The images for Figs 1 and 2 are incorrectly switched. The image that appears as Fig 1 should be Fig 2, and the image that appears as Fig 2 should be Fig 1. The figure captions appear in the correct order.
The majority of patients were assessed as Category 2, which meant that they could be offered treatment only if facilities were available at the time they required dialysis.
The overall acceptance rate was 25.2% (stippled line) with the trend being downward (dotted line). Acceptance almost halved in the seventh year compared to the first, from 34.8% to 17.5%. The fluctuations in numbers with increases in Years 4 and 5 were related to slight expansions in the renal replacement program—the capped number of patients we were allowed to treat was increased from 100 to 120.
Citation: Moosa MR, Maree JD, Chirehwa MT, Benatar SR (2016) Correction: Use of the 'Accountability for Reasonableness' Approach to Improve Fairness in Accessing Dialysis in a Middle-Income Country. PLoS ONE 11(12): e0168017. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0168017
Published: December 9, 2016
Copyright: © 2016 Moosa et al. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.