Depressive symptom severity, contributing factors, and self‐management among chronic dialysis patients
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Despite the high prevalence of depressive symptoms in patients receiving chronic dialysis, there has been inadequate attention to patient-related barriers to management of depressive symptoms, such as factors identified by these patients as contributing to their symptoms, and how they responded to the symptoms. Participants (N = 210) in an ongoing longitudinal observational study of multidimensional quality of life in patients receiving chronic dialysis completed a battery of measures monthly for 12 months. For each patient at each measurement point, an event report was generated if he or she scored outside of the normal range on the depressive symptom scale (Center for Epidemiologic Studies Depression Scale-Short Form [CESD-SF] ≥10) or expressed suicidal ideation. Of the 210 participants, 100 (47.6%) had a CESD-SF score ≥10 at least once resulting in 290 event reports. Of these 100 participants, 15 (15%) had also reported suicidal ideation in addition to having depressive symptoms. The most frequently stated contributing factors included "managing comorbid conditions and complications" (56 event reports, 19.3%), "being on dialysis" (50, 17.2%), "family or other personal issues" (37, 12.8%), and "financial difficulties" (31, 10.7%). On 11 event reports (3.8%) participants had been unaware of their depressive symptoms. On 119 event reports (41%) participants reported that they discussed these symptoms with their dialysis care providers or primary care providers, while on 171 event reports (59%) symptoms were not discussed with their health-care providers. The prevalence of depressive symptoms is high and many patients lack knowledge about effective self-management strategies.
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) | 0.000 | 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".