HOW YOUNG PEOPLE COPE WITH CHRONIC KIDNEY DISEASE: LITERATURE REVIEW
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Chronic kidney disease (CKD) is a complex, long-term condition occurring in all age groups. It has been reported that the incidence of renal replacement therapy in young people is 7-8 per million population. Notwithstanding those individuals who may receive a donor kidney, many individuals may be disenfranchised by perceptions of helplessness and feelings of powerlessness against a backdrop of diminished health outlook, consequently impacting on capacity for effective coping. AIM: The aim of this review is to explore how young people cope with CKD. METHODS: Three hundred and thirty-seven abstracts were identified. Sixty-three papers were cross-examined using a Critical Appraisal Skills Checklist Tool. RESULTS: Young people face various demands; these may be episodic or ongoing, depending on health and circumstance. The themes this review uncovers are: 'Lack of a Coping Definition'; 'Coping Strategies in Young People'; and 'Barriers to the Understanding of Coping in Young People'. CONCLUSION: More qualitative research is vital to retrieve 'real-life' perceptions from young people coping with kidney disease to identify how care should be made more explicit for them.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".