholderRDavenportAHannedoucheTReimbursement of dialysis: a comparison of seven countriesJ Am Soc Nephrol20122381291129822677554
  • RobinsonBMAkizawaTJagerKJKerrPGSaranRPisoniRLFactors affecting outcomes in patients reaching end-stage kidney disease worldwide: differences in access to renal replacement therapy, modality use, and haemodialysis practicesLancet20163881004129430627226132
  • RivaraMBMehrotraRThe changing landscape of home dialysis in the United StatesCurr Opin Nephrol Hypertens201423658659125197946
  • CombesGAllenKSeinKGirlingALilfordRTaking hospital treatments home: a mixed methods case study looking at the barriers and success factors for home dialysis treatment and the influence of a target on uptake ratesImplement Sci201510114826507978
  • TeerawattananonYLuzAPilasantSHow to meet the demand for good quality renal dialysis as part of universal health coverage in resource-limited settings?Health Res Policy Sys201614121
  • McDonaldSPMarshallMRJohnsonDWPolkinghorneKRRelationship between dialysis modality and mortalityJ Am Soc Nephrol200920115516319092128
  • Nadeau-FredetteA-CBargmanJMChanCTClinical outcome of home hemodialysis in patients with previous peritoneal dialysis exposure: evaluation of the integrated home dialysis modelPerit Dial Int201535331632324584602
  • CinàDPDacourisNKashaniMUse of home hemodialysis after peritoneal dialysis technique failurePerit Dial Int2013331969923349198
  • NavvaPKRVenkata SreepadaSShivanand NayakKPresent status of renal replacement therapy in Asian countriesBlood Purif201540428028726656132
  • ANZDATA Registry37th Report. Preliminary Report. 2014: Summary of Dialysis and Transplant in Australia and New ZealandAdelaide, AustraliaAustralia and New Zealand Dialysis and Transplant Registry2015 Available from: http://www.anzdata.org.auAccessed August 25, 2016
  • New Zealand National Renal Advisory BoardNew Zealand Nephrology Activity Report 2014Wellington, New ZealandPublisher Ministry of Health2016
  • Avalere HealthDistribution of Dialysis Patients Utilizing Home modalities in 2013 by State Available from http://homedialysisalliance.org/userfiles/2014%20edition_Distribution%20of%20Dialysis%20 Patients%20Utilizing%20Home%20Modalities%20by%20State%20 in%202012.pdfAccessed August 26, 2016
  • MortonRLSchlackowIMihaylovaBStaplinNDGrayACassAThe impact of social disadvantage in moderate-to-severe chronic kidney disease: an equity-focused systematic reviewNephrol Dial Transplant2015311465625564537
  • BernsJSHonoring patient preferences: the 2016 National Kidney Foundation presidential addressAm J Kidney Dis201668566166427555104
  • MerighiJRSchatellDRBragg-GreshamJLWittenBMehrotraRInsights into nephrologist training, clinical practice, and dialysis choiceHemodial Int201216224225122151183
  • BreckenridgeKBekkerHLGibbonsEHow to routinely collect data on patient-reported outcome and experience measures in renal registries in Europe: an expert consensus meetingNephrol Dial Transplant201530101605161425982327