Dialysis modality decision‐making for older adults with chronic kidney disease
Bibliographic record
Abstract
AIMS AND OBJECTIVES: To examine the personal and structural facilitators and barriers for home-dialysis decision-making for older adults with chronic kidney disease. BACKGROUND: Chronic illness is a global problem. Older adults with chronic kidney disease form a large and growing segment of the dialysis population in many high-income countries but are less likely to uptake home-dialysis despite its benefits. DESIGN: This qualitative ethnography framed in social theory took place in Canada and included adults with chronic kidney disease not on dialysis, older than 65 years of age. METHODS: Thirteen people (seven men and six women, aged 65-83 years of age) who received care in a team chronic kidney disease clinic took part. Persons with chronic kidney disease were interviewed and group interviews were conducted with four of their chronic kidney disease clinic healthcare professionals. Content analysis was used for data analysis. RESULTS: The factors influencing older adults' chronic kidney disease modality decisions are similar to younger adults. However, older adults with chronic kidney disease are in a precarious state with persistent uncertainty. Age imposes some limitations on modality options and transplantation. Modality decisions were influenced by health status, gender, knowledge, values, beliefs, past experience, preferences, lifestyle and resources. Support from family and healthcare professionals was the largest determinant to home-dialysis selection. CONCLUSION: The social and contextual factors associated with age influenced home-dialysis decision-making. Adequate social support, functional status and resources enabled home-dialysis selection. RELEVANCE TO CLINICAL PRACTICE: Understanding more about the decision-making processes for older adults with chronic kidney disease is important for quality interventions and the economic sustainability of dialysis services.
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 | 0.004 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| 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".