This thesis explores the perspectives and experiences of renal patients across three chapters. 
Chapter one reports a meta-ethnography (Noblit & Hare, 1988) of renal patients’ experiences of living with conservative kidney management (CKM). As the first known meta-synthesis to focus solely on patients who have opted for CKM, this study synthesised the findings of ten peer-reviewed journal articles and one unpublished doctoral thesis, reporting the cumulative experiences of 129 patients with advanced chronic kidney disease. Patients experienced CKM as congruent with their personal priorities and developmental life stage, an option which enabled them to maintain personal continuity and autonomy. However, they also experienced biases in clinical and social interactions, which guided them unwillingly towards dialysis during decision-making. Recommendations included communication training for clinicians and proactive sharing of information about CKM and disease progression. 
Chapter two reports a cross-sectional, interpretative phenomenological analysis study (Smith et al., 2009), which explored the experiences of six adult kidney transplant recipients one year post-transplantation, including how expectations may have shaped their experiences. The first year post-transplantation was characterised by uncertainty, unpredictability, and continued restriction, with recipients retaining ongoing patient status and experiencing heightened vulnerability. While participants reported minimal expectations, their accounts indicated psychological and interpersonal challenges which were not necessarily anticipated by patients or their families. Implications included the need for clinicians to initiate honest and balanced discussions with patients and families to normalise conflicting emotions post-transplantation. 
Chapter three considers theoretical and clinical implications indicated by key findings from both studies. The final section offers personal reflections on the research process and outcomes. Utilising researcher reflexivity, this section seeks to make explicit, as far as possible, the first author’s motivations, biases, subjectivities and contexts, to enable the reader to situate and interpret the research findings in consideration of these subjectivities.