Patient perceptions of remote monitoring for nocturnal home hemodialysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Adoption of nocturnal home hemodialysis (NHHD) has been slow, due in part to patient-perceived barriers, such as anxiety and lack of self-efficacy. This study investigates patient perception of remote monitoring in addressing these barriers. Perceptions of remote patient monitoring (RPM) were studied through a quantitative survey and qualitative interviews. The NHHD and conventional hemodialysis (CHD) were included in the survey (209 in total). Twenty semistructured interviews were conducted as well as a focus group that included NHHD patients and family caregivers. The CHD patients had greater interest in adopting NHHD with RPM than without (1.90±1.37 vs. 1.71±1.28, P<0.002), with the negative intensity ratio declining from 10.50 to 5.56. Interest in RPM was correlated with interest in NHHD (r=0.768, P<0.001). Other significant factors correlated with interest in NHHD include the belief that remote monitoring will ease the performing of NHHD (r=0.452, P=0.001) and the belief that RPM should be mandatory (r=0.541, P=0.000). Qualitative findings supported three themes: (1) There is an expectation for the use of RPM, (2) RPM should be used at a minimum transitionally, and (3) RPM acts as a surrogate support of family-caregivers. The RPM may lower perceived barriers to the adoption of NHHD, in part through its surrogate support of family caregivers. However, RPM alone is likely insufficient to alter patients' attitudes to undergo NHHD. RPM is a common expectation of CHD patients considering the therapy, at a minimum during the transitional phase.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.014 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".