Interventions to Improve Clinical Outcomes in Indigenous or Remote Patients With Chronic Kidney Disease: A Scoping Review
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
BACKGROUND: Chronic kidney disease (CKD) associates with a significant health care burden with a disproportionate impact on indigenous persons or people living in remote areas. Although screening programs have expanded in these communities, there remains a paucity of evidence-based interventions to enhance clinical renal outcomes in these populations. OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study was to identify evidence-based interventions to enhance renal outcomes in these populations. DESIGN: A scoping review was conducted for studies in the Cochrane, MEDLINE, and Embase databases and from major nephrology meetings. SETTING: Chronic kidney disease, including those on dialysis. PATIENTS: Remote or indigenous populations. MEASUREMENTS: Studies that performed an intervention that was followed by measurement of renal outcomes or patient-centered outcomes (ie, quality of life) were included. METHODS: All studies were described by study type, intervention, and clinical outcome, and trends were identified by both authors. Meta-analysis was not conducted due to study heterogeneity. RESULTS: Thirty-two studies met inclusion criteria, only 2 (6.3%) of which were randomized controlled trials. Intervention types included multidisciplinary (34.4%), satellite (32.3%), telehealth (25.0%), or other (9.4%). All multidisciplinary interventions were performed in the CKD (non-dialysis) setting and reported improved patient travel time, waiting time, quality of life, kidney function, proteinuria, and blood pressure. Telehealth interventions improved program cost, patient attendance, hospitalization, and quality of life. Satellite interventions were performed in the hemodialysis setting, with 1 study evaluating acute hemodialysis. Satellite interventions improved patient travel time, dialysis clearance, quality of life, and survival, but increased program costs. LIMITATIONS: The study was restricted to interventional trials assessing clinical outcomes and to studies in developed countries, which likely excluded some research contributing to this field. CONCLUSIONS: There is significant heterogeneity among studies of interventions for patients with CKD who are indigenous or live remotely. Interventions were more likely to be successful when the remote or indigenous community was included in program development, with a culturally safe approach. More large, high-quality studies are needed to identify effective interventions to enhance clinical renal outcomes in indigenous or remote populations. TRIAL REGISTRATION: This trial is registered under PROSPERO, Registration Number 128453.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,013 | 0,057 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,002 | 0,001 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,006 | 0,008 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,010 | 0,009 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Communication savante | 0,004 | 0,002 |
| Science ouverte | 0,002 | 0,002 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,003 | 0,002 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,005 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».