{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.028730305838739572, 'fraction_numerical': 0.024559777571825765, 'mean_word_length': 5.331378299120234, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Socioeconomic differences in the uptake of home dialysis.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES
Home dialysis creates fewer lifestyle disruptions while providing similar or better outcomes than in-center hemodialysis. Socioeconomically advantaged patients are more likely to commence home dialysis (peritoneal dialysis and home hemodialysis) in many developed countries. This study investigated associations between socioeconomic status and uptake of home dialysis in Australia, a country with universal access to health care and comparatively high rates of home dialysis.


DESIGN, SETTING, PARTICIPANTS, & MEASUREMENTS
This study analyzed 23,281 non-Indigenous adult patients who commenced chronic RRT in Australia from 2000 to 2011 according to the Australia and New Zealand Dialysis and Transplant Registry in a retrospective cohort study. This study investigated the proportion of patients who were ever likely to use home dialysis using nonmixture cure models and followed patients until the end of 2011 (median follow-up time=3.0 years, interquartile range=1.3-5.5 years). The main predictor was area socioeconomic status from postcodes grouped into quartiles using standard indices.


RESULTS
Patients from the most advantaged quartile of areas were less likely to commence peritoneal dialysis (odds ratio, 0.63; 95% confidence interval, 0.58 to 0.69) and more likely to use in-center hemodialysis than patients from the most disadvantaged areas (odds ratio, 1.19; 95% confidence interval, 1.10 to 1.30). Socioeconomic status was not associated with uptake of home hemodialysis. Rural areas were more disadvantaged and had higher rates of peritoneal dialysis, and privately funded hospitals rarely used home dialysis. Patients from the most advantaged quartile of areas were more likely to use private hospitals than patients from the most disadvantaged quartile (odds ratio, 5.9; 95% confidence interval, 4.6 to 7.5).


CONCLUSION
The lower incidence of peritoneal dialysis among patients from advantaged areas seems to be multifactorial. Identifying and addressing barriers to home dialysis in Australia could improve patient quality of life and reduce costs.