MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort

Perceived Exercise Benefits and Barriers in Hemodialysis Patients

2003· article· en· W2018446813 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Emily Fondahn, Hyewon Hahn, Mark A. Schnitzler, Brent W. Miller

Bibliographic record

VenueHemodialysis International · 2003
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicDialysis and Renal Disease Management
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineHemodialysisPhysical therapyDialysisHealth benefitsInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Purpose: Exercise participation in hemodialysis centers remains low despite the opportunity, equipment, and proven benefits. The purpose of this study was to measure the perceived benefits and perceived barriers to exercise participation. Methods: A questionnaire using the Exercise Benefits/Barriers Scale was administered to 150 in-center, chronic hemodialysis patients at a free standing dialysis center with an ongoing exercise program for three years. This survey was adapted to show the patients’ perceived benefits and barriers of exercise in the dialysis unit. Results: The overall score of the unit (n = 150) was 92.0 ± 12.2 with a possible range from 31 to 124. Exercisers (n = 32) had a mean of 98.1 ± 12.3 on the scale; non-exercisers (n = 118) had a mean on 90.4 ± 11.7 (p < .05). Answers to 12 of the 31 questions were significant (p < .05). Seven questions were perceived benefits; five questions were perceived barriers. All (n = 150) Non Exercisers (n = 118) Exercisers (n = 32) Mean Mean Mean Exercise Benefits/Barriers Scale 92 ± 12.2 90.4 ± 11.7 98.1 ± 12.3 Benefits 62.1 ± 10.2 61.2 ± 9.8 65.3 ± 11.0 Barriers 29.6 ± 4.6 28.8 ± 4.6 32.9 ± 3.2 Questions with p < .05 Enjoy exercise 3.0 ± 0.7 2.7 ± 0.9 3.4 ± 0.6 Prevent heart attacks 3.3 ± 0.6 2.9 ± 0.8 3.4 ± 0.6 Improve cardiovascular system 3.1 ± 0.7 3.1 ± 0.7 3.4 ± 0.6 Difficult due to vision 3.3 ± 0.8 3.3 ± 0.8 3.7 ± 0.5 Difficult due to arthritis 2.9 ± 1.0 2.8 ± 1.0 3.6 ± 0.6 Takes too much time 3.0 ± 0.7 2.9 ± 0.7 3.3 ± 0.6 Boring 3.3 ± 0.6 3.0 ± 0.8 3.3 ± 0.7 Increase physical fitness 3.2 ± 0.6 3.0 ± 0.6 3.3 ± 0.6 Increase stamina 3.2 ± 0.6 3.1 ± 0.5 3.4 ± 0.7 Family does not encourage 2.7 ± 0.9 2.7 ± 0.9 3.1 ± 0.8 Carry out activities without tiring 3.0 ± 0.7 2.9 ± 0.7 3.2 ± 0.7 Improve body function 2.9 ± 0.7 2.8 ± 0.7 3.1 ± 0.7 Conclusion: Physical improvement was the main reason to exercise. Lack of desire and health problems were the chief reasons named for not exercising. Addressing the benefits and barriers may improve exercise participation among chronic hemodialysis patients.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.006
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.007

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.010
GPT teacher head0.239
Teacher spread0.229 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2003
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueHemodialysis International→Same topicDialysis and Renal Disease Management→French-language works237,207→