Chronic kidney disease stressors influence choice of dialysis modality
Bibliographic record
Abstract
AIM: This article is a report of a study examining the relationships between chronic kidney disease stressors and coping strategies with dialysis modality. BACKGROUND: People with chronic kidney disease are given information to enable dialysis modality choice. This education increases awareness and may alleviate concerns and stress. Disease-related stressors and coping may affect dialysis selection. Understanding the influence of stress and coping on dialysis choices will assist in providing responsive programmes. Reducing stress and encouraging coping may increase home dialysis which, despite economic and patient benefits, remains underused. DESIGN: A prospective correlational design was used. METHODS: Information was obtained from the Chronic Kidney Disease Stress Inventory and the Jalowiec Coping Scale in 223 individuals not on dialysis between the years 2005-2007. Data were recorded with respect to modality at dialysis initiation (n = 76) from 2005-2010. The effects of stress, coping and patient parameters on modality selection were compared using bivariate and multivariate analyses. RESULTS: Individuals on home dialysis vs. in-centre haemodialysis reported significantly fewer pre-dialysis stressors. Coping was not associated with dialysis modality. Individuals on in-centre haemodialysis had a lower serum creatinine, less advanced kidney disease and weighed more than those who started on a home therapy. Physiological stressors were most common and are amenable to interventions. CONCLUSION: Pre-dialysis stress levels predicted dialysis modality. Interventional studies are recommended to address chronic kidney disease stressors with the outcome of improving home-dialysis usage.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".