Results Summary

What was the research about?

More than 30 million people in the United States have kidney disease. With this health problem, people’s kidneys stop working well or don’t work at all. It can be hard to manage kidney disease for people who have trouble getting health care.

Care may not be easy to get for the Zuni Indians of the Zuni Reservation in rural New Mexico. Getting to the health clinic can be hard. People often wait a long time to get the care they need.

In this study, the research team wanted to learn if an at-home education program would help Zuni adults with kidney disease have better knowledge, skills, and confidence to manage their illness. The team also looked at whether the program helped Zuni adults improve their quality of life and reduce risk factors for kidney disease. Risk factors include being overweight and having high blood sugar and high blood pressure.

The study compared a group of Zuni adults in the at-home program with a group of adults who were not in the program and who received care at the Indian Health Services, or IHS, clinic.

What were the results?

Compared with those who received care at the IHS clinic, Zuni adults in the at-home program had better

  • Knowledge, skills, and confidence to manage kidney disease
  • Quality of life related to mental health

Zuni adults in the at-home program reduced some risk factors for kidney disease, such as blood sugar levels and weight, more than adults who only went to the IHS clinic. For other risk factors, such as blood pressure, there were no differences between the two groups.

There was no difference between the two groups in quality of life related to physical health.

Who was in the study?

The study included 125 Zuni Indian adults living with kidney disease on the Zuni Reservation in rural New Mexico. Of these, 98 completed the 12-month study.

What did the research team do?

The team assigned people to one of two groups by chance. The first group received care through the at-home program. In this program, community health representatives visited Zuni adults with kidney disease in their homes every other week. The community health representatives were people from the Zuni community who worked as part of a clinical care team. At the home visits, they taught participants about exercise, healthy diet, and blood pressure. The community health representatives also did lab tests to check for kidney disease risk factors. For the first six months of the program, participants received text messages with reminders about healthy living. Every three months, participants went to a health class at the IHS clinic. Zuni tribal leaders and members from a Tribal Advisory Panel helped design this program.

Adults in the second group received their usual care at the IHS clinic. Adults in both groups took a survey at the start of the study and again 12 months later. The survey asked about people’s quality of life and their knowledge, skills, and confidence for managing kidney disease.

What were the limits of the study?

The study took place in one American Indian reservation in rural New Mexico. The results might be different for people in other places. The team didn’t look at which parts of the program might explain the changes they found.

Future research could see if the program works as well with a larger group of people with kidney disease. Researchers could also look more closely at each part of the program.

How can people use the results?

Clinics in rural areas could consider offering at-home programs with community health representatives to help patients with kidney disease.

Final Research Report

View this project's final research report.

More to Explore...

Videos

Vallabh O. Shah, PhD, talks about the impact of including key community members in his project.

Stories and Videos

Peer-Review Summary

Peer review of PCORI-funded research helps make sure the report presents complete, balanced, and useful information about the research. It also assesses how the project addressed PCORI’s Methodology Standards. During peer review, experts read a draft report of the research and provide comments about the report. These experts may include a scientist focused on the research topic, a specialist in research methods, a patient or caregiver, and a healthcare professional. These reviewers cannot have conflicts of interest with the study.

The peer reviewers point out where the draft report may need revision. For example, they may suggest ways to improve descriptions of the conduct of the study or to clarify the connection between results and conclusions. Sometimes, awardees revise their draft reports twice or more to address all of the reviewers’ comments. 

The awardee made the following revisions in response to peer review:

  • The awardee revised the structure of the report to better tell the story of how the work in each aim led to the next aim. The awardee removed the parts of the aim 1 discussion that had confused reviewers. The awardee also revised the background section to focus on the evidence gap in disease burden and optimal care in chronic kidney disease.
  • The awardee provided more information on stakeholder engagement by describing in detail the team’s long-standing collaboration with this American Indian community. The awardee explained that the study’s design and implementation involved close collaboration with this community.
  • The awardee further explained its description of the study as both a randomized controlled trial, RCT, and a pilot study. The awardee clarified that the study uses a RCT design with pilot components, such as measuring the feasibility of testing the effect of the intervention on chronic kidney disease outcomes in future trials.
  • The awardee defined the terms intent-to-treat analysis and per-protocol analysis. The awardee explained that in per-protocol analysis, it compared groups of patients who completed the study. The awardee further explained that in intent-to-treat analysis, it compared the intervention and control groups while including patients who had dropped out, with the assumption that those patients had no change in outcomes. The awardee treated this comparison as a sensitivity analysis.
  • In the study limitations section, the awardee noted that this project was a pilot study but added that the awardee tried to account for baseline differences to make the findings as robust as possible. In all, the awardee described the results as tentative but promising.

Conflict of Interest Disclosures

Project Information

Vallabh O. Shah, PhD
University of New Mexico Health Sciences Center
$709,414
10.25302/4.2019.AD.12115532
Reducing Health Disparity in Chronic Kidney Disease in Zuni Indians

Key Dates

May 2013
October 2018
2013
2018

Study Registration Information

Tags

Has Results
Award Type
Health Conditions Health Conditions These are the broad terms we use to categorize our funded research studies; specific diseases or conditions are included within the appropriate larger category. Note: not all of our funded projects focus on a single disease or condition; some touch on multiple diseases or conditions, research methods, or broader health system interventions. Such projects won’t be listed by a primary disease/condition and so won’t appear if you use this filter tool to find them. View Glossary
Populations Populations PCORI is interested in research that seeks to better understand how different clinical and health system options work for different people. These populations are frequently studied in our portfolio or identified as being of interest by our stakeholders. View Glossary
Funding Opportunity Type
Intervention Strategy Intervention Strategies PCORI funds comparative clinical effectiveness research (CER) studies that compare two or more options or approaches to health care, or that compare different ways of delivering or receiving care. View Glossary
Research Priority Area
State State The state where the project originates, or where the primary institution or organization is located. View Glossary
Last updated: January 25, 2023