Relocation of remote dwellers living with hemodialysis: a time trade-off survey
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: There has been little research exploring the experience of dialysis therapy for people living in remote communities. Remote residence location has previously been associated with excess mortality in hemodialysis (HD) patients, suggesting that relocation to a referral center might improve outcomes. It is unknown whether patients view this approach as acceptable. METHODS: We studied 121 remote-dwelling chronic HD patients using the time trade-off method applied to hypothetical scenarios. RESULTS: Participants indicated that they would trade a median of 6 years of life in their current location (including current social supports) (95% CI 2.25-7) for 10 years of life in a referral center without any of their existing social supports (meaning they would be willing to forgo 4 years of life to remain in their current residence location). When current social supports were assumed to continue in both locations, people were only willing to forego a median of 2 years of life (95% CI 1-4) to remain in their current location. Older participants were much less willing to accept relocation than younger participants; the median time trade-off associated with relocation and without social supports was 2 years for participants aged <50 years, 3 years for those aged 50-69.9 years and 9 years for those aged ≥70 years. CONCLUSIONS: Hemodialysis patients currently living remotely were willing to forgo much of their remaining life expectancy rather than relocate-especially among older participants. These findings suggest that decisions about relocation should be accompanied by discussion of anticipated changes in quality of life and life expectancy.
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 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".