The Vascular Access Questionnaire: Assessing Patient-Reported Views of Vascular Access
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The use of central venous catheters for vascular access in hemodialysis (HD) patients is associated with an increased risk of complications compared to arteriovenous fistulas (AVF). Despite this, catheter use remains high and patient satisfaction may be an important driver of catheter use. METHODS: We developed the Vascular Access Questionnaire (VAQ) to measure patient-reported views of their vascular access. Chronic HD patients at two centers were asked to rate how bothered they were by 17 access-related problems. VAQ symptom scores were compared between patients using catheters and those using fistulas for vascular access. RESULTS: Two hundred and twenty-two patients were eligible for the study. Symptom score was not different between patients using catheters and those using fistulas (p=0.36). However, patients using fistulas were more likely to be at least moderately bothered by pain, bleeding, bruising, swelling, and the appearance of their access than patients using catheters. Elderly patients reported lower symptom scores with catheters than fistulas. CONCLUSIONS: Patients appear to be primarily concerned with the appearance of their access and cannulation-related complications, particularly the elderly. Better education about the risk of adverse events with catheters and the implementation of measures aimed at reducing cannulation-related complications may help to increase fistula rates and improve patient satisfaction with their vascular access.
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 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".