Perceptions of patient participation amongst elderly patients with end‐stage renal disease in a dialysis unit
Bibliographic record
Abstract
AIM: A patient's right to influence treatment and health care has been guaranteed by Norwegian law since 1999. The aim of this study was to explore how elderly patients with end-stage renal disease who are undergoing treatment with haemodialysis for the rest of their lives perceive patient participation in a dialysis unit. METHODS: This study, which was inspired by critical discourse analysis, drew on data derived from transcribed interviews with 11 patients. FINDINGS: Two discourses related to patient participation were identified. The first and dominant discourse was called the health-care team's power and dominance. Both environmental conditions and the team's practice exercised power and control over the patients. The patients trusted the health-care team, but some felt powerless and were afraid of what might happen if they refused to follow the instructions. The health-care team owned the knowledge and decided what the patients needed to know. Most of all the patients wanted dialogue about the future. After years of treatment, patient identity seemed to be threatened by this situation. The second discourse is called the patients struggling for shared decision-making. Some patients struggled to be involved in decision-making about 'dry weight', diet, blood access and time of treatment when these factors threatened their well-being and the quality of their daily lives. CONCLUSIONS: The elderly patients' right to participate in their haemodialysis treatment did not seem to be well incorporated into the social practices of haemodialysis units. Changing the social practices in the dialysis units from a paternalistic ideology to an ideology of participation will require consideration of the context, the dialogue and the process of shared decision-making with the patient.
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 | 0.001 | 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 | 0.000 |
| 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".