Una estrategia poco utilizada en el cuidado de pacientes con enfermedad renal crónica: la educación en grupo y multidisciplinar de pacientes y sus familiares
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Multidisciplinary teams are a strategy that was suggested more than ten years ago by Canadian groups. Patients treated in an multidisciplinary environment show better knowledge of CKD and better biochemical parameters. The goals were to increase knowledge in our patients with ACKD and their family about their illness, correct care and renal replacement therapy, through group education, to evaluate whether the information increased the patients' level of anxiety and to evaluate the degree of satisfaction with the group education. This is a retrospective study carried out with 19 patients, who attended both courses. Two questionnaires were completed at the start and end of the course on the level of knowledge and level of anxiety (State-Trait Anxiety Inventory STAI). At the end of each course, an assessment questionnaire was completed. The variables studied were sex, age, level of education and presence of a relative. The level of knowledge reached a statistically significant difference between the two questionnaires (start-end) (p = 0.013). The results obtained in the evaluation of the level of anxiety showed a slight increase in anxiety. The satisfaction questionnaire showed a very positive evaluation of the action. We can conclude that most of the patients have increased their knowledge of ACKD and replacement techniques, have shown a high degree of satisfaction with the experience of this intervention and most have experienced a slight increase in anxiety.
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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".