Impact of Pharmacists’ Counseling on Quality of Life in Patients Undergoing Hemodialysis in a Tertiary Care Teaching Hospital
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Chronic kidney disease (CKD) is a condition characterized by the progressive loss of kidney function over a period of months or years. Hemodialysis is a process that removes metabolic wastes when the kidneys fail to do this work adequately. The present study was an attempt made to assess the impact of pharmacists’ counseling on quality of life (QoL) in patients undergoing hemodialysis in Justice K S Hegde Charitable Hospital, Mangalore, Karnataka, India. Methods: It was a prospective, interventional study carried out for a period of 7 months in a university teaching hospital. A total of 60 patients undergoing hemodialysis were enrolled into the study who were categorized into intervention and control groups by block randomization method. Patients in the intervention group received counseling verbally along with the information leaflet, whereas the control group received the counseling only after the end of the study. The QoL of patients was assessed by using WHOQOL-BREF questionnaire at the baseline and at final follow-up. Results: A total of 60 patients (30 patients in the intervention group and 30 patients in the control group) completed the study. A statistically significant difference in the mean domain score was found between the groups (P < 0.001) on the last follow-up but not at the baseline (P > 0.05). In the study among the four domains, improvement was seen in both psychological (P < 0.01) and physical health (P < 0.05) domain. Conclusion: Education and counseling by clinical pharmacist in patients undergoing hemodialysis leads to clinically and statistically significant improvement in the QoL of hemodialysis patients in the intervention group as compared to that of control group. World J Nephrol Urol. 2014;3(4):143-150 doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.14740/wjnu188w
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 | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".