Successful daily home hemodialysis patient‐care partner dyads: Benefits outweigh burdens
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Understanding and communicating the benefits vs. burdens of short daily home hemodialysis (SDHD) is presumed to be important to the success of recruiting patients and care partners and preventing dropout. We conducted an in-depth qualitative study of 13 patient and care partner couples (dyads) who completed at least 6 months of SDHD after at least 6 months of in-center hemodialysis to inform strategies for screening, training, and support to improve SDHD retention. In this exploratory descriptive study, all patients reported better well-being since starting SDHD. Considering the relationship and psychosocial factors, 4 profiles for dyadic coping emerged: (1) Thriving (n=5)--patients and care partners were flourishing; (2) Surviving (n=4)--strong couples were adjusting to challenges; (3) Martyrdom (n=3)--1 partner defers his/her needs and resentments to make SDHD work; and (4) Seeking another option (n=1)--patient unwilling to burden an anxious partner. Overall, patients who did more SDHD self-care, particularly self-cannulation, were more likely to thrive, regardless of dyad profile, and strong relationships tended to become stronger when faced with the challenge of SDHD. Training that was unhurried and valued care partners as well as patients, used a mix of learning strategies, and provided a home visit for the first home treatment was associated with Thriving dyads; training that was directive, inflexible, and focused on the patient at the expense of the partner was not. We recommend that centers screen dyads for relationship quality and integrate couple relationship education into SDHD training as required. Further, we recommend a large-scale, multi-center prospective study to test this model of how couple relationship and coping styles affect clinical outcomes and rates of continuation with SDHD.
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 | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".